Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Is it Time to Move to a Faster Frame Rate for Distribution?

T

Tom Wardrop

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
131
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Queensland, Australia
Another way to phrase this question is: how come 24 fps is still the industry-standard frame-rate after half a century?

24 fps obviously has a very distinctive look to it (almost artistic one could say), but it also has a number of drawbacks. Jerky or 'stuttering' movement is one of them. A lack of realism and general fluidity is another. I'm interested in what some of you think. Should the industry start to consider distributing films at higher frame rates, such as 50 or even 100 fps? It certainly seems like the natural next step.

I just find it weird how we seem to go crazy over enhancements such as "increased resolution" and "3D", but don't even consider the potential impact a higher frame rate could have on one's cinematic experience. Something I concluded while watching Avatar in 3D, is that while the 3D effect is very convincing, the frame rate (or lack there of) has a significant detrimental impact on the experience; it can be headache inducing.

Let the discussion begin!
 
Tom Wardrop said:
Another way to phrase this question is: how come 24 fps is still the industry-standard frame-rate after half a century?
Click to expand...
When film is totally dead and there aren't even any more film projectors ... we will see 59.97 fps as the new normal. This should be the reality in four years or less. 24fps was a good economical speed for film shooters, likewise for digital processing reasons, a slower frame rate like 24fps is less processor intensive for digital cameras. Obviously 4K at 24fps is easier than 4K at 59.97 fps. But as we know 1920x1080 at 59.97 fps is now normal and OK on 32" TV's.
 
Last edited:
Whatever new frame rates are used, I'd have hoped that the awful "NTSC" fractional 1000/1001 frame rates are NOT used. They're a ludicrous anachronism, like interlace and should never be seen again. That HD was not chosen as the point to break with the past on this was a missed opportunity by all involved.

I'll now step down from my soap box,

Graeme
 
I don't see this as ever happening outside of IMAX and those horrible 120Hz TVs I see at Best Buy. No public clamor for it and a very technical difficult benefit to articulate to the consumer. Not when we can't even sell 3D 1080p Blu-ray discs in enough quantity to do away with 480p DVDs in 2010.

Noah
 
Welcome to the club, Tom. I don't mean the "we want a higher FPS standard," club, I mean the, "I've got a great original idea I can't believe I'm the first to think of it," club.

Maybe every one of us has thought of this, but the happy fact is that higher frame rates just aren't as pretty or engaging for dramas. This has been discussed to death; well, almost death as it comes up with each new generation of film makers.

While certain types of entertainment could benefit, live sports for example, most simply do not. Higher frame rates produce a "video" look that is rather unpleasant and at 24 fps, 180° shutter happens to produce a near perfect motion blur and blanking period that engages increased brain activity and viewer enjoyment.

I can imagine a future when films are projected at various frame rates keyed to the effect desired, but for the ubiquitous dramas, 24fps is perfect. Not to mention that it's near universal, easily converted to European standards.

When I first had the bright idea, I shot a 35MM commercial at 30fps, to eliminate that pesky pull-down, and, to my dismay, it looked like very pretty video. Back to the loving arms of 24fps.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Fps

Fps

I just look forward to the day when we have the option to do a variety of presentation frame rates ..
 
I saw Showscan for the first time in 1984 at the World's Fair in Vancouver.

I still remember how shocked I was at the clarity and visceral impact the film had me.

65mm, 60FPS projection on a dome screen. Skiing footage and in-flight footage of Canadian Geese (similar to "Winged Migration")

It was amazing, and I haven't seen anything yet that compares. Truly

So whats involved now? 60FPS Image Capture, Sound recorded at 60FPS equivalent, and projection at said speed? Doesn't seem too implausible with our new batch of digital projectors

Hey if 3D can rake in the dollars, why not increased temporal resolution? Single Camera without heavy rigs and beamsplitters, plus extra $ in ticket sales?

Producers should be all over this!

I think I read somewhere that James Cameron was a huge advocate for changing the projection speed standard. His view was that 48FPS was ideal as it still gave enough of a flavor of a filmic temporal flavor, as opposed to 60FPS which felt more akin to watching a video like source...
 
This thread has an uncanny ability to reincarnate from time to time, paraphrased every time. There must be at least 50+ "why 24fps" threads on this forum. Whatever happened to using the "search" feature so that we don't have to go through the same discussion over and over again.
 
Matthew Bennett said:
I'd like to see slower - perhaps 18fps? I'm not a fan of high rates for playback.

I'll step down from my soapbox now as great men have done before me...
Click to expand...

18 FPS is lovely. At least projected on film. Gorgeous fluttery flicker. Don't know if that would at all translate to digital.
 
jaadgy akanni said:
This thread has an uncanny ability to reincarnate from time to time, paraphrased every time. There must be at least 50+ "why 24fps" threads on this forum. Whatever happened to using the "search" feature so that we don't have to go through the same discussion over and over again.
Click to expand...

Gotta love a wet blanket flung over your head.
 
Leo Ticheli said:
I can imagine a future when films are projected at various frame rates keyed to the effect desired, but for the ubiquitous dramas, 24fps is perfect.
Click to expand...

Stuart English said:
I just look forward to the day when we have the option to do a variety of presentation frame rates ..
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's probably a better question, why can't we pick our own frame-rate? It's a rhetorical question of course, but if I'm still asking that question in 5 or 10 years time, then it will no longer be rhetorical.
 
I totally agree on the "get-rid-of-the-weird-ntsc-framerates" notion.
24/25/50 seems so much more logical... No?
 
I agree that we should enable variable framerate shooting and playback.

I agree we should ditch the stupid fractional framerates.

I'd like to see the production standard, outside of cinema, become 50fps with 360 degree shutter. That gives close to the same motion blur as 24fps 180degree shutter. The motion rendition is a bit smoother though. Most shows and live events will look best this way.

For cinema I really want to see variable framerate recording and playback become a normal technological capacity. I think given the opportunity most film makers will default to 24/180 for most shooting, but I'd like to see direct support in playback systems for any framerate between 12 and 120fps. I'd like that used to deliver framerates of up to 60fps per eye for 3D.

We should start piping up about our preferred standards and practices, before all the old sweat broadcast engineers take over the conversation together with the accounting departments of big broadcasters.

4K is coming to consumer displays in the next decade. Probably talking about 4K is pointless... what I really mean to impute is that we will see "Retina displays" for our TV's and theaters.

We should figure out what that resolution is, and drive to deliver the "last" 2D consumer format. One which exceeds human vision under most use cases. One that s engineered for providing that experience with no arcana- no weird framerates to support an old standard.

There should be ONE standard as well, one based in mathematics- again that "retina display" idea. I propose a 4k 2:1 display standard.
 
A similar thread has been up a few times and it is an interesting discussion. Digital projectors today can play at a variety of speeds but to my knowledge none can variable yet. It is interesting though that if this did happen we would come full circle. DW Griffiths used to send out scripts to theatres with indications on what frame rate to play certain parts of the film at, so funnily enough the projectionist had an actual creative input.

After Avatar Cameron went on a bit of a mad one saying that films should be shot and projected at 48fps but i think that was a reaction to how bad the motion was at times in the film.

I agree though that (especially with what RED are doing at the moment) the negative elements of shooting 24fps may well dissipate.

Time will tell. If its a long film I do tend to view films in an auditorium at 25fps a second as it us undistinguishable when viewing it, and you nick off a few minutes on the running time - and that is important coffee drinking time.
 
Don't be so quick to discount the importance of the blanking period the 180° shutter produces. This is another example of an unintended, but eupeptic consequence of the film transport, the shutter having to be closed while the film unlocked, moved to the next frame, and locked again.

As it turns out, this blanking period engages the viewer's brain to fill in the gap.

Of course there's a good reason there are so many flavors in the ice cream store, but I personally think 24fps/180°*shutter is just plain beautiful and I would mourn it's passing.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Just for interests sake Gaspar Noé's new film Enter the Void was shot at 25fps and was printed and distributed as such. Although I believe the DCP version is 24fps and the 35mm print is 25fps. Not sure why the DCP is different to the 35mm though.
 
With "variable playback/projection rates" frames rates could add yet another nuance to the cinematographer's art. You could film/project at 24fps/180° shutter if you want that "classic" look or at a different rate for more/less fluid motion, etc.
 
That would also require updating of the post flow though. NLE's would have to have the ability to output variable frame rates to a codec. I'm sure that wouldn't be too hard to mess with the old JPEG2K though surely. - he says...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top