24P and the myths

[NateWeaver]

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.

[edit: I give up]

 

[David Rasberry]

LCD TVs are going to higher refresh rates because the instant on/off nature of the technology produces visually fatiguing flicker at lower frame rates. This was not a problem with CRT's due to phosphor persistence, something that is actually engineered to reduce apparent flicker even at 60Hz field rates. One of the reasons I prefer plasma displays to LCD.

I used to shoot 16mm for TV transfer at 30fps to avoid the 3:2 pull down artifacts of the telecines. Talk about weird cadences, for some reason I have always found that particularly annoying.

 

[Robert Sanders]

I think that's why that short made with the Canon 5D was so interesting. It had all the characteristics we love about film (DOF, DR, composition, framing, aspect ratio) and had the smoothness of motion that 30P can provide. I thought I'd hate the "video" motion. But I found the short very compelling and the frame rate the LAST thing I noticed.

James Cameron has recently said that he'd like to see cinema move to 48fps. Particularly for 3D Stereo. In his opinion, the 24 frame rate was the only thing "getting in the way" of an ideal stereo presentation.

 

[GlennChan]

1- I agree with others regarding motionflow 24p->120hz making films look like video. I find it wrong.

I think people may be ok with film being 24p. There are certain cinema conventions... in audio, gunshots are overly compressed to get that roar. Yet gunshots sound very different when recorded straight up... e.g. listen to the sounds in Counterstrike or shooting-relating clips on Youtube... real recordings of gunshots don't sound like what we're used to from TVs and movies.

2- For 3-D, motion doesn't look right to my eyes (I've only seen realD at 24fps). Some people like Steve Schklair (3ality; spelling?) want to see higher frame rates.

 

[Evin Grant]

I don't know about 3D but I found that Canon film to be a joke. Now I think Laforet is a very talented photographer but the short was unimpressive creatively except for the "look at how low light my camera can shoot in" factor. The 30P ruined any cinematic quality whatsoever. 24P is about sur-reality not hyper-reality. And all frame rates are useful to their means, but for story telling nothing can replace 24P.

Anecdote alert!
A few months ago I wandered into Costco for a gallon of mustard and noticed a 120HZ flat panel on display showing Pirates 3 on BluRay. I was horrified, it looked like something shot in vegas on a handycam. But more importantly a middle aged woman I don't know at all came up beside me and was starring at the image. As a curiosity I asked her what she thought of the picture and she said she though it was broken.

 

[GlennChan]

LCD TVs are going to higher refresh rates because the instant on/off nature of the technology produces visually fatiguing flicker at lower frame rates.

I don't believe that LCDs have an instant on/off nature. The backlight is on all the time* and light is emitted at all times.
*It is possible to drive the backlight on/off to reduce brightness, or for other reasons. But otherwise you can run with the backlight on at all times.

Whereas a CRT is visually fatiguing because only a small area of phosphors is lit up at any instant by a very fast moving electron beam (except when during the blanking intervals and such). Other devices such as DLP and plasma have an on/off nature in the way they are driven.

2- There are different approaches with what to do with the higher frame rates.

a- Do nothing. This is probably what we would want to do for professional purposes.

b- Do black frame insertion. The backlight stays ON all the time, while the picture content will alternate between the source and a black frame. The reason why the backlight has to stay on is that if we didn't, the image would (appear to) flicker.
By inserting black frames, the panel will still take some time to go completely to black and this reduces the appearance of flicker.
BFI cuts contrast ratio in half, since the panel will leak backlighting while the black frame is going.
To my eyes, it looks like this approach will still flicker in certain situations (bright highlight on a dark background in a panning shot).

c- There is a scanning backlight approach, where LED backlights are arranged in rows and a row of backlight is turned off. This dark row moves up/down the image while the LCD's elements are being refreshed with the next frame.
I believe this is what Barco does for its RHDM monitor.
This causes the image to have a slight flicker, even for 29.97 interlaced signals I believe.

b and c reduce the motion artifacts associated with LCDs... things get blurry when they move. This is a subtle effect.

In my opinion, 120hz features are way overhyped and may be something you wish to turn off.

 

[David Rasberry]

LCD turns pixels on and off by rotating metallic crystals 90 degrees with a polarized charge to block the light. There is no in between state, the pixel is full on or full off at any given point in a refresh cycle. Grey levels are produced by varying the on/off time ratio with pulse width modulation at a fast enough refresh rate to exceed human persistence of vision. This is independent of the frame rate of the source, but poor scalers will produce bad artifacts. CRT phosphors glow proportional to drive voltage and have a specifically engineered decay rate when the drive is turned off. Plasmas fall somewhere in between, using a pulsed discharge to excite a phosphor target.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Wow, I'm actually a bit surprised by some of the positions on this. I watched the NHK 8K demo at NAB and came away thinking - okay that looked pretty crisp, but it screamed VIDEO. I believe it was being shown in 60P. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Nothing about it looked cinematic. It had almost zero impact on me. Not to take away anything they are doing. I think it's some very cool technology and for certain applications, I'm sure I would enjoy it. But having just saw Crossing the Line just prior to this showing, they were two different experiences. One felt cinematic, movielike. The other didn't.

Now, is that conditioning? Do I have preconceived notions of what a movie is and anything that breaks away from that is interpreted as wrong? Maybe. But I can't help it. If I were to see some of my favorite movies somehow magically converted as though they had been shot at a different frame rate, I truly believe I would not like the movies as much. As someone said earlier, there is a dreamlike quality to the 24fps. It allows our imagination to fill in the holes, to step away from reality.

Does 24 have its tradeoff/artifacts? Absolutely. Break the panning rules, pay the price. It's not perfect, it just seems to be right for me. And that is why we are at an interesting time in motion picture history because for so many years, film was the main medium for movies. 24fps. Then came digital and suddenly movies were being made all kinds of ways. Video games became popular, TVs changed,etc. The world of moving images is evolving. Audiences are developing new tastes, they are being conditioned by new display technologies. Who's right, who's wrong? Of course the answer is - no one. You like what you like, even if you don't know why you like it. You then seek out the things you like.

I will always have a fascination with 24fps. Maybe in time I will evolve and my sensibilities will change and I'll come to love other ways of viewing images. But right now, I know where my loyalty is. And I certainly respect people who have their loyalties elsewhere. It's what makes us all unique.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

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...

According to such approach, the best way of turning a soap opera into theatrical epic is by dropping every second frame

Cinema look is about story, editing, lighting, DOF, camera work, scenery, grading, acting...and not about flicker. If someone wants motion artifacts, fine - it can be easily done by dropping frames. Does it make it look great? I don't think so. However, even the best interpolation software can not recreate the smoothness of 60p.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

[edit: I give up]

Why? C'mon give your best shot :biggrin:

 

[Scott M]

According to such approach, the best way of turning a soap opera into theatrical epic is by dropping every second frame

Cinema look is about story, editing, lighting, DOF, camera work, scenery, grading, acting...and not about flicker. If someone wants motion artifacts, fine - it can be easily done by dropping frames. Does it make it look great? I don't think so. However, even the best interpolation software can not recreate the smoothness of 60p.

The problem is that the frame rate is usually one of the first things your eye catches. Real life is not lit like a movie, so when you see something at a "reality" frame rate, but lit like a movie, it looks a little ridiculous to me. The 24fps immediately tells your mind that what you're watching is "different" and when mixed with good lighting, creates an aesthetic form of art. When I see 60fps footage or the motion-flow footage with all the hollywood treatment, it looks cheesy, but I guess there are people that like it, just as there are people that like soap operas.

 

[Nathan Troutman]

The problem is that the frame rate is usually one of the first things your eye catches. Real life is not lit like a movie, so when you see something at a "reality" frame rate, but lit like a movie, it looks a little ridiculous to me. The 24fps immediately tells your mind that what you're watching is "different" and when mixed with good lighting, creates an aesthetic form of art. When I see 60fps footage or the motion-flow footage with all the hollywood treatment, it looks cheesy, but I guess there are people that like it, just as there are people that like soap operas.

And what you said here is why I put this article up for all of you to read. Because we "assume" that people won't be able to believe in the fantasy of film if it's not shot at 24P. And we talk about the art and dreaminess of 24P - creating this illusion etc. And of course any higher frame rate just screams evil video. But what if there's a new generation of movie-watchers that aren't conditioned to associate 24P in the same way? What if they want to see crisp, clear, & smooth?

The point of me posting this article is to show that there is a growing movement on the viewer side of this world that DOESN'T love 24P and is in fact trying to FIX it. The guy that wrote this article doesn't read in this forum and isn't a DP and so he's not conditioned to our preconditions. He's a viewer. And he clearly doesn't like 24P. This article isn't FUD. It is an explanation why frame interpolation is a good thing. So the question remains, would viewers actually accept and maybe even welcome a movie that broke from tradition and shot at 48P?

 

[NateWeaver]

The guy that wrote this article doesn't read in this forum and isn't a DP and so he's not conditioned to our preconditions. He's a viewer. And he clearly doesn't like 24P. This article isn't FUD.

The author in that article is more obsessed with tech than any viewer I've ever known. I'm not sure I'd call him an accurate cross-section of the movie going public.

 

[Scott M]

would viewers actually accept and maybe even welcome a movie that broke from tradition and shot at 48P?

I would like to see an example of this, as I wonder if it would bridge the gap between what we perceive viewing a 24fps film at the theater, and what we see 24fps at home, since apparently there is a difference between them.

 

[Michael Ragen]

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.

Right on! This is exactly my feeling.

I think people that don't like 24fps don't have any imagination and therefore can't blend two frames together in their head... People don't want to have to work for anything, even if its better.

I don't want my work to look like real life. I can stand on the sidewalk and watch that with my own two eyes.

If I shot sports, then yes, I would want 1 billion fps.

 

[Nathan Troutman]

I think people that don't like 24fps don't have any imagination and therefore can't blend two frames together in their head...

By your logic we should shoot 8fps that way we could have more imagination in those gaps. It's funny that we did abandon 12fps in favor of 24fps. Why is doubling it again so unbelievable? But I'm sure there were people at the time saying, "why do you want to hear what the actors are saying. It ruins the illusion of the movies and makes it too much like real life."

And to the book reader. Remember eventually we decided to make movies and ever since the book lover has been screaming, "you're killing the imagination of the reader! People are lazy because they just want the story right in front of them rather than creating it with their imaginations! Funny that's what I'm hearing again except this time to defend a frame-rate. So I'm to believe it's the 24 frame-rate that creates imagination. Sorry guys, this sounds like a bit of a stretch. Art evolves. 24 was not developed because of art - it was developed because of money and technical limits.

 

[Michael Ragen]

Of course it is a matter of taste...

Art evolves, to a point.

Although I haven't seen a painting that was created in the past couple hundred years that is any better than some that came before.

Photoshop hasn't made any artists better, and neither has the invention of a new pigment. Its just new tools.

I'm sure someone will find a unique way to make 48fps or whatever work really nicely. It might be a 3d animated Pixar feature, who knows.

There are always breakthrough artists who will define an era by doing something different.

Although if someone were looking back from 300 years in the future, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the guy known as the creator of the Soap Opera.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

And when we have cinematographers experimenting with different fps for projects, we can have the viewers vote with their feet and wallet. Until, we have to stick to the standard and no point complaining about it, and certainly no point asking for a stupid standard like 30fps which is incompatible with most of the world.

Graeme

 

[jpp]

By your logic we should shoot 8fps that way we could have more imagination in those gaps.

You might be surprised at how much information can be discarded, while retaining the dramatic integrity of the work, which can't be said of higher frame rates, as anyone who has seen a theatrical feature on a 120hz LCD can attest.

Consider Pixelvision, the "toy" camcorder which can't be delivering much more than 50-100 lines at 15fps. Dramatic material shot with this camera can be highly absorbing, not least because the look is so mysterious and molecular. [This would include films by Michael Almereyda ("Another Girl, Another Planet"; "The Rocking Horse", "Nadja"). "Another Girl" was of sufficient interest to David Lynch, for Lynch to produce this guy's feature.]

Clearly, the specs of this material are terrible, and nobody's suggesting that Red produce a monochromatic 0.1K camera . But human physiology doesn't care, and compensates accordingly. In some cases, the poor specs are a source of stimulation and involuntary fascination.

And if the audience is your true measure, 24p motion artifacts are a matter of complete indifference to most audiences, if they even notice. When mini-DV began to be transferred to 35mm, there were all kinds of terrible motion aberrations, including ghosting, as the labs struggled to master the process. Audiences didn't care in the least, and you never heard a word of complaint. It was never even remarked on.

So I'm to believe it's the 24 frame-rate that creates imagination. Sorry guys, this sounds like a bit of a stretch. Art evolves. 24 was not developed because of art - it was developed because of money and technical limits.

I'd say it was more of a happy coincidence. And since we already know a good deal about frame rates, higher rates would seem an unlikely place to look for innovation and evolution. Try the writing first, if you really want the art form to evolve....

 

[Steve Gibby]

I'm simply not hung up on needing to shoot 24p for everything I work on. I shoot a wide variety of genres, sub-genres, and styles. Before each production, or portion thereof, I analyze what frame rate best helps tell the story, and then analyze each portion of the production the same way - keeping in mind that the delivery requirements for the medium (projection, television, panels, etc.), and definitely in respect to the demographic and taste of the intended audience. Frame rate is just one of many production values used to effectively tell a story, illustrate content, and/or emphasize a shot to the audience.

IMO as artists we should seek to use all the techniques and equipment available to us to effectively convey to the intended audience what we’re trying to tell them - with the whole production, and with each individual shot within it.

Frame rate itself doesn’t make the artist – a huge list of other production values, with frame rate included, can add up to making an artistic expression.

I use 24 fps when it is the best choice for a production or portion thereof, but I don’t hesitate to use lower or higher frame rates when they are the best choice for the production or certain shots in it.

By observation, it seems to me that it is the narrative shooters who traditionally insist on 24p. I think a lot of that has to do with peer pressure, tradition, and the insistence on 24p by the mentors of those who are learning the craft. That being said, narrative production is merely one relatively small percentage slice of the overall motion media production industry production each year, and the production that has been, is now, and will be done with RED One – and Epic and Scarlet to come. In this universe of non-narrative genres and sub-genres RED cameras are used for, there are quite often different frame rates than 24p that are the best choice. Does that make those who choose those alternate frame rates “less artistic”, “less professional”, or a lower caste of the motion media industry? Heck no! I think its time for the narrative/24p crowd to stop looking down their noses at the non-narrative production genres and accept that though 24p is quite often the best choice for what they do, it may not be the best choice for the tens of thousands of other working professionals in the motion media industry who have other techniques, audiences, and delivery mediums to consider! Respect is a 2-way street. Open minds generally develop broader skill sets. I think its time for people here to do a lot less judging others and justifying their own choices, and simply get out there and create the art they feel is best for the medium and audience they produce for. "Horses for courses" gets quoted a lot in reference to equipment choices - but why not for frame rate choices? I think the phrase applies quite well here also.

RED One, and EPIC, and Scarlet, are/will be multiple frame rate cameras, and those multiple frame rates are there for a reason. That reason is to give artists a diversity of expressive choices, enhance their craft, help enable multi-style and multi-genre utility of the cameras, and broaden the utility of the cameras into a multitude of styles and genres within an ever-convergent motion media industry.

I’m an occasional fan of 24 fps when it is the best choice for a production, but beyond that as an artist I’m ultimately a fan of choosing the best frame rate for each particular production or shot sequence in it. If the clients, networks, and studios I work for are happy with my art, and the intended audience is happy with my art, than I could care less what others within the motion media industry say or do. They can do their thing and I’ll do mine…