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"?

What if, the Matrix for example, had used 24p for the "real" world and 60p for inside the Matrix, instead of a green tint to differentiate them?
 
Sure, that would have been interesting. Same goes for a movie with a flashback structure, the past could be 24 fps and the present 60 fps, to create a difference without using filters, etc. For example, "Slumdog Millionaire" -- you could shoot the present "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire" scenes and the interrogation scenes at 60 fps and the past at 24 fps. Or "JFK" - have all the flashbacks and recreations be at one frame rate and the present time be at another. Or do what "Dark Knight" did for the action scenes (shooting them in IMAX), but do action scenes at 60 fps but the non-action scenes at 24 fps.

But I would be concerned about trying to make a fantasy movie look convincing at hyper-real frame rates, a movie like "Lord of the Rings" for example. Movies like that rely on a certain poetic, dreamlike quality at times, not hyper-reality.
 
Good example of creative uses for framerates David. If each different fps has a different feel, it makes sense to me to use those fps for that specific feel where appropriate.
 
Albert Armes said:
What if, the Matrix for example, had used 24p for the "real" world and 60p for inside the Matrix, instead of a green tint to differentiate them?
Click to expand...

That is an interesting idea. Reminds me of the movie Brainstorm, where real world was depicted with a pan and scan aspect ratio and dream sequences were done widescreen, another example of showcasing technology to impart a feeling in the cinematic aspects of the movie. Delivery and distribution at the time of The Matrix would have been impossible, though, at those frame rates. Still limited and difficult today. Probably not such a big deal in the near future, though.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Trouble is that for narrative fiction, "pure reality" is not necessarily helpful in creating that willing suspension of disbelief.
Click to expand...

I agree. I was more responding to Jeff saying that he was working on a 120fps project to be projected at 120fps for an amusement ride--which I would love to experience.

I would think we couldn't even think about posting a 120fps feature until we can laugh about the good old days of 3 GHZ machines and "only Terabyte drives?!!!"--someone will say "My phone is has more memory than that!"

For now, I'd rather bandwidth and processor improvements go into increasing dynamic range, reducing compression and skew--rather than even resolution.

Where I'm hoping it will go is truly variable projection rates where frame rate is just another artistic choice--just another brush--for film makers.

It wouldn't even have to be hard pushes, "For this film I want 26 for the city scenes, 20 for the flashbacks, and 33 for the fight...", or "I want my film to be 27--just to feel a little different."
 
At some future date a PS-5 will come out. It will be touted as being "indistinguishable from reality" that runs all of the games at up to 120 fps that can only be "truly experienced" on 4K+ displays running at 120hz or greater.

Games are ramping up the frame rates due to processor improvements, at first because they could, but now it is all due to audience demand. This "more is better" mentality for games has yet to be stopped.

For features, I think once the "restriction" is lifted we may see a subtle rise in average frame rates. I agree that narrative needs a "suspension of disbelief" but as techniques and special effects get better and better, there is less to disbelieve. I just think about watching a modern special effects driven movie compared to the original star wars. Sure, if you watch the latest Hulk we still have a long ways to go--but we will get there.
 
Thom Steinhoff said:
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!
Click to expand...

I would like to see it too, from a technical point of view. Not for narrative work.

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

Well, it does look like "video", but different. From what I have seen from the project I'm currently working on, it has it's own look, but I would not describe it as "pure reality" or anything like that. We're shooting 2K 2:1 at 120fps and most of it is getting comped with 120Hz CG elements. I'm not involved with any of the CG or post process on this, but I do know that the panels being used are 120Hz 1366x768 LCDs, I'm not sure who is supplying them.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Sure, that would have been interesting. Same goes for a movie with a flashback structure, the past could be 24 fps and the present 60 fps, to create a difference without using filters, etc. For example, "Slumdog Millionaire" -- you could shoot the present "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire" scenes and the interrogation scenes at 60 fps and the past at 24 fps. Or "JFK" - have all the flashbacks and recreations be at one frame rate and the present time be at another. Or do what "Dark Knight" did for the action scenes (shooting them in IMAX), but do action scenes at 60 fps but the non-action scenes at 24 fps.
Click to expand...


I'm interested in the option of digital projection technology allowing multi frame rate playback for variable frame rate movies. This could enable fps to be another creative tool throughout the motion picture.
 
Thom Steinhoff said:
I agree that narrative needs a "suspension of disbelief" but as techniques and special effects get better and better, there is less to disbelieve.
Click to expand...


With all due respect, sir, but I believe that "techniques and special effects" have a very secondary role for the "suspension of disbelief". :)
 
karapetkov said:
Yes! :)

But I wonder if it would work well in practice - projector ramping up and down on pans, etc.
Click to expand...

It would effective frame rates. The dominant frame rate would run normally, the other accomplished by some pulldown cadence.
 
12 FPS? plenty.

12 FPS? plenty.

Animation houses have been shooting in 12 FPS for years. They shoot two frames per cell for projection at 24.

10FPS is available on most high end digital SLRs, and the computer can do the "tweening" to create any frame rate.

Conversely, if we shoot at 60 FPS, the computer and "un-tween" by simply throwing away every other frame to produce a slower effective frame rate.

the things that will be difficult when speeding up frame rate will be removal of motion blur where long exposures were made. Adding motion blur will present less of a problem, in fact i believe this is already available in VEGAS and possibly other finishing tools.

why? at approximately 44 flashes per second (film projected at 24 FPS is shown twice per frame for 48 flashes per second) we stop seeing flicker. at approximately 44 new images per second, the brain begins to accept the image as "real," most likely because this is the clock rate for human brains.

I recall the first time i saw showscan, i thought i was seeing live actors on stage.

It's gonna be so much fun!
 
karapetkov said:
Yes! :)

But I wonder if it would work well in practice - projector ramping up and down on pans, etc.
Click to expand...


Hm...I wasn't thinking on using it just for pans...

brainburst said:
It would effective frame rates. The dominant frame rate would run normally, the other accomplished by some pulldown cadence.
Click to expand...


No dominant frame rate. No pulldown. Projected as shot. Variable fps digital projection.
 
karapetkov said:
With all due respect, sir, but I believe that "techniques and special effects" have a very secondary role for the "suspension of disbelief". :)
Click to expand...

Not sure I'm due any respect... ;)

Sure, the story, structure, characters, acting, timing have the biggest part in suspending disbelief, but this is a technical discussion about frame-rates and camera technology--so I think it is relevant.

My point was that in the earlier days of film-making, everything had a baseline "fake level" and by the time the film got to the theaters, the (by today's standards) poor quality helped hide quite a bit.

Now days, with people watching 1080p at 6 feet, the "techniques and special effects" have had to greatly improve for everything from set design to make-up. The baseline "fake level" has been dramatically reduced.

Digital animals are almost ready to replace real ones. Digital mattes get better every year and I would argue that green screen, motion control and roto-scoping are already at a point where their intent to have the magic look and feel real is often at a 100% level. Some times it still doesn't ring true to the pro's, but often even the pros can't pick out the augmented reality shots.

When Brad Pitt is digitally altered to look like a tiny old man, from what I've seen on the trailers for Benjamin Buttons--it already looks totally real and the only thing that may take you out of the movie is the constant dialog in your head going "how did they do that?!!!"

So I think techniques and special effects do play a role in suspending disbelief--when Lt. Dan in Forrest Gump lost his legs (even back with 1994 technology) it was special effects that suspended the disbelief of Gary Sinise's reality.
 
I just dont get all the 24 fps versus 50 or 60i stuff. personally i dont see any difference when your talking about motion. I live in Australia so i am not sure if its a case of people in the US comparing 29.97 video or whatever it is against 24 fps films--where as here its 25 versus 24fps.
Am i missing something here as i hear this argument all the time but cant see the difference at all.
 
Well, it can be hard to see differences between 24P, 25P, and even 30P material depending on the amount of motion in the frame... but there should be an obvious difference between those rates and 50i / 60i photography (not broadcast, since 50i or 60i broadcast can use film or progressive-scan photography and convert it to interlaced) since you are talking about a very different set of circumstances -- double the capture rate (50X or 60X per second versus 24, 25, or 30) plus the interlaced-scan aspect involving fields instead of frames.

In Australia, you should be able to see a difference between 25 fps film or 25P video versus 50i video photography, when broadcast as 50i.

In the US, the difference is a little more pronounced because 24P or 24 fps film gets a 3:2 pulldown for conversion to 60i, but even without pulldown, for example, comparing 30 fps film or 30P video to 60i, you would see a difference simply due to having twice as many motion samples with 60i plus interlacing.
 
as someone also living in australia, i just want to say i do see a big difference and i do know what the big deal is, i don't think bigmark should be speaking for all of us (no offence :sarcasm: )......

as for pulldown issues... we still see that too, most of the stuff on television is imported from the us, where of course up until recently it was all coming from an ntsc source, and most tv shows were still being shot on film, and this was being converted to pal..... bloody good thing hd formats will do away with pal/ntsc; shame they can't also find a common frame rate standard (personally i think 25 is better, it being closer to cinema, but the whole point of this thread is 24 may not be the standard forever....)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top