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"?

For sound they needed to lock to a certain speed. 24fps was the slowest they could go and make the original Vitaphone audio system sound decent.

Many parts of the world will switch over to digital projection in the next 5 years or so, but film projectors will still be around for some time. A projector that's 60 years old still can show a new movie just fine. Quality digital projection equipment is still quite expensive, so for many regions it is not financially viable.
 
Stephen Pruitt said:
Well, digital projection is just around the corner. . . I'm guessing that virtually every theater will have digital projector within three or four years.

...

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.
Stephen
Click to expand...

whoa whoa whoa..... don't get carried away. it's not so straightforward.

yes, it is true that there is potentially a lot of money to be saved with digital distribution (ie. projection) but you perhaps don't fully understand how that market works.

every cinema in the world has made a huge investment in film projectors. switching over to digital projection is yet another huge investment. have you ever noticed how most cinemas these days are multiplexes, often in excess of ten screens? each one of those screens needs a projector, remember.

keep in mind also that cinemas generally don't make much money. in fact, they really are just glorified popcorn vendors. the distributors take such a large chunk of ticket sales that there's often not much left over for the cinema to cover costs. hence the ridiculously high price of popcorn (it's just corn kernels, heated up and mixed with some butter and salt!!:biggrin: )

despite the fact that some cinemas are introducing one or two digital screens - i believe solely because it enables them to advertise 'new digital cinema!' and the general public tend to associate 'digital' with 'high quality') - i think you'll find very few cinemas are actually interested in pursuing digital projection. the idea of outlaying such a huge amount of money - which they don't have - and making all other necessary adjustments, eg. the projectionists (an occupation which will effectively be made obsolete by digital projection) - is enough to make them drag their feet for as long as they can on the issue. it will require a massive campaign from the creators and distributors of the content to convince mainstream cinemas to abandon film projection. which is not to say they won't be better off with digital - cos in fact, they most likely will. they will make significant savings on labour and maintenance. but as you can understand, it's very hard for a business that is barely making a profit to go and outlay a huge amount of money with the hope of saving some in the future.

i say all this having worked as a projectionist and knowing how cinemas operate and management thinks.
 
as for the separate issue of hollywood and other content creators switching to digital recording and abandoning film.....

the impression i get is there isn't yet a satisfactory, universal workflow for working exclusively digital. please, people who are actually working in hollywood, correct me if i'm wrong.

most of what i've seen from the genesis looks like crap. motion smeared, flat colours... yuck. as great as it is - and will be - RED still doesn't have a satisfactory workflow. i'm not saying it has to be flawless, but the consensus i hear in my neck of the woods is that its causing people grief. they still love it, and want to keep working on it, but there's still too much shit to be worked out before it really takes over (and barring any similar competition, i reckon it will).

a good producer is going to stick with a workflow they know, that everyone knows, that everyone is familiar with, combined with an aesthetic that everyone is familiar with. they are unlikely to just jump over to a format that is still developing just for some potential cost savings. they're going to sit on the sidelines and let the pioneers work out the kinks. hell, it hasn't even been that long since recording RAW digital images became an option! now RED are working on freakishly massive sensors that make the IMAX frame look like a cheap handycam - which is great - but which also illustrates how rapidly the digital realm is evolving.

what i'm trying to say of course is it's too early to announce the death of film. sure, i think one day it will be comprehensively superseded by digital, but i don't think we can really put a timeframe on it yet. because it's not just the technological factors that are relevant, we have to also factor in how it is practically applied to an enormous industry.
 
Higher frame rates -> more for VFX

Higher frame rates -> more for VFX

Even with digital projection and acquisition making higher frame rates cheaper, there's also the aspect of post-production to contend with.

If you have a picture that involves a lot of compositing work, increasing the frame rate can dramatically increase the amount of time required to get a shot right. Same goes for 3D, where standard compositing tricks might break the 3D illusion.

I think many directors will have trouble justifying the added expense, and end up sticking to 24p. As a content viewer, I don't think higher frame rates would interest me.
 
Well at any rate I can't see it happening within the next decade, if at all. I know things are further along in the States, but here in Australia and in most of the rest of the world too (from what I gather). Cinema projection is still overwhelmingly film based. Digital projectors account for a tiny, miniscule minority of screens. And most cinemas have no desire to spend the very large amounts of money required to switch to digital.

Will it stay like that forever? I doubt it. But I imagine it will be distribution costs that push things fully over to digital in the end. The cost savings of sending out Ones and Zeros over the world (instead of costly film reels) are to great to be ignored forever.

As for the 24fps standard, I have a feeling that will kick around for a long time. People like 24fps, I doubt they want to see it replaced with video-like super-smooth motion.
 
I never understood why anyone would go beyond 24fps for projection.

And then I saw a demonstration by the BBC using 50 and 100fps.

It is hard to explain, but 100fps has a totally different asthetic from 24fps. Pictures seem more crisp, especially with movement. Pans are much smoother, without looking video. Great for anything with action.

But will it happen? The one doubt I have is broadcast - the stations try to cram as many channels into the bandwidth as possible, and if one broadcaster can decide between 1 channel with 100fps or 4 with 25fps, I doubt that aesthetics are the first thing they´ll think about.

As for cinema - I believe it can be helpful for certain stories, especially actionfilms, or where you want it to look as realistic as possible.
 
This scheme sprouts up as regularly as mushrooms after a Spring rain.

Personally, and I'm in no small majority as most viewers prefer 24/25 fps for drama, I find higher frame rates unpleasant. Of course opinions vary.

I fear that the universal adage that, "more must always be better," will ultimately prevail and we'll be viewing at some higher frame rate. After all, we now feature 32oz soft drinks and 2000 calorie hamburgers.

As Yogi Berra said, "it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future," but I'd not be surprised to see this happen with a new type of Matrix-meets-video-game "blockbuster" motion picture shot at XXX fps and shown in select theaters to haul in an audience increasingly interested in watching their giant screen displays at home.

Good shooting (at your favorite rate) and best regards,

Leo
 
Thanks all. . .

There was an announcement here a couple of weeks ago in the Kansas City star about two major theater chains (Dickensen and AMC) moving to all digital theaters within four years.

The comment about the rest of world hanging back might be very true. That's a lot of money. However, I seriously doubt if any movie I ever make will play anywhere but the good ol' USA. Heck, I'll be very happy if they play on iTunes.

Since I'm a self-funded filmmaker, and I'm fast running out of funds, I'm going to have to make these next two cameras last us for a very long time. I'm hoping they'll make it at least five years. Accordingly, although I truly want to buy one Scarlet FF34 and one Epic-X or Epic FF34, I don't think I'll be able to get away with it. And then there is the whole 3D monster. . . I suspect that that's just around the corner, as well.

Alas. . . decisions, decisions. . .

Stephen
 
Generally I wouldn't enjoy drama being shot\shown at 48/60 fps.

But I think these speeds would work great for films like Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project. :sorcerer:

It all depends on the type of content and the feeling and impression that the filmmakers want to invoke into an audience.

24fps won't disappear, it will just become one of many possible artistic\aesthetic choices.

Same with film. It won't disappear, it'll just lose the monopoly and remain one of many options for filmmaking.

Freedom and options can't be bad.

Just my 2c.
 
Just because one may do a thing is not a sufficient reason for actually doing it.

I'm very happy, overjoyed even, with my stereographic vision and I can glimpse a wondrous future for 3D in many fields of medicine and research, and even video games and thrill rides, but for main stream motion picture entertainment, I remain very skeptical.

I can't think of any 3D movie I've seen that did not make me want to bolt from my seat screaming in agony. OK, not that bad, but pretty damned bad. "Golly, another spear point thrust into the audience;" well, who would have imagined that!

Stephen, you make wonderful stories with your Red cameras in 24 fps 2D and the world will beat a path to your cinema. You don't need no stinking 3D.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
24 is a good trade off between temporal resolution and portability. It keeps files smaller, and still delivers pretty good quality. I understand the complaints, but I just don't think that the judder is a big deal.
 
Stephen Pruitt said:
T
Since I'm a self-funded filmmaker, and I'm fast running out of funds
Click to expand...

My theory - if you're a self-funded filmmaker, stay 24fps.

1. more rec time
2. less rendering for edit, grading, etc
3. less frames to roto for special effects, etc

Going above 24fps plays to the strengths of the studios. They have plenty of expensive computers to render / online on, plenty of money for RED-RAM, etc. That's why I think I'll be finishing 24fps 1080p for a while to come... as an artist I need interactivity and responsiveness in the finishing process.

Finishing 48fps 4k requires 8x the computing power to get the same interactivity and responsiveness. And usually 8x the computing power costs more than 8x. You're on the wrong side of the cost / benefit curve. We're approaching the point where we can do heavy 24 / 1080p realtime effects on commodity hardware. Heck, commodity LAPTOP hardware. Why throw that away?

Only reason I can see for going > 24fps or > 2K / 1080p is as a marketing gimmick for your film. But damn if it isn't an expensive one. Why not come up with a killer original plot idea instead?

Stephen Pruitt said:
I'm going to have to make these next two cameras last us for a very long time.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can bet on that. They'll be like DSLRs - continually improving for the foreseeable future. The top of the curve perhaps isn't the best price/performance place to be. Why don't you just get 2 Scarlets (FF Monstro seems nice for the dynamic range) and buy some sweet lenses, tripods, jib, lights, filters, gels, microphones, etc and spend money on crew. Those will all last you longer than 2 digital cameras.

Again, just my 2c.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
For a distributor of stock footage who is trying to make every shot work for every project, both 24fps and interlaced footage is problematic, especially for compositors who want to rotate, scale, and re-position the image. I wish 30p was the standard, it is the most requested format for us. I for one, will continue to shoot 30p.

Just the point of view from my world.

Phil
http://www.artbeats.com
 
Another good reason to stay with 24fps (or 25/30), is better exposure (especially in low light level situations)- when exposure time goes down more light is needed....
 
Alex.Mitchell said:
24 is a good trade off between temporal resolution and portability. It keeps files smaller, and still delivers pretty good quality. I understand the complaints, but I just don't think that the judder is a big deal.
Click to expand...

The judder is a result of converting 24fps material being displayed on 60Hz displays (in NTSC land). There are some modern displays that have a refresh rate of 120Hz, which is evenly divisible by both 24 and 30, so no pull down is required during playback, thus no judder.
 
Tom Visser said:
The judder is a result of converting 24fps material being displayed on 60Hz displays (in NTSC land). There are some modern displays that have a refresh rate of 120Hz, which is evenly divisible by both 24 and 30, so no pull down is required during playback, thus no judder.
Click to expand...

I've never understood this argument. I've seen plenty of movies in the theatre that "strobe". It's an artifact of low temporal resolution, particularly with shorter shutters, not the 2:3:2:3 pulldown.
 
Yeah, I hate strobing, but I also hate that soap-opera look. It's just awful!

A lot of great points were made for going with 24fps. . . and I sure don't like 3D personally. . . I guess I get the film into my head enough without it getting into my eyes, too.

:-)

Suddenly, I'm swinging back more toward two FF35 Scarlets. . .

. . . geez. . . this is messy.

On the upside, I'll probably have well over a year before these things really start shipping. I'd love to be wrong. . . but I don't think that a quick shipment date is likely to be in the cards.

Thanks again for all of the input.

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