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

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Blurry

Blurry

The first time I saw Crossing the Line, front row NAB07, I was struck by the amount of motion blur inherent in a 1/48th (180° at 24fps) shutter speed. With the clarity of a 4K image it just jumped out. I walked out of the showing and immediately told Graeme and Ted that I thought 60fps would become the standard in our lifetimes.

Lighting needs and storage requirements for 60fps production is a serious issue, perhaps holographic storage and LED lighting will help...

 

[Ethan Cooper]

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.

I remember that, and I actually remember liking it, but it seems I was in the minority.
________
LORAIN ASSEMBLY

 

[Leo Ticheli]

It's pointless to debate personal preferences; that's why they offer so many flavors of ice cream. It is relevant, however, to note that vanilla remains the favorite and by a wide margin.

What I remember about watching Crossing the Line at NAB was after the conclusion; the entire audience sat there in stunned silence. No one I talked to suggested that the frame rate was somehow inappropriate for the story or the beauty of the images. Of course I did not conduct a poll...

Not only is 24 fps preferred by audiences, it's universal, and easily converted for television.

Now if someone hires me to do footage for a video game or some sort of thrill ride, I'll shoot whatever frame rate that's appropriate; in the meantime, I'll continue to shoot 24 fps. It looks best to me and every client I've ever worked for.

One more personal note; as a fledging I too figured that, if 24 fps was good, 30 fps was surely better, so I shot a 35MM spot at 30. No pull down. Sharper, less blanking time. To me, the spot looked like very beautiful video. Something very important was loss by forgoing the 1/48 second motion blur.

As I said, that's the way it looks to my eyes.

Good shooting at your favorite rate and best regards,

Leo

 

[chuck colburn]

The first time I saw Crossing the Line, front row NAB07, I was struck by the amount of motion blur inherent in a 1/48th (180° at 24fps) shutter speed. With the clarity of a 4K image it just jumped out. I walked out of the showing and immediately told Graeme and Ted that I thought 60fps would become the standard in our lifetimes.

Lighting needs and storage requirements for 60fps production is a serious issue, perhaps holographic storage and LED lighting will help...

Yeah Doug Trumbull thought 60 f.p.s. would become the standard also. To the point of creating the Showscan 65mm 60 f.p.s. cameras. It bombed but damn it sure looked good on the big screen.

 

[Brian Langeman]

I think that the CC, the framing, blocking, lighting, etc... all play way bigger roles in the feeling that a film portrays than the frame rate. Generally a LOT more work is put into these areas in features than on TV shows, and that is probably why most people say 24p is the only way to go.

I think it will be variable, and the director will make the choice. Higher and lower frame rates both have their advantages and disadvantages. Lower frame rate means probably a more dreamy feel, better for roto and VFX work on low budgets, and you don't need as much light as you would at higher frame rates. Higher frame rates means more realistic looking (cause the human eye generally has a pretty high frame rate figuratively speaking) smoother pans (or ability to do quicker pans without judder), and sharper looking because of the increased temporal resolution.

 

[androbot2084]

I think the future is variable speed ramping for shooting and projection. Nobody likes to project at 60 frames per second and have their movie look like a cheesy soap opera video yet on the otherhand nobody likes to have their 24 fps footage fall apart and become a blurry mess whenever there is fast action. With variable speed ramping you shoot and project at the frame rate that is appropriate to what your action is going to be.

 

[chris karash]

I can't understand how people are happy with 24 fps, I know it's the standard for film, but when I go see an IMAX, the thing that annoys me the most is the stuttering of motion. 24 fps is not acceptable to our eyes, that's why each frame is flashed 3x so it looks like 72 to avoid flickering. I know back in the day 24 fps was as fast as they could get film to move through the camera, but aren't we beyond that? that "feel" of movies annoys me, when something moves rather slowly across the screen yet i can't track and look at it because it's blury I get pissed. If you are at a movie theater with a 24 foot screen, and the film has shot of a basketball that is 1 foot in diameter bounding across the screen in 1 second (fast, but not too fast) going one frame to the next the ball would barely touch the opposite edge of the last frame, unless it got motion blurred into an oval. Lame.

Playing computer games, even 60 fps annoys me, I cut the resolution of the game so I can get at least 85 for smooth motion. DV is 60 fps, although interlacing sucks it gives far better motion than movies, motion blur sucks. I hope 1080p60 becomes a given in TV's with 1080p120 popping up, that is more important to me than upping the resolution. I can't understand how people say that watching someone crossing the street at 120 fps would take forever, for me it would still be real time, just silky smooth. Lets get some higher frame rate TV's, monitors or projectors to go with these awesome cameras.

 

[Andrew McCarrick]

I think the future is variable speed ramping for shooting and projection. Nobody likes to project at 60 frames per second and have their movie look like a cheesy soap opera video yet on the otherhand nobody likes to have their 24 fps footage fall apart and become a blurry mess whenever there is fast action. With variable speed ramping you shoot and project at the frame rate that is appropriate to what your action is going to be.

Exactly, frame rate changes from scene to scene or shot to shot, based on the look you're after.

 

[Robert Permenter]

DV is 60 fps, although interlacing sucks it gives far better motion than movies, motion blur sucks. I hope 1080p60 becomes a given in TV's with 1080p120 popping up, that is more important to me than upping the resolution.

DV is not 60fps. NTSC video is 30 fps (29.97 actually, but the sake of clarity I'll say 30.) that are interlaced. A field is only half the frame.

I'm still confused as to what you mean by 1080p60 and 1080p120. If you are referring to the refresh rate of the monitor, it is not the same as cranking up the refresh rate on your games. It's almost like a Film projector flashing multiple times to make the motion seems smoother. The source material is still at the frame rate it was encoded at. The monitor is manipulating the source signal and making it fit the refresh of the monitor.

 

[chris karash]

DV is not 60fps. NTSC video is 30 fps that are interlaced. A field is only half the frame.

I'm still confused as to what you mean by 1080p60 and 1080p120. If you are referring to the refresh rate of the monitor, it is not the same as cranking up the refresh rate on your games. It's almost like a Film projector flashing multiple times to make the motion seems smoother. The source material is still at the frame rate it was encoded at. The monitor is manipulating the source signal and making it fit the refresh of the monitor.

ntsc is only 30 fps, but since it is interlaced it basically gets 2 frames in each (even though half the info is missing from each part), so I can deinterlace DV to a 60 fps movie that each still looks good with no ghosting and it plays with smooth motion.

1080p60 is 1920x1080 progressive source, 60 frames per second, can be applied to either the source or the viewing system. but without both being the same spec you're either tossing out extra frames, or repeating them. It seems the TV's are ahead of the source for the most part. Most 1080p tvs you could buy are going to be able to do 1080p60, but from what I have read blue ray can only do 1080p30 or 1080i60. I think some sports is broadcast at 60 fps, not sure if it's interlaced or progressive. A bunch of TV's came out in the last year that are 120 hz, but they just take that blue ray movie you're watching and flash each frame at you 5x, and maybe does some image processing to make motion look smoother and stabilize things. actually watching 1080p120 would require a tv that had a refresh rate of 120 hz and a 120 fps source file. I'm not sure if the tv's are able to accept a 120 hz signal from a computer through hdmi or not.

no consumer camcorders can do even do 1080p60 right now, and that's why the samsung hmx10 is my favorite, it does 720p60 and is less than $400 on amazon. even sony's $3000 camera will only do 1080p30 or 1080i. I'd rather have more frames than more resolution. 1280x720 is still good resolution and still looks good blown up to 1920x1080.

the cheap scarlet does 3k at 120 fps, so ideally you could crop or scale the video a little and play it on one of the 120 hz tvs with 120 unique frames per second. Is this possible? my guess would be maybe if you hooked the camera or computer up through hdmi. or you could send 2 60 hz streams to it alternating and use shutter glasses for 3d, which is what the 3d ready tv's are ready for I think. It sounds like most people here would take that 120 fps footage to slow it down 5x in their 24 fps movie for dramatic effect, but I would love to be able to see that footage spit right back at me at 120 fps playing in real time. With live motion i've never seen over 60 fps, and getting quake to play at 100 fps shrunk down to 640x480 was amazingly smooth, I can only imagine how awesome 120 fps live action would be.

The worst case of motion blur I can think of was in Matrix 2, when all the smiths are fighting neo after he had his bench talk with the oracle. they were doing a circular pan around neo, not even too fast, and if you focus on neo you're all good and it all looks like if you were there. crisp neo and blurry smiths going by in your peripheral vision, but if you have your eyes track and try and look at the smiths going by you they're still blurry blobs where if you were there they would become crisp once you started tracking them, and as a result neo would appear blurry in your peripheral vision. motion blur only works if you have your eyes fixed where the director tells you to, I would like the freedom to look around as i please.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Chris,

You're barking up the wrong tree here. There are indeed applications for higher frame rates. It's fine that you prefer the look of higher frame rates as opposed to 24fps film, many do not. I think as digital projection becomes the norm over the next several years, it will unlock more creative potential for filmmakers who want to explore alternative frame rates for theatrical distribution.

Along with shooting higher frame rates and delivering at those rates comes a lot of other issues. 120fps requires 5 times the storage, CPU power, rendering time, hand-made roto masks, etc.. I'm actually involved in a project right now that is shooting 120fps for delivery at 120fps -- for a simulator ride that is using 120Hz LCD panels. Your comparisons with gaming environments like Quake will mostly fall on deaf ears / blind eyes around here. It's an entirely different sort of comparison.

Currently, some HDTV sets are offering 120Hz features and they scan at 120Hz. However, very few actually accept incoming signals at 120Hz. Blu-Ray is limited to 1080p30 for now and 1080i60 as you said. 1080p50/60 are proposed standards that may be included in the Profile 2.1 spec. But honestly I don't know if 1080p60 will be adopted when 2.1 is ratified sometime this coming year. I fully expect 1080p @ 48Hz to be adopted for delivery of 3D content. No one is broadcasting in 1080p60, most HD broadcasters have gone to 1080i60, some have standardized on 720p60. Some satellite and cable providers have begun to offer PPV and on-demand content at 1080p24 as they're trying to compete with Blu-Ray.

From my point of view, I would much rather see increased color depth and much less compression from digital broadcasts and Blu-Ray before we worry about ramping up frame rates. Not to mention that higher rates are overkill for everything that is out there now.

And one last nit-pick.. Your Matrix 2 example isn't really an issue with motion blur in a literal sense. It's an issue with the FX work. There's a lot of blurring and cheating going on in that scene to simply make the image kinda work. If they had actually used 1000 live actors for all those Mr. Smiths, it would have looked quite different.

Oh, and I'm also pulling these posts to a more appropriate location...

 

[chris karash]

thanks for the info, kindof figured the TV's weren't ready for 120 fps scarlet footage, probably not my computer either, nor does the gerenal public probably care, which is why I only want to do it with my footage delivering to me. With red gaining power quickly, I hope Tv's and computers catch up quick.

can I get any info on where and when I might be able to ride the 120 hz rollercoaster?

 

[Robert Permenter]

ntsc is only 30 fps, but since it is interlaced it basically gets 2 frames in each (even though half the info is missing from each part)

But your not getting 2 frames, just half of the image. I guess it works out because your playing it at 60fps. I just think its over processing image. I don't think your getting any real gains. It really depends on your final output, and how you view it. Anyway as long as you have a good story thats all that matters.

Thanks Jeff. I need to brush up on the Blue Ray standards. Sorry if I pulled the thread off track. I really try not to do that. My apologies.

 

[chris karash]

But your not getting 2 frames, just half of the image. I don't think your getting any real gains. Anyway as long as you have a good story thats all that matters.

software assumes the other half, works great for sports analysis where quality isn't as critical as having 60 shots to look at. playing back back at 30 fps with the 2 fields ghosted on top of each other is no good for frame by frame analysis.

I guess I am in a minority here. I am not in the film industry. I'm not trying to make up and tell a story as much as capture what I see the most realistic way I can, for me to look back on later, or to have another viewer feel like they were there. frames can be dropped, motion blur can be added later if desired for effect. I have played around with a dual still camera 3d setup for some time, not for any job, but so that I can explore a moment frozen in time as though I hit pause in real life. zooming in on a 3d picture and panning around lets you see what you missed, a very different feeling than 2d for me.

My wanting a scarlet is more to capture life in the most realistic way possible, so the closer I get to the infinite frames of real life the better. I would love to have some sweet event captured in 3d with red cameras at high frame rate, so that any frame I could stop and have a crisp 3d still with no blur. A 3d video of the northern lights is also something I hope to do. They're so far away the cameras have to be a few miles apart to see them in 3d, so these tools can let me to see the world in a way that my narrowly separated eyes can't.

$17k for a red one keeps people like me without paying customers away from red, but if I can get an amazing camera for more like $4k, that's a different story. But if I get one, i'll want 2... at least we don't have 3 eyes.

I have not been too excited about blue ray movies or HDTV, except for the planet earth series and Discovery HD channel. For fictional movies, I'd rather have a compressed copy that I can play any time, anywhere without popping in discs. even on an iphone.

 

[Joseph Ward]

playing back back at 30 fps with the 2 fields ghosted on top of each other is no good for frame by frame analysis.

I guess I am in a minority here. I am not in the film industry. I'm not trying to make up and tell a story as much as capture what I see the most realistic way I can, for me to look back on later, or to have another viewer feel like they were there. frames can be dropped, motion blur can be added later if desired for effect. I have played around with a dual still camera 3d setup for some time, not for any job, but so that I can explore a moment frozen in time as though I hit pause in real life. zooming in on a 3d picture and panning around lets you see what you missed, a very different feeling than 2d for me.

My wanting a scarlet is more to capture life in the most realistic way possible, so the closer I get to the infinite frames of real life the better. I would love to have some sweet event captured in 3d with red cameras at high frame rate, so that any frame I could stop and have a crisp 3d still with no blur. A 3d video of the northern lights is also something I hope to do. They're so far away the cameras have to be a few miles apart to see them in 3d, so these tools can let me to see the world in a way that my narrowly separated eyes can't.

$17k for a red one keeps people like me without paying customers away from red, but if I can get an amazing camera for more like $4k, that's a different story. But if I get one, i'll want 2... at least we don't have 3 eyes.

I have not been too excited about blue ray movies or HDTV, except for the planet earth series and Discovery HD channel. For fictional movies, I'd rather have a compressed copy that I can play any time, anywhere without popping in discs. even on an iphone.

I think you might like to do 30fps or 48fps for stereoscopic work. Then you can display it at those speeds or play them on 120Hz. Scarlet 2/3 Fix or Interchangeable, should be perfect for what you may want. Frame rates are a big deal once you go for stereoscopic.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I think 120Hz will ultimately find its way to TV sets everywhere. IMO, it's going to be the next big jump for news and live broadcast specs. As I've seen with my current 120Hz project, playing back footage at 120Hz has a different look to it. It's buttery smooth and a lot sharper (less motion blur) than what we see with 60fps HD. And don't confuse it with the resampled phony 120Hz we get from the internal processing on new 120Hz TVs.

4K is coming as a distribution format for feature films and whatnot at some point too, but I think we'll see 120Hz distribution first. HDTV displays have already dictated this path for us and 2K/1080p @ 120Hz and 4K @ 30Hz will require roughly the same amount of data throughput. As for my 120Hz project, I'm assuming if it takes off, people will be able to go for a ride at a local shopping mall or family entertainment place sometime in early '09. I can't share any details or post images right now. But it's one of those hydraulic system, motion rides. Holds 6 or 8 people inside the capsule, similar to ones that are in shopping malls now that have crappy SD graphics with choppy frame rates. Same thing, better looking video.

Going back to the interlacing thing above with 60 fields vs. 30 frames... Interlacing is a cheat, a parlor trick, but it does offer some advantages for some applications. You will get smoother motion out of 60i than you will out of 30p because with 60i, you are being presented with twice the amount of temporal information in a given amount of time. For live broadcasts, sports, etc.. 1080i60 is visually more appealing than 1080p24/30. On the other hand, for sports and live action content, I actually prefer 720p60 as it doesn't carry the chance of interlace artifacts, even though it is lower resolution. In our current broadcast systems, 720p doesn't bother me and most people can't tell the difference between it and 1080i. Because most broadcasters don't broadcast true 1920x1080, but rather 1280x1080 or in some cases even less. This is commonly referred to as "HD lite" and is something that nearly every cable and satellite provider does to help maximize bandwidth and channel offerings.

 

[Chip G]

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.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssMediaDiversified/idUSN0151561620081001
:bleh:

 

[Thom Steinhoff]

I think 120Hz will ultimately find its way to TV sets everywhere. IMO, it's going to be the next big jump for news and live broadcast specs. As I've seen with my current 120Hz project, playing back footage at 120Hz has a different look to it. It's buttery smooth and a lot sharper (less motion blur) than what we see with 60fps HD. And don't confuse it with the resampled phony 120Hz we get from the internal processing on new 120Hz TVs.

I'd really love to see 120fps played back at 120fps--that would be amazing. Imagine Monstro 5K@120fps played back in 5K at full fps!

I don't think it would look like video at all--Just pure reality that you couldn't take your eyes off of.

 

[Mark K.]

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssMediaDiversified/idUSN0151561620081001
:bleh:

As has been mentioned several times in this thread, we're talking about the the whole world. North America is already far ahead of everywhere else as far as digital projection is concerned, and getting further ahead by the day.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think it would look like video at all--Just pure reality that you couldn't take your eyes off of.

Sorry if this point has already been made... Trouble is that for narrative fiction, "pure reality" is not necessarily helpful in creating that willing suspension of disbelief. The more real a format gets, sometimes the more fake what's in front of the camera looks -- sets, costumes, even performances. It all looks so real that we become aware of the artifice of the situation, the unreality of it.

Not to say it can't be overcome, both by re-conditioning the viewer and by upping the quality of the production elements, but it seems such hyper-real formats need to be coupled with projects where it may enhance the experience rather than distract from it.