So is 24 frames per second "good enough"

[Michael Hastings]

We have another thread about Roger Ebert's feelings about 3D but in the same article he brings up the idea of showscan-like 48 fps shooting, as has Jim Cameron in some of his interviews.

LINK TO Ebert FULL ARTICLE
http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110

So my questions:

Is shooting 24 or 30 fps enough?

Should we routinely be shooting 48 fps with our Epic-Xs?

Jim says 1080P is tomorrow's VHS. Is 24fps tomorrows 16fps?

What are the downsides of shooting 48fps and doing a reverse pull down to 24fps or 30 fps?

 

[Ethan Cooper]

*edit*
wrong thread

 

[Brandon Kraemer]

Why stop at 48 fps, when the eye can detect shutter up to 60 fps?

 

[Andrew Walker]

I guess 60fps would be great if you were going for that video game look or something like that. I like the look of 24fps. It makes the stories being told and shown in more of a different world.

 

[Brandon Kraemer]

I guess 60fps would be great if you were going for that video game look or something like that. I like the look of 24fps. It makes the stories being told and shown in more of a different world.

Agreed, it's a great story telling frame rate... just playing devils advocate.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

If you shoot 48fps for 24fps and you get perfect 180 shutter (no downside, only the additional frames), then I can see the benefit! This was discussed long ago here and makes a great deal of sense.

I think I could go for 26fps delivery for narrative. For that you could shoot 52fps 180. 26fps would make the shutter only slightly shorter than the 1/48th we are used to, down to 1/52th, and give you a little more frames for action. You'd have to test, but I guess it would actually give you a little fast motion and still feel nearly identical to the 24fps that we are used to.

60fps (and a theoretical 48 discrete) is for documentaries IMO. But if someone felt 60fps worked for them, then they could be right. It all depends on what you are trying to achieve. I would love to see someone shoot 48/60fps narrative and make it work!

 

[Mark Collins]

I like 24fps. It has a very cinematic quality to it. Whenever I see 60 or 30 fps, it bugs the hell out of me and looks extremely video and not cinematic at all.

I find it fine for TV, but not for movies.

 

[Lucas Wilson]

I like 24fps. It has a very cinematic quality to it. Whenever I see 60 or 30 fps, it bugs the hell out of me and looks extremely video and not cinematic at all.

I find it fine for TV, but not for movies.

But, you have probably not seen high framerate shown in a theatre with proper cinematic projection, etc.

Having been a part of a lot of high-framerate stereoscopy projection tests, I can tell you that when all the piece of the projection chain are there, it's mind-blowing.

About a year ago, we did a SCRATCH test for a major director who is interested in high framerate stereoscopy. Our source material was LE/RE 2K that was acquired at 60fps. We played the source out of SCRATCH at dual-stream 60fps to dual 2K projectors, each at 60fps. Projecting onto a 25' screen - it was absolutely awesome. The clarity and precision of movement was something I had never seen before, and when we pressed Play, it was a good moment. Everybody was just quiet for a minute before the Director said, "well, that looks pretty damned cool."

I believe that high spatial resolution AND high framerate is the future. I think that 24fps is an unnecessary limiting factor, especially once you've seen properly done 60fps. And the only reason to stop at 60fps right now is because there just isn't an easy way to go beyond that for typical production requirements without turning the set and post into a giant, expensive science project.

Best,

Lucas


Lucas Wilson
--------------
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

 

[Scott Crawley]

Yea, it's not a question of one being technically superior, it's a more esoteric descision. It is preferred simply because it is what we are accustomed to. We subconsciously equate the 24fps look with drama and cinema, for better or worse.

 

[Jeremy Neish]

I love this debate. The argument is often that 24fps creates a fantasy effect that helps suspend disbelief. The real question in my mind is whether that's a built-in brain function or something we've become trained to associate. I lead toward it being a trained thing, because having slower frame rates is just that, more stuttering, but we've trained our brains to think stuttering = fantastical story. Given enough exposure to higher frame rates, I believe we'd re-program our brains to remake that association over time. So I'm all for higher frame rates, bring it on!

As for shooting at strange frame rates like 26, while the shutter issues are an interesting argument, in then end consumer viewing technologies need to be taken into account. Keep in mind your stuff will eventually need to be shown in the home and as a result we need to stick to framerates that can be handled well by consumer playback devices, DVD and Blu-ray, ATSC broadcasting.

That pretty much limits the options to:
24 (telecine when necessary)
25 (PAL)
30 (NTSC)
48 (24 X 2, would need to be converted to 24p for DVD, Blu-ray)
50 (PAL X 2)
60 (HDTV)
120 (60 x 2, would need to be converted to 60i for Blu-ray & DVD)

I guess in theory someday in the future most play back devices will be some form of HTPC+computer-like monitor, which can play back pretty much any frame rate, but that's a long way off.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Lucas, I am down for docu 60fps, but for narrative it would be a storytelling feat. It makes me think of Blair Witch, or 28 Days Later. I am not saying they were high framerate, but that it would have to be for a specific purpose, and used with artistic cohesion. There would have to be something about the subject that asks for it, and the execution would have to be flawlessly fitting.

I love this debate. The argument is often that 24fps creates a fantasy effect that helps suspend disbelief. The real question in my mind is whether that's a built-in brain function or something we've become trained to associate. I lead toward it being a trained thing, because having slower frame rates is just that, more stuttering, but we've trained our brains to think stuttering = fantastical story. Given enough exposure to higher frame rates, I believe we'd re-program our brains to remake that association over time. So I'm all for higher frame rates, bring it on!

As for shooting at strange frame rates like 26, while the shutter issues are an interesting argument, in then end consumer viewing technologies need to be taken into account. Keep in mind your stuff will eventually need to be shown in the home and as a result we need to stick to framerates that can be handled well by consumer playback devices, DVD and Blu-ray, ATSC broadcasting.

That pretty much limits the options to:
24 (telecine when necessary)
25 (PAL)
30 (NTSC)
48 (24 X 2, would need to be converted to 24p for DVD, Blu-ray)
50 (PAL X 2)
60 (HDTV)
120 (60 x 2, would need to be converted to 60i for Blu-ray & DVD)

I guess in theory someday in the future most play back devices will be some form of HTPC+computer-like monitor, which can play back pretty much any frame rate, but that's a long way off.

Exactly. I hope not that far, but since it is limited by broadcast infrastructure/bureaucracy I suppose it must be far off in the future. However, for www distribution (including for TV!!) this can't be too far off. Can you think of a future where YOU decide the project's framerate as a pure creative choice?

 

[Michael Hastings]

Agreed, it's (24fps) a great story telling frame rate... just playing devils advocate.

It is preferred simply because it is what we are accustomed to. We subconsciously equate the 24fps look with drama and cinema, for better or worse.

I guess 60fps would be great if you were going for that video game look or something like that. I like the look of 24fps. It makes the stories being told and shown in more of a different world.

But, you have probably not seen high framerate shown in a theatre with proper cinematic projection, etc.

Having been a part of a lot of high-framerate stereoscopy projection tests, I can tell you that when all the piece of the projection chain are there, it's mind-blowing.

About a year ago, we did a SCRATCH test for a major director who is interested in high framerate stereoscopy. Our source material was LE/RE 2K that was acquired at 60fps. We played the source out of SCRATCH at dual-stream 60fps to dual 2K projectors, each at 60fps. Projecting onto a 25' screen - it was absolutely awesome. The clarity and precision of movement was something I had never seen before, and when we pressed Play, it was a good moment. Everybody was just quiet for a minute before the Director said, "well, that looks pretty damned cool."

I believe that high spatial resolution AND high framerate is the future. I think that 24fps is an unnecessary limiting factor, especially once you've seen properly done 60fps. And the only reason to stop at 60fps right now is because there just isn't an easy way to go beyond that for typical production requirements without turning the set and post into a giant, expensive science project.

Best,

Lucas


Lucas Wilson
--------------
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

Thanks, Lucas - this is what I'm looking for (you too roberto)

The other points are well taken. I think we all agree that 24fps CURRENTLY has a "suspension of disbelief" or dramatic feel to it (for a lack of a better description - but also suspect that it is as Scott said because we are accustomed to it.

I'd like to see the discussion carried forward with whatever anecdotal and scientific evidence there might be for its effect on an audience PLUS the technical/economic issues.

I think I would like to shoot all of my nature footage at high frame rates since storage keeps getting cheaper (and all of the cool stuff keeps getting killed off - can't tell you how much the ocean has changed since I've been shooting and the latest oil disaster may be the final nail in the Gulf's coffin.)
So I would also like to know what technical issues there are - i.e. will the higher frame rates cause me problems with an awkward "look" when frames are eliminated to play at "normal" framerates. And what else haven't I thought of.

Edit:

And Jeremy you raise one of my biggest questions - is the "videoish" feel of high frame rates built in or developed? 1930s/40s audiences would have a very hard time following todays rapid editing, but it is nothing for those of us raised on modern television and cinema.

Epic seems to be opening the door not only to 5K resolution but also cost-effective SHOWSCAN-like frame rates - how will we use it? Be curious to hear what Jim thinks.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

You need to know what your intended delivery is. If you plan to deliver 24fps, then 48fps will work if you are shooting 180 shutter. Same for 30/60 and 25/50. Aside from that, it might be asking for trouble. I think your material (as far as I know) is a great candidate for this sort of practice.

 

[Rick Burnett]

It is a fascinating question. When I shoot at 60fps, I really dislike how it looks to myself personally. I wonder if that is just years of seeing 24fps and now associating that with quality.

But of course, I want to shoot 24fps because of the 180 shutter speed, having 48 gets more light into the camera and lets me shoot in darker scenarios.

Yet, watching sports, I prefer 60fps.

I think I am about to hurt my brain

 

[Michael Hastings]

You need to know what your intended delivery is. If you plan to deliver 24fps, then 48fps will work if you are shooting 180 shutter. Same for 30/60 and 25/50. Aside from that, it might be asking for trouble. I think your material (as far as I know) is a great candidate for this sort of practice.

Thanks, Roberto.

I'm interested in how it effects the cinema genre, too.

Like most of us I have that feature in bouncing around in the back of my head - just need to write the script, get the funding,...... ;-)

 

[Erik Franzén]

Thanks, Roberto.

I'm interested in how it effects the cinema genre, too.

Like most of us I have that feature in bouncing around in the back of my head - just need to write the script, get the funding,...... ;-)

Don't we all :thumbsup:

 

[chrislancaster]

very sorry for being the moron but

if you shoot 48 fps or 60 fps what do you set your shutter speed at to get 180


this has always confused me a bit :confused5:

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Variable framerate?

 

[Jeremy Neish]

Regarding shutter rates. I have a question for everyone. Let's say I shoot a movie at 48fps, but I know it will be converted to 24 for distribution. If I shoot at 180 degrees, do I just throw out every other frame? Because my initial temptation was to blend the frames, but then I got to thinking, that might double-up the motion blur effectively creating 270 degree angle?

Which brings me to another question. Wasn't motion blur implemented with the intent of smoothing out lower frame rates, where as at higher frame rates our brains create the motion blur for us (remember wiggling a pencil in front of your face as a kid), to theoretically if you are shooting at higher frame rates, you'll want less artificial motion blur... no?

So maybe the best thing to do would be to shoot at 90 degrees at 48 fps, then frame blend down to 24 fps / 180 degrees. In my mind this would give you the best of both worlds. That is unless I'm missing something.

 

[Michael Hastings]

That pretty much limits the options to:
24 (telecine when necessary)
25 (PAL)
30 (NTSC)
48 (24 X 2, would need to be converted to 24p for DVD, Blu-ray)
50 (PAL X 2)
60 (HDTV)
120 (60 x 2, would need to be converted to 60i for Blu-ray & DVD)

I guess in theory someday in the future most play back devices will be some form of HTPC+computer-like monitor, which can play back pretty much any frame rate, but that's a long way off.

Well if you've seen the WDTV Live from Western Digital I think you can see the future:

http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=735

1080P (I know, I know, it's so yesterday... pretty soon 1080P will print out as VHS like 7-D/Betacam) file based player $149 retail $109 street.

Soon something like this will be built in to the TV (just like my 2.5 year old samsung has a USB slot that plays jpeg stills) Firmware updatable and presumably able to play 3d streams or high frame rate content - even my older Samsung does 120hz and 3D sync - many of the new ones are 240Hz.

Be interesting to see what RED bites off with REDRAY. red laser dvd drive for compatibility and USB slot for whatever you want. Internal ASIC to decode higher data rate REDCODE, .mp4, etc. ???? I think a $500 Redray/everything player including 4K might be a killer high end consumer product. - Loss leader but would kickstart 4K everywhere.