the future frame rate?

[_joe]

Ok, before throwing a "24fps looks better than _____" argument, know that I take this topic from a recent article I read in the creative COW mag that I wanted to share with y'all. I don't understand much of it, but I wanted to see if any others have read it and what their thoughts were.

If I understand correctly, John Galt (Panavision VP of Advanced Digital Imaging) says that most if not all people are confusing pixels for resolution, so while we argue about 720 or 1080, 2k or 4k images, he argues that pixels make a difference, but only up to a point. He says this about a test done with IMAX tecs, which most people think as 4K:

A Number of years ago some IMAX technicians [...] showed this film they made that began with 2 rows of 2 squares: black white, white black, as if you had 4 pixels on the screen.

Then they started to double and double and double the squares. Before they got to 4k the screen was gray. You know what that means? There was no longer any difference between black and white, which is what allows you to see sharpness. It's the contrast that we see, not the actual information [...] so if you had true 4k resolution in your local theater, everyone would have to be sitting in the first 6 rows. Otherwise they wouldn't see any extra detail. Their eyes wouldn't let them see it.

he then brings it to the argument that 24 is going to be moving to 48. Mostly because 24fps was designed for sound:

Back when they were creating optical soundtracks, they discovered that they couldn't get intelligble sound on the film, which typically ran at 16 fps. They eventually setlled on 24 frames per second with a 2-bladed shutter: 48 exposures per second.

Now if you take a still picture of somebody walking in front of you at 48th of second [sic], you know that they're going to be blurred- motion blur. But if we were to record 48 frames per second with a 2-bladed shutter, then the intergration time would be only 96th of a second, and each of the images would be sharper

He then talks about how high speed cameras (1000fps) look much sharper than cameras that have 4 times the resolution.

I mean, it's in development, but do you think that this is the future? Or because resolution will hit a ceiling with pixels, and possibly with frame rate as well, people will say "it's sharp enough" to hold to the 24 standard?

 

[Batutta]

It won't happen until all theaters are digital. The cost of converting film projectors to 48fps is prohibitive. With digital projectors its just a flip of a switch. And it will happen slowly, probably with 3D movies first.

 

[David Jimerson]

I've never really understood the mantra of "sharpness, sharpness, sharpness, sharpness." It's only one aspect of an image, and sharper isn't always better. Too MUCH sharpness always looks very electronic and videoish to me.

 

[Jon Starr]

I remember learning about how when our parents were wee little kids, and they advertised radios they added bells and whistles and doohickies. Radios back then were the Itouch now. One of the things they advertised was having the most amount of... not sure what part it was, but capacitors, or dioptors, or some "ors" part... but what I heard is that for the best quality you only need 3 of these parts. However companies caught onto people's ignorance towards how radios work, and soon enough they advertised having 9 of these parts in their radios.

I know many technologies/products use people's ignorance to their advantage.

I've thought about where we're going with resolution, and I too agree that to a certain point, we don't need all that extra resolution. As HD stands, I tend to notice a bit of pixelation (especially in theaters with digital projection), but I'm sure once that resolution increases by just a bit, we won't really need to go that much furthur.

... unless you plan on showing a video on the side of a huge building for people to look at just a few feet away.

Also sharpness isn't always a great thing. I mean HD has changed the face of the film make-up industry forever. (no pun intended) Make-up artists have vivid nightmares of HD and sharpness.

 

[Nektonic]

Same here with the sharpness issue. I use a Canon HD camera which is pretty darn sharp. I don't need much more than that currently.

Also, when watching HD cable and Blu-ray/HD DVD I sometimes feel that 1080p is too sharp sometimes. You definitely notice any imperfections in the film stock or visual effects this way too.

And I've been really impressed with upconverted DVD's lately. As long as the DP did their job, I don't care much anymore if a movie is on Blu-ray or DVD. The amount of resolution is just not that big of a deal to me anymore.

As for 48 fps becoming the new frame rate I would have to see some examples of a film shot that way to judge whether it is a good move or not. I don't see it happening for quite some time now.

 

[adamr316]

I thought it was a great article on image quality. Interesting pot shots he took at the RED camera (I think, as RED was never mentioned by name) about interpolation and pixel math vs. marketing math.

I'm not so sure about 48 fps projection. I think there are too many frame rate standards as we have right now and the dreamy quality (albeit blurred) the 24p film look provides has a better aesthetic appeal than 48fps would. It would essentially be like projected PAL 50p footage, but at 1/96 shutter speeds.

 

[Kholi]

The issue would be people proclaiming that any certain thing will become the "it". We're not in the 70's anymore...

You will either shoot how you want or how someone tells you to, and nothing will really become obsolete. So, 24 will remain, 30 will remain, 60 and even 3FPS for those who use DSLRs or such to produce video content.

Contrary to the Highlander's Mantra... there can't be only one, anymore.

 

[grinner]

Gaining the ablity to shoot at obserd sppeds gives us power in the form of freedom to explore looks.

 

[triplej96]

I can just see it now cameras of the future will have a un-sharpen setting as oppose to a sharpen one.

As Grinner said the ability to shoot at obserd speeds could certainly lead to some interesting looks.

 

[David Jimerson]

As Grinner said the ability to shoot at obserd speeds could certainly lead to some interesting looks.

There reaches a point where one frame rate is indistinguishable from a faster frame rate. Don't know exactly where, but I'd say it's not much more than 100-120 fps, if even that high.

But, after you've gotten that high, the amount of light you'd need to shoot isn't even worth using it.

 

[Nektonic]

The issue would be people proclaiming that any certain thing will become the "it"...

... Contrary to the Highlander's Mantra... there can't be only one, anymore.

Sounds good to me. And I'll be damned if somebody is gonna tell me I have to shot 30p, 60p, or whatever else potentially becomes the new standard, on my films and personal creative projects.

I can just see it now cameras of the future will have a un-sharpen setting as oppose to a sharpen one.

Thing is you can always soften the look or even downconvert in post. And this can be done now.

There reaches a point where one frame rate is indistinguishable from a faster frame rate. Don't know exactly where, but I'd say it's not much more than 100-120 fps, if even that high.

But, after you've gotten that high, the amount of light you'd need to shoot isn't even worth using it.

Unless you're doing some crazy Matrix-style slow motion.

As for going to 120 fps we should be good once the Scarlet comes out. At least I'll feel good about not being under-armed in the camera tech dept. compared to bigger budgeted films.