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 :)

Very Hypothetical theory on widescreen and 24p

C

cinemano

Banned
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hum,

Sometimes i wonder.. lets say the sky was always orangey and the sunsets were blue.. people would be amazed by blue sunsets.. we aren't cos we see blue sky almost everyday..

Perhaps same goes to widescreen and 24p... I dare say, sometimes i actually like 4:3 better for framing.. if 16:9 or 2:1 came first, 4:3 would be "cool" cos we would "gain headroom" for actors and tall buildings, portraits ect.. in a parallel universe people would say "cool, i can frame people better"

Lets imagine say, the frame shape evolved upwards instead of sideways, after all, often 4:3 has more lines resolution cos 16:9 in many cameras are stretches and crops..

Then we have 24p.. okay, its cool cos it looks like film, and we can transfer to film.. But if cinemas projected at 30 fps i think it would be just as desired.. I actually don't like the flickering of fast pans or moving actors that one gets with 24 frames, its just not enough frames to create realistic motions.. I wouldnt be surprised if the future of cinema would have at least 60 progressive frames a second.

I think this could all be a 'fashion' thing.. but like i said, its very daring for me to have this theory, now i must brace myself for probably reactions of the many :) as i don't have a popular view..
 
No one can rationally argue with your personal visual preference; for whatever reasons, it is what it is.

There is, however, a general visual preference among humans for rectangles which follow the ratio of the Golden Mean, 1.6:1. There are volumes of speculation as to why this is true. A quick Google or other search will bring up a plethora of information, including studies showing the shape preferences. These studies are by no means conclusive, but are instructive.

Personally, I strongly prefer a wider screen, which gives so much opportunity for negative space and dynamic action. It's more effective in controlling what we want the viewer to see.

Luckily, we're all different and that's why one finds so many different flavors in the ice cream store!

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo Ticheli
Director/Cinematographer/Admirer of Euclid
 
I agree.
It's almost always a fashion thing. And it makes people think that the way determined by fashion is the only practical way (maybe socially, and only at a precise time, but not genuinely practical at all, sometimes); therefore we don't avoid all that, because we are afraid to fail, so we don't even try. We don't even say too much in public.
It could be dangerous.
We all know 24 frames per second is an old format, it was and it is dictated by economy, and it can be just ok. It looks all right if you only pan slowly.
Of course 30 a lot better, possibly the best compromise between economy and realism, while 24 is too much set for economy (in a digital age where there is no film cost) and not good for motion.
I have (heard) enough of 24fps bringing 'subtlety' and 'coolness' to motion pictures. I have enough of retro excuse for the sake of saying something that appears romantic instead of the mere b...s... that it is.

We can manage with 24fps most of the times, trying not to pan much.
50 or 60 really is not necessary, in normal situations.
30 would be the best solution for me. not as poor as 24, but still light enough on the camera side.

24fps is just because we are forced by the projection systems.
I think that in a not too distant future, while 24fps will still be there for the cinematographer that are attached to it, it would be possible to shoot and project at 30fps with no problem, anywhere in the world.

It is very possible for the standard projection in theatres in the next 50+ years to be 4k at 24/30/60 frames per second, thanks to the generation of ultra high definition projectors that is going to arrive.
We will be able to choose freely.

about geometrical format, we are already free to crop any sensor & screen (in the same way) as we like, because we can finally start with more enough resolution to do it.
Of course, the best format for viewing is the one which is more proportionate, more harmonical from a really unversal point of you, regarless unncessary compromises. The only important thing is to see what the cinematographer expected to be seen when he was shooting, without cropping it.
 
many members of the EDCF are pushing -hard- to get 60P into the digital cinema specs.

24P is much to slow to -perfectly- create the illusion, it only creates a-good- illusion. Try switching your CRT monitor to 24P and you will see. However, after decades people are used to it and also -feel- that it is part of the cinematic experience.
 
Regardless of the original motivation for choosing the 24 fps standard, there is something about brain activity and the 24 fps, 180° shutter that has a profound effect on the viewer, making the experience more engaging and enjoyable. It's much the same as what happens when we read a book; the imagination is stirred to fill in the missing visual bits.

Also, the subtle motion blur of the 1/48 exposure duration is smooth and pleasing. This cannot be discounted lightly. I suppose you could adjust the shutter and have the same exposure duration shooting at 30 fps, but the blanking period would be different.

Consider the brilliant work of John Singer Sargent; his figures seem so alive, in part because he put a hint of "motion" blur in them.

Personally, I'm not interested in creating "reality;" my business is story telling, to create a fantasy world on the screen and then the mind. Perhaps other venues could benefit from higher frame-rates, games, amusement park rides, etc., it's just not what I want to do.

By the way, 60 fps has been tried before and was a commercial failure. I expect this was due to many factors, but I believe the high frame rate was among them.

I like 24 fps/180° shutter for drama.

At whatever frame rate you prefer, good shooting and best regards!

Leo Ticheli
Director/Cinematographer
 
Great thread!

Regarding aspect ratio... one way to look at it is this...

Cinematography is an art. Like any art form, the success or failure (although this is largely subjective) lies in how one can overcome the limitations of the medium. There are certain physical limiations of each art form. How do you imply motion in stills photography? Maybe with motion blur. How do you create "depth" in painting? By "greying" background tones to imply aerial haze.

Stanley Kubrick used to shoot all of his films "full aperature". I consider Mr. Kubrick to be an artist and I believe he made this choice because that was the "purest" way to use that medium.

I think human perception plays in to it as well. The "golden rule" is a good example. Related to that is human vision. We see more "peripherally" than we do "vertically", so one one could argue that maybe one of the more rectangular formats is more "natural".

One must consider presentation as well. IMAX aspect ratio is 1.43:1. Pretty square. But that has to do with how big the screen is.

Regarding "speed". I have tested 60fps film transferred at 60fps years ago and it just looks too "ultra sharp" and "hyper real". I feel the same about 30fps. Motion doesn't look "real"...but maybe I have been brainwashed by convention all of these years!

Dylan Macleod
Cinematographer
Toronto, Canada
www.dylanmacleod.com
 
It is a decision - while i agree that 24P look is suitable for many stories, you are not forced to use 60 on a 60 system.

*sits on his directors chair in the brief pitch*
i could imagine that i would shoot dialogue on matrix @24(or30)P and action sequences -suddenly- at 60P
*leaves creative area and heads back to the r&d and economics dept*

60P was a commercially doomed on film (ultra pana et al), as it limited highspeed, shooting costs exploded, distribution of the master was nightmarish, the projectors couldnt keep up everywhere etc.

On digital its different, the stock & distribution costs are pretty neutral, the dlp/dila/lcos engines of modern cine and homesystems handle 60 with ease.

And one thing is for sure:
3D @24P is a -compromise-. Good enough, but at 30 (or even better) it looks -much- better.
3D 24P pans -break- the illusion extremly, even dolly/tracking shots are difficult @24P.

I am not against 24/25P, not at all, but i am certainly in the give 60P camp, even if i am as brainwashed as many others and do (falsely) associate 24P with epic cinema and 60i with ENG.
 
4:3 aspect ratio seems more contrived, affected, than does 16:9 or most other "panoramic" formats. And I don't think it's just because we're accustomed to the "sky is blue" phenomenon. I still marvel at the sky being blue (but that's another story). Life unfolds and reveals itself from the horizon, it moves towards us, or we towards it. Sure we tend to look up occasionally but that's usually in the service of moving "forward". There are images, moving and otherwise, that will benefit from the pressure, the force exerted by the square aspect ratio, but that choice is often driven by stylistic considerations rather than naturalistic ones. And stylistic considerations- when relying on something as accessible as aspect ratio- are soon made mundane. Horizontal formats allow us to digest important information as it's introduced into frame- something that mimics our "real life" perceptions. Things do not appear suddenly into our field of vision as if from behind a screen; and if things do leap out at us, we want to see where they leap from.
But if squarer means shorter car chases, shoot-outs, and "love" scenes, it might be worth a shot (;
 
Different frame rates have different types of production associated with them.

Because of years of this, framerates have become part of the filmmaking language. You use 6fps xfered at 6fps for a dream sequence, you use 60i if you're trying to make things seem more "real" (because nightly news has been in this framerate for 30 years, where I come from).

As a director, I am not about to use a framerate because "it renders motion better", I choose a framerate for the response it evokes in the language I'm speaking. There are many decades of conditioning involved in the language of film. I'm not about ready to use words I don't mean because of technical considerations.
 
NateWeaver said:
As a director, I am not about to use a framerate because "it renders motion better", I choose a framerate for the response it evokes in the language I'm speaking. There are many decades of conditioning involved in the language of film. I'm not about ready to use words I don't mean because of technical considerations.
Click to expand...

i understand your approach, but wait until you do 3D :)
 
laguun said:
i understand your approach, but wait until you do 3D :)
Click to expand...

As a tool to tell a story, or even a photographer, I'm not interested in 3D. Not yet.

I'm sure someday some very forward thinking director will tell a moving story where 3D is an enhancement of emotion, not a distraction or novelty...but until then...
 
I looove 3D!! one of the reasons i like Red its future proof for 3d, as there's already some people doing 3d with two reds.. but its going to be a while before a large viewing audience can watch 3d without glasses :)

But maybe thats not a problem, the experience is worth it.

I hear they're designing a 3D tv which needs no glasses.. might work like those 3D photos that were once popular in disposable cameras.. then yu had to wait 3 weeks to get your 3d photos :D

I wonder why.. but i think i see 4:3.. not really widescreen.. maybe i have tunnel vision :D i see almost as much from top to bottom as i see side to side..
 
I've said before I'd love a move towards frame rate being a creative choice, that can be altered throughout a movie just like we alter aperture and shutter. I think that would open up creative possibilities, not diminish them. Technically, would be tricky though, but just think of the visual possibilities!

Graeme
 
I think widescreen is more than "it's not square".

I think more things in the world naturally lend themselves to widescreen framing.

Take a beautiful sunset. The interesting point is usually the horizon line if it's a wide open space. Two people facing each other requires a wide canvas. Despite living a 3D World most things are pretty planar to a 2D location. 4:3 is great for a single face but if you want to show a wider angle you're going to get a lot of "dead space" in your composition.

That's not to say 4:3 can't be made to work. And it has to fantastic success but if I were to crop something anyway I pleased it's usually around 2:1 or vertical 3:4. That being said... you also have to remember where most films are presented. Full field of view walls. A vertical presentation is out of the question. It would be visually frustrating. It works as a small part of your field of view when say in an art gallery but if it's a black room with a large vertical view your eyes are poorly aligned to deal with that. You'd have to look up and down all the time.

There is a reason the hero is often able to hide up in the rafters without being noticed. People don't look up and down! (And Minions are notorious for poor peripheral vision. Especially vertically ;))
 
Human beings often create a romance and find advantage in what they have become accustomed to. Eventually rationalizations become rules -- or an esthetic or ethos unto themselves. I believe 24 fps is just such a romance/ethos -- one I have spent most of my life "perpetuating" because it was the way things were when you shot and projected film. I also spent a great deal of energy mitigating its inherent flaws through various techniques. I think Tetsuo is correct. 30fps makes a lot more sense, and has far less distracting artifacts. Most of us develop the vested interest syndrome -- but I recall being thrilled to start shooting at 30 fps progressive.
 
Also, the subtle motion blur of the 1/48 exposure duration is smooth and pleasing.



Well, I PARTIALLY agree: 24fps is not unpleasing, if both camera and subjects do not move very fast, otherwise it is a complete disaster.
I'd rather say: 24fps can STILL be pleasing, if the kind of motion that the movie requires, put simply, allows it.
That is not the same as saying that 24 is good for motion pictures... let alone 'the best frame rate'.
Far from it.
Before any psycological or psyco-visual consideration about any supposed pleasure of watching 24, when we judge this inherited format and are possibly asked to decide for the future, we should ask ourself and the makers of cameras and projectors: is really 24fps any worth to caputer motion, also fast motion? or is it quite a pain in the ass for the directors of photography and cameramen all over the world, every time (=very often) that they MUST deal with fast moving characters, vehicles, weapons, airplains, starships (just to name a few of the silly elements that literally invaded the cinemas and televisions of every poor sitting room of this epilected, videoclipped, superfast megabombed world)?
dont all these monsters need more frames per seconds?
honestly, I also need more then 24fps - not because I'd like more, but because I really NEED more - even to make a humble pan in a large landscape, without making it look all blurred as if it is going to collapse.
Too often 24fps DOES's LET YOU ANY MARGIN! THROW ME SOME MORE FRAMES, PLEASE!
Then we may discuss if 30fps with 180 degrees shutter is romantic or not.
there is not abundance in this field yet. 24fps is not safe yet.
DO I like 24fps? yeah, maybe, but I don't care just yet, because pans and moving objects gets blurred easily, and that IS a problem with 24fps.


stating that 24fps is good to look at, I'm not sayng that it is wrong, but I'd say that it misses the point, when we talk about taking motion photography, that is to represent reality.
It is analogous to saying that photographs should be taken with old cheap digital still cameras, or even cell-phone cameras, with their terrible colors, very little fidelity, just because many people got used to them to the point of appreciate them (consciously or not), because some may think that those cameras bring any sort of subtle this and that, pleasant this and that. Don't tell any fine art photographer!
Of course a fine art photographer may also play with resolution, contrast, colors, but to be able to start with HI fidelity, or at least to have the chance and the tools to do it most of the times, is the only sensible way.
You can have fun with a lomo camera and pin holes, but if you want to have quality, you must start with quality.
high enough resolution for not having your eyes and brain (consciously or not) ask for more: that is, equal or higher resolution than human (in motion situations). Lets say 4k.

But the same thing applies of course to color reproduction, dynamic range, resolution of movement, so frame rate must be higher, if not to human eyes/brain - we can be happy with less, but not too less - at least higher than the speed of the objects in the frame.
Or they will be blurred, and blurred images is quite in opposition to quality images.
Approach the human public's sight, at least.

I don't want images to be deliberately blurred.
if 24fps flickering is so special for any brain-related scanning thing, then 48fps may happen to be as good; but being a multiple, at least deliver not blurred images.

or perhaps blurred images is exactly what some people are actually looking for, for the sake of the images being blurred, and any justification is a justification nontheless, the others will then see if it is acceptable or not a justification.
I don't like to stay forverer in the muddy discussion about benefit that someone feels and someone else doesn't.
I am not happy with cinema being stuck at 24fps for over a century now. Digital systems can improve this aspect.
they can change it.


Also, if 24fps is so good to look at, how could anyone suppose that the reality itself (which can be reasonably and efficiently approssimated at 50 or 60fps, for human eyes) is less good?

24fps is not terrible under many circumstances, in fact it is good enough.... it is just not good for motion everytime we approach a certain speed.

I don't want artifacts to ALWAYS determine the maximum speed of things in the frame and the camera, for the same reason that I don't want the flaws of a very limited camera to undermine the still pictures that I want to take.
If I want to have blur in a certain occasion, than I would like to be able to shoot at slow frame rate.
If I specifically want blurred style (don't know why that should make a film better), I'll use that instrument that gives me that.

I am not excited by artifacts anymore.
I tollerate them less and less. they are flaws. Nothing to do with Art, nothing to do with saying something of great, universal value. It is just style, at best.
And I hate this strange meaning that in english the world "style" has nowadays. It sounds like a snob, nicer word for fashion.
(as if there could be a nice word for fashion)


Having clarified that, and that 24fps is too slow for medium to fast action, we can also discuss about how nice or ugly this blurred motion of 24fps is, on a different level.
You say that there is psyco-visual element in the fact that people like films shoot at 24fps.

I do not agree. I think people like films, and pay for the ticket, and films happen to be at 24fps for other reasons, technical and economical.
people don't like 24fps, actually. They like the movies!
It can be true that so, they associate 24fps with movies, but do not like 24fps. They still like the movies, they are not interested in them being blurred.
TV is a huge success, no less then the movies, and TV is at 50-60fps, so can we say 50-60 is better?
No! TV is 50-60fps for the same reason of cinema being 24fps: technical and economical.
Finally, can this technical and economical limits and flows have forged a style? of course. But again... so what?
styles can change anytime.
different cameramen, DP, directors, have different styles (apart from, at the same time, being more and more omologated and copying each other).
People gets used to anything you insist on.
We almost got used to american movies and TV programs and fashions... after that, what can we espect to resist?
We accept anything right into our troat, we got used to the news and their daily apocalipse stories.
Invent, invent, the only hope to go on.
bah.
I don't like that, by the way.
 
I like 24 fps/180° shutter for drama.
Click to expand...

it doesn't mean absolutely anything to me.
I like 60fps/120° for astronauts parades... 72fps/144° for circus in costume (but only without elephants, otherwise 288° I like better)
I like 12fps/24° for documentaries under the sun of Africa, but for Asian musicals, believe me, nothing beats 379fps/58.13333°.
To me, movies should be 6.75837265fps/91°: it brings such a subtle indefinable pleasure you cannot even imagine...

Whatever I shoot, apart from ergonomics etc. I just ask fidelity to the camera.
I can agree only if we talk about sports, medical, information... Sports are fast, therefore they must be shot at high frame rate, otherwise we don't see anything, we don't see the ball, we don't see the line, we don't see what happened.
If kennedy was filmed with Red camera and possibly at very high frame rate, that day, we would have not guessed what happened for decades.

but, fake for fake... for entertainment, well... I can't find any justification for a specific frame rate in a specific genre.
to somone horrors could be at 24fps and love stories 60fps, for someone else the opposite or completely different.
There is no truth in this approach.
Id start to think that we are all missing the point of photography/cinematography, that is to inform or narrate. Even in narrations, a clean one is better than one being told by s spaker with sore troat, bell-like voice, no-voice, hog-timbre, pretentious, annoying, seducing or whatever strange artifact.
And it still has nothing to do with style in the true sense of the term, like we would say to distinguish greek style from roman style, egiptian style, baroque style, for example.

we should not confuse the timbre of the voice with the words and the language.
camera is merely the timbre of voice, not style, not language.
the cleanest, the best. transparent, the best.
It doesn't even have to be exaggerately convincing , enfatised... it just sounds strange.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top