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 :)

Does anyone expect the cinema market to move beyond 24fps as "the standard"?

Stephen Pruitt

Stephen Pruitt

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
3,309
Reaction score
40
Points
48
Website
www.thetreemotionpicture.com
Does anyone expect the cinema market to move beyond 24fps as "the standard"?

Hi all. . .

I'm my thinking about the new RED offerings, I have come upon this, I think salient, question:

Is the current 24fps standard likely to stay the standard for the next five or so years? Or will we eventually move to a 60 or even 120fps world within that time?

I ask this question because it will determine whether one really wants to go for a Scarlet instead of an Epic or Epic-X. My original thinking was to buy one FF35 Scarlet and one FF35 Epic. But, since Scarlet can only shoot at, at most, 30fps, if the world transfers to a 60fps or 120fps "standard," I'd be totally out of luck with a Scarlet. In that case, I'd be much better off spending more money and having the ability to shoot at 60 or 120 (or even higher).

Being an economist by trade, I'd definitely like to save the money. But I also don't want to be penny-wise and pound-foolish and miss out on a developing technological trend.

So. . . what do you think? Will the cinema standard stay at 24? Or move to some higher speed in the next five years?

Thanks much.

Stephen
 
I don't see the world moving beyond 24fps for some time , it seems right. I don't want everything to look and feel like a video games. 24fps is what contributes to that dream like quality you get when watching a movie as opposed to TV or VIDEO
 
I can't see any reason why anyone would want to move past the 24fps standard. Considering most people in Hollywood can't even get passed not shooting on film, I sincerely doubt that we'll be seeing a non 24FPS world any time in our lifetimes. 24fps is 'natural' feeling and there's really no advantageous to changing it.

PLUS, the scarlet just like the epic will be modular - for all we know if 60 FPS did for some hypothetical reason, red might get right on developing a brain for the scarlet so that we might shoot 60FPS on it. I mean that is the whole point of a modular design after all, to be able to use the same camera and just improve it over time!
 
at least 48fps would be nice for 3d.
 
What's the advantage of 48fps for 3d?
 
It's not like the issue hasn't come up in the last 80-odd years since sound-on-film locked the 24fps standard. Cinerama originally ran at 30fps. Showscan was a 60fps system and there was a proposed 48fps concept about a decade ago.

Certainly it will be a lot easier as we move into the age of digital projection to change this standard, but I question if the change is needed or even desired. The look of 24fps is an artifact, but it is one that people have grown accustomed to and associate with a certain type of visual content. Just like a 50i or 60i image feels more immediate and "video-esque" like the local news or a live event. A few years ago MTV experimented with producing one of their award shows in 24p and it was generally considered a disaster. It just felt wrong, like it was a prerecorded show instead of a live event. They went back to 60i after that.

Most of the huge popularity of the DVX100 when it came out was its 24p capability. One director said it best to me when switched between 24p and 60i on the camera and said "cinema" (24p) and "porn" (60i). I kinda think that says more about him than it does the medium, so I usually say "soap opera" instead, but you get the point.

All this could change in a decade or so, but that's forever away for this discussion.
 
I think that once we see digital projection pass the tipping point, we'll see someone start to push the frame rates.

I'm not sure where I read it, maybe here somewhere, about James Cameron pushing for 48fps. Maybe he'll be one of the pioneers.

As theaters are using 3D to draw in audiences as they did THX in Decades past, we may find that beyond 3D they wrap "Hyper Reality" or some other term around what basically boils down to high frame rates.

Personally, I'd like to see it as just another tool on the belt--just as aspect ratio, camera choice, color, shutter speeds and everything else we get to choose.

I'd even like to see real time projection ramping where you could push it to 48 or higher during certain high intensity scenes and have different scenes running at different rates--just as you may switch film stocks or shutter speeds.

Actually, this may bring us full circle where hand cranked movies essentially had variable frame-rates as they would end up cranking faster during the exciting times.

These digital days are exciting times.
 
Mitch Gross said:
It's not like the issue hasn't come up in the last 80-odd years since sound-on-film locked the 24fps standard. Cinerama originally ran at 30fps. Showscan was a 60fps system and there was a proposed 48fps concept about a decade ago.

Certainly it will be a lot easier as we move into the age of digital projection to change this standard, but I question if the change is needed or even desired. The look of 24fps is an artifact, but it is one that people have grown accustomed to and associate with a certain type of visual content. Just like a 50i or 60i image feels more immediate and "video-esque" like the local news or a live event. A few years ago MTV experimented with producing one of their award shows in 24p and it was generally considered a disaster. It just felt wrong, like it was a prerecorded show instead of a live event. They went back to 60i after that.

Most of the huge popularity of the DVX100 when it came out was its 24p capability. One director said it best to me when switched between 24p and 60i on the camera and said "cinema" (24p) and "porn" (60i). I kinda think that says more about him than it does the medium, so I usually say "soap opera" instead, but you get the point.

All this could change in a decade or so, but that's forever away for this discussion.
Click to expand...

I think a big reason filmmakers want to shoot 24fps is because it's something you had to shoot on expensive film to get. anyone could shoot 60i and so it was considered cheap. Well, nowadays any schmo can shoot 24p
and i think the generation growing up now will not have that same bias we all grew up with. and they're also growing up with video games where frame rate is an often brought up, and 60fps is the preferred look, so it's a concept all these kids understand.

In response to the OP, no, no one expects a move beyond 24fps in the next 5 years. As long as movies are still shot and projected on film, 24fps will be the standard, and for the next 5 years, that will still be the way things work. HOWEVER, within the next 10 years... who knows. I know I prefer the look of 24fps for "stories" and 60fps for "reality" (sports, news, live shows), but James Cameron apparently wants a 48fps standard, so there you go.
 
I hope we aren't moved beyond 24 as the "standard". Higher fps will work for some content, but 24 just feels right for the majority of cinema content. I wouldn't want to see a movie like No Country for Old Men, or even The Dark Knight in anything over 24/25 fps.
 
Thanks for all your comments.

Well, digital projection is just around the corner. . . I'm guessing that virtually every theater will have digital projector within three or four years.

All of this discussion has me thinking more toward two Epic FF35s just now. I can't imagine bit depth changing beyond 16 over next five to ten years, hence I doubt if we'll see very much in the way of increased dynamic range in camera over that same time period. But I can see frame rates going beyond 24 happening.

I honestly don't think they'll be using film for much of anything within three years. There is just way too much money to be saved by staying in the digital realm. And, let's be real, there's almost no reason to shoot film when the theaters are all digital. Any advantage that film did have would be lost in the AD conversion. Nope. I think it's really just about over for film. And I think it will happen much faster than anyone believes right now (except maybe Jim!).

That will be two Epic FF35s for NEVER2LATE Productions, please.

Stephen
 
Thom Steinhoff said:
I think that once we see digital projection pass the tipping point, we'll see someone start to push the frame rates.

I'm not sure where I read it, maybe here somewhere, about James Cameron pushing for 48fps. Maybe he'll be one of the pioneers.

As theaters are using 3D to draw in audiences as they did THX in Decades past, we may find that beyond 3D they wrap "Hyper Reality" or some other term around what basically boils down to high frame rates.

Personally, I'd like to see it as just another tool on the belt--just as aspect ratio, camera choice, color, shutter speeds and everything else we get to choose.

I'd even like to see real time projection ramping where you could push it to 48 or higher during certain high intensity scenes and have different scenes running at different rates--just as you may switch film stocks or shutter speeds.

Actually, this may bring us full circle where hand cranked movies essentially had variable frame-rates as they would end up cranking faster during the exciting times.

These digital days are exciting times.
Click to expand...


Heyyo,


I agree with your logic! The more I think about it the more I'm realizing you're right -- there shouldn't be a standard at all - it should be as most aspects of filmmaking already are - an artist creatively determining what's appropriate for their work.

There's no real reason you can't shoot on higher framerates as it is currently if you're planning on an Internet or small indi release.
 
as i recall:

24 fps when first introduced - was more of an economic choice than an artistic one. to save stock. full stop. in fact, as that standart was decided, the technicians/developers wish was for a much higher fram rate - because of flicker.

so in other words - 24 fps was decided by a suit - not an artist.

tanner
 
When we move to all digital projection, there will be no "standard" frame rate. Shoot the frame rate you want (could be 24, 48, 23, 27, whatever), place frame rate in metadata (could even change doing the film if need be), projector detects rate from metadata and projects at that rate. Audio is mixed accordingly. Frame rate can't be manually overriden...
 
24fps will be around for a long time. Much longer than film. A Scarlet purchase is still a safe bet, and will produce content suitable for at least the next decade.
 
Christian Tanner said:
as i recall:

24 fps when first introduced - was more of an economic choice than an artistic one. to save stock. full stop. in fact, as that standart was decided, the technicians/developers wish was for a much higher fram rate - because of flicker.

so in other words - 24 fps was decided by a suit - not an artist.

tanner
Click to expand...

Really? I think it had more to do with sound? Most of the silents were done at 18 fps I think.
 
Craig Ryan said:
Really? I think it had more to do with sound? Most of the silents were done at 18 fps I think.
Click to expand...


Hi Craig,

That's what I awlays heard, too. It was the speed required to lay down a high-quality soundtrack, had nothing to do with "suits" and saving film stock.

-Fran
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top