24P and the myths

[Nathan Troutman]

So I'll admit I'm not one of the 24P lovers out there. I don't hate it. I just don't feel it really that crucial to getting the elusive "film-look" that most filmmakers believe it to be. I've always felt that the dynamic range and color of an image along with framing & cinematic camera work was far more important to creating the film look. Well I must say that the P part (progressive scan) is important, but I'd rather if we could just get this old industry to move toward at least just 30P if not 60P. Well I happened to stumble upon this article.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm

Keep in mind this site has nothing to do with filming. Rather it's on the other side - with the consumer of films. So basically the people that finance this whole thing by going to the movies and buying the DVDs. Seems like the nostalgic film guys might be horrified to learn that consumers are starting to realize 24P ain't what it's cracked up to be. And in fact - 24P actually really sucks.
:head_explode:

Have at it defenders of the "24P film-look"!!

 

[NateWeaver]

You like how 30p looks. I like how 24p looks.

What's there to discuss/argue about?

 

[Graeme Nattress]

But doing magic frame interpolation destroys the artistic intent of the original. Now I have no problems with different frame rates and higher frame rates, but I want them to be an artistic choice, not a "standard" dictating "you will shoot it at x fps".

Graeme

 

[Nathan Troutman]

But doing magic frame interpolation destroys the artistic intent of the original. Now I have no problems with different frame rates and higher frame rates, but I want them to be an artistic choice, not a "standard" dictating "you will shoot it at x fps".

Graeme

That's my point. It seems that consumers don't seem to "love" 24P and are actually starting to prefer frame interpolation because it looks smoother. I just found it interesting that on the other side of the blogs - the viewers side of things - they aren't sharing our love-fest for 24P. I've always heard time and time again how we have to shoot 24P because that's what the viewers are used to. It seems the viewers are having a revolution and frame interpolating that juttery 24P footage. So if the viewers actually want higher fps why shouldn't we give it to them?

 

[NateWeaver]

So if the viewers actually want higher fps why shouldn't we give it to them?

Not if it's MY creative choice.

If they want to make 30p or interlaced or 60p movies/videos/whatever, then they can have at it.

 

[Steven Hilder]

That article is pure FUD.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Yeah, I could never grasp why people want the antiquated 24fps when it is clearly causing objectional judder and motion artifacts. I will always take 60i over 24p for the simple reason that this is what my eyes perceive as been smoother and more natural. The 24fps is a limitation firmly established a century ago and foolishly followed to this date as something to be desired. Well, my own eyes are telling me someting else. They object to the 24fps flicker much more than to lower resolution. It sounds really funny that film makers strive to produce in 2k, 4k, 6k...yet the 24fps flickering discomfort remains to hurt our eyes.

Like the author of the article, I also strongly feel that the 24fps is not what the viewers want. They want smooth, natural-looking and artifact-free images. Very few wievers can notice difference between 1k and 10k. Film prints don't go beyond 1k and HDTV broadcast is probaby worse than that in terms of resolving fine detail. No objections. However, everyone can notice disturbing 24fps flicker. It is what film makers have been stuck with for a century and to this date foolishly strive to achieve for the sake of "film look".:blink: Why? Wake up! We have technology to avoid this problem.

This is my main reason for enthusiasm towards the Epic. Bring those 120fps on! Now, that's what I would call epic.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Well, it is FUD. If there's a problem with judder on a bluray, then is it on the film print shown in the cinema? If it's not in the cinema, it's not the "fault" of the 24p then...

But no, it's not the viewers choice. They don't make the movies, they don't get the choice. At the moment, movie-makers don't have a choice either.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

You like how 30p looks. I like how 24p looks.

What's there to discuss/argue about?

What is there to discuss is what an average viewer likes. You may like scratches, grain and flicker, that's is fine, but this is not what makes average person to admire the motion picture for. They want "bigger than life" experience that looks natural, distortion-free, and does not cause judder or flicker or some other discomfort to their viewing pleasure. You may disagree with your "client", but at the end of the day, guess what: the client is always right.

Your film will be judged as poor quality picture as this is how an average viewer is going to perceive it regardless of your "artistic desire" or more precisely "technical impairment".

Hehehe... Looks like religeous discussion is about to begin

 

[Rudi Herbert]

24P is the one thing I hate about the "filmic" look and one we should do away with. Depth of field, color range and tonality, framing, all those play a far bigger role than the 24 frames a second. Now, progressive is always better than interlaced, and the "P" as opposed to the"i" is not where the problem lies. It is the agonizingly slow rate at which those 24 frames streak across BOTH the camera gate AND the projector's that creates the annoying artifacting and blurriness. James Cameron mentioned a while ago that he felt the perfect rate to be 48 fps, both for acquisition and projection, as this still kept some of the soft cadence associated with 24fps, but was fast enough to eliminate all the unwanted side effects. I agree with that. I think we could go all the way up to 50-60fps and, provided all other factors remain the same, the result would be just as "filmic", but much better looking and pleasant to the eye. I've done some tests with a Varicam at 24 and 48fps, and projected both at the corresponding rates on some tricked out projectors on an exhibition room that a studio keeps for testing and the 48fps footage looked AMAZING projected at 48fps, so much better than the 24fps counterpart...and yes, the technology to acquire and project at higher frame rates already exists today, although it would double stock related costs for film based productions, which is probably one factor nobody is pushing for higher than 24fps anytime soon...

 

[NateWeaver]

You may disagree with your "client", but at the end of the day, guess what: the client is always right.

Your film will be judged as poor quality picture as this is how an average viewer is going to perceive it regardless of your "artistic desire" or more precisely "technical impairment".

Funny thing is, the people I work with always agree.

I never have discussions like this, while say, in a meeting with execs at a record label, who are my main employers.

They seem to happen exclusively on internet message boards.

 

[jpp]

They want "bigger than life" experience that looks natural, distortion-free, and does not cause judder or flicker or some other discomfort to their viewing pleasure.

Are you sure about that? How do you know what audiences really what? And which audiences?

I won't make any friends here saying this, but the clamors for higher frame rates for theatrical features rarely come from people who know film primarily as an art form. The cry for higher temporal resolution tends to issue from the technical corner, where more of everything is always better.

People still read novels because they value the work of their imagination. The missing information of 24p has, I'd argue, a similar function: it keeps the brain alert precisely because it doesn't resemble everyday perceptual reality. It's an alternate and richer world.

Walk into any [bankrupt!] Circuit City and compare the rendering of motion on the 120hz displays, with the cheaper LCDs. To take the example from the article, anyone who enjoys Casablana looking like a soap opera thanks to frame interpolation at 120hz, is free to invest in 120hz equipment. But it's a horror to think theatrical features will some day look similarly "smooth".

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Exactly, if people want the 120hz look, they can buy it. Now, I'd probably enjoy stuff shot that way, at 120fps and displayed as such, if that was it's intent, but don't go changing old stuff that was never meant to be shown that way.

It's like old BBC shows where OB was on film, and studio was on video, with the obvious 25p to 50i jump. And that's how they should still look today, not with the video bits filmized as they sometimes do on DVD releases which really peeves me off.

Graeme

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Funny thing is, the people I work with always agree.

I never have discussions like this, while say, in a meeting with execs at a record label, who are my main employers.

They seem to happen exclusively on internet message boards.

In my book execs at record labels are technically impaired dinasours not comfortable for a change outside their comfort zone of a 100 year old habit. Your real clients are the viwers, not the middle-men.

Message boards are the voice of the public at large, your true clients, and has far more weight than that of over-paid and under-educated executives.

 

[Clint Johnson]

I've stated before that I believe that the juddery 24fps is a very overused affectation. It is a step away from the reality of our visisual system and that wouldn't be a problem if it was used judiciously... but it isn't. Every damn film meant for theatrical release is shot in, or converted to, 24fps. Even through each frame is then flashed twice to try and cut down on the ugly nature of the slow frame rate. Every time you move away from a realistic image it should be for a deliberate and specific purpose- this is just the ossification of a poor compromise forced on us by camera and budget limitations at the beginning of the film industry.

It is a visual aberration, like bleach bypass or a 22.5 degree shutter, that has become an expected standard simply by blind adherence to something because it is what has been used for so long.

I am not asking for it to be banished forever more, but it would be nice if that look was only used where it is appropriate rather than in every damn shot. How myopically conservative can you get? It is like several generations of cinematographers had all used ProMist filters for each and every film made.

Over used.

Doubling it to 48fps will give a more realistic basic image whilst not placing to much of a burden on the datarate. The dinosaurs could shoot in 24fps and simply double up on the frames to keep their tired old standard. They've managed to drag themselves into using talkies and colour so we shouldn't be too hard on them.

 

[jpp]

I've stated before that I believe that the juddery 24fps is a very overused affectation. It is a step away from the reality of our visisual system

Exactly, which is the reason why people pay $12 to sit in the dark for two hours -- to escape reality.

Every time you move away from a realistic image it should be for a deliberate and specific purpose-

That "specific purpose" is commonly known as "fiction".

 

[Clint Johnson]

Exactly, if people want the 120hz look, they can buy it. Now, I'd probably enjoy stuff shot that way, at 120fps and displayed as such, if that was it's intent, but don't go changing old stuff that was never meant to be shown that way.

It's like old BBC shows where OB was on film, and studio was on video, with the obvious 25p to 50i jump. And that's how they should still look today, not with the video bits filmized as they sometimes do on DVD releases which really peeves me off.

Graeme

Yes, films should be displayed at as close the the specifications of the DP and Director as possible. Old silent era films should be shown at the jarring frame rate they were meant to be shown at - anywhere from about 16Hz up to more that 24Hz in some cases... they often had notation on the projectionist cue sheet to let them know what speed it was meant to be shown at.

With existing works, we really need to respect the creatives involved - black & white should stay black & white and the aspect ratio shouldn't be screwed with. Restorations of these works should be careful and ere on the side of conservative.

That said, 18Hz black & white with no sound is a relic and the 24Hz frame rate should probably join them in the museum.

 

[David Wyatt]

James Cameron mentioned a while ago that he felt the perfect rate to be 48 fps, both for acquisition and projection, as this still kept some of the soft cadence associated with 24fps, but was fast enough to eliminate all the unwanted side effects.

Thomas Edison beat him to that idea...a looong time ago!!

I'm sure the jump to higher filming and projection rates will come some day. With film it's not financially viable but if everything's digital (camera & projection) it's just more storage at the end of the day (obviously that has a cost too...but I'm sure storage will become less & less of an issue as technology progresses).

It's also interesting to note that there's a whole generation of spotty oiks playing computer games displayed at higher frame rates that would probably find 24fps kind of like how we (older gits) see jerky, flickery, speeded up silent-era footage (ok maybe not that bad!)

 

[Clint Johnson]

Exactly, which is the reason why people pay $12 to sit in the dark for two hours -- to escape reality.



That "specific purpose" is commonly known as "fiction".

The story is the fiction and I don't think we really need to keep trying to set it apart from the world around us through the exact same tired old crutch of distorting the frequency each and every time. It loses its value through overuse and becomes easily ignored by the audience and an unthinking pacifier for the film maker.

Maybe with digital projectors, a variable frame rate for projection as well as capture will allow for the film maker to actually use that in a deliberate and thoughtful manner rather than locking it to 24fps because that is they way their dad, grandma and great grandpa did it...

 

[Scott M]

Exactly, if people want the 120hz look, they can buy it.

Bingo!

The idea the the viewer is demanding an anti-24P revolution is ridiculous. 120hz itself is nice, it's the "120hz PLUS motion-flow" interpolation software that makes everything look like a soap opera, and I don't recall anyone pushing to have films look like soap-operas. When I'm at a store that has the "motion-flow" technology on, I'll turn it off to straight 120hz and then people will be like, "ah, looks like a movie again" While they might find the motion-flow "hyper-real" look interesting, it's not some dream come true. The first time I saw it was on an in-store display of Hancock, and I thought it was a behind the scenes Entertainment Tonight kind of deal until I realized it was never ending.

I would be interested to hear why the article writer believes it to be a problem at home viewing, and not in the theaters? The only time I hear people complain about motion is when watching films like Cloverfield or the Bourne series, when the camera's flying all over the place.

Is the image we see at the theater any smoother because of the projector, and if so, can that be replicated in the home environment if it is truly worse at home?