Ian Laurie
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 526
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Ultimately its going to take a Jackson or Spielberg or Lucas to say, yes you can broadcast our film, but it must be at 24 fps.
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
24 FPS
- Thread starter Tom Lewis
- Start date
Brodie Gwilliam
Well-known member
I agree with you 100% Ian
No, it was not. It was based on asking the question what's "better" about what you're proposing that makes it worth the effort and, yes, the cost of implementing, especially when you consider that the vast, vast majority of the viewing public does not consist of people who care at all about such things. But apparently you missed that.
If there is ever a widespread, agreed upon method for broadcasting UHD or something beyond that, perhaps this stuff can be part of the discussion. But there is no fiscally or socially responsible way to change the current SD/HD infrastructure without the change representing something of real, significant benefit to the general public. That is what I don't see.
Nick Gardner
Well-known member
Yeah, because we can all really tell a huge difference between 23.98 and 24. I mean, jeez, I can't count how many episodes of Walking Dead I turned off because they were all in stupid 23.98. Or man, this one time, at film camp, we were all watching like The Shining on on VHS and I was all like"turn this shit off! it's got 2-3 pulldown. that shits for assholes man." I got kicked out of film camp.
What a ridiculous thing to be arguing about.
What a ridiculous thing to be arguing about.
Maik Müller
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2009
- Messages
- 2,034
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Dresden, Germany
- Website
- www.maikmueller.de
This stupid 50/60hz-crap always leads to problems... I remember how the first batches of flatscreens had problems to display 25/50hz-stuff correctly or do a 3:2-pulldown.
Things got better now and i was happy when Blu-Rays finally stopped that regional speed-up-shit, finally 1080p/24 (yeah 23.98 mostly) for everyone.
European digital tv not using the chances to make things right while making their HD-standards was a big mistake. Why the hell didn't they just allow all formats and switching in program, depending on content? The tip of the ice-berg are the two big german tv-stations, which decided 720p50 is the best format. They're still airing in it (and are quite alone with it) and don't even produce content for that. Because they need to sell their content internationally, so they produce stuff like a soccer world cup in 1080i and do wild conversations which gave the germans the worst version of all (something you would call 540p upscaled to 720p).
Whatever.... Shooting movie-style, i like the look of 24p, i use it often and i'll stay with that unless i'm forced to use 25p.
Framerate should become a tool for creating styles, we should be able to change fps within a movie. Using different fps for different scenes would give us so much more room for experiments and would probably end up in a higher acceptance for HFR-stuff too.
Things got better now and i was happy when Blu-Rays finally stopped that regional speed-up-shit, finally 1080p/24 (yeah 23.98 mostly) for everyone.
European digital tv not using the chances to make things right while making their HD-standards was a big mistake. Why the hell didn't they just allow all formats and switching in program, depending on content? The tip of the ice-berg are the two big german tv-stations, which decided 720p50 is the best format. They're still airing in it (and are quite alone with it) and don't even produce content for that. Because they need to sell their content internationally, so they produce stuff like a soccer world cup in 1080i and do wild conversations which gave the germans the worst version of all (something you would call 540p upscaled to 720p).
Whatever.... Shooting movie-style, i like the look of 24p, i use it often and i'll stay with that unless i'm forced to use 25p.
Framerate should become a tool for creating styles, we should be able to change fps within a movie. Using different fps for different scenes would give us so much more room for experiments and would probably end up in a higher acceptance for HFR-stuff too.
Russ Fill
Well-known member
Just food for thought:
I have heard that the reason we ended up with 24fps was purely cost effective. In that 24 was the slowest frame rate and it still fooled the eye for smooth movement.
I have heard that the reason we ended up with 24fps was purely cost effective. In that 24 was the slowest frame rate and it still fooled the eye for smooth movement.
Craig Parkes
Well-known member
The reality is in a web based, non broadcast setting, you can deliver whatever you want. You just can't guarantee a critical number of people will be able to view it correctly, because lack of standardization on PC's and tablets (although due to the massive growth of tablets and the advent of consoles as major platforms for content, the need to aim for lowest common denominator that was around in early days of web video delivery is decreasing, you can choose to cater for classes of device now based on their sales uptake.)
But content creators almost NEVER get a say in delivery specs, in recent times only Peter Jackson/James Cameron have managed to impact the end chain of deliverable for their content, and that's because exhibitors were having to upgrade at the time anyway and they were doing significant lobbying.
Studios pushed 3D out to combat piracy/increase uptake of digital as much or more than content creators did. Thinking that content creators can lead the way on how content is delivered is backwards.
And really, the fact is 23.976 IS the best compromise given the history of all the formats. It's not the best solution (Best solution would have been a universal film and television frame rate and power grid refresh rate rather than the 50HZ/60HZ infrastructure debacle), but having produced a feature film film at 23.976 and done the conversion to 24 myself to author the DCP and knowing that we'll also be doing the conversion to 25fps with a pretty standard speed up, it may be a pain but it's actually turned less work in terms of time spent than doing the manual process of doing the dialogue transcript.
If you have the tools, and the tools needed are now the same tools most people already have to make the film in the first place (rather than bizarre esoteric equipment or hugely expensive turn key software), and you have the basic understanding of whats needed to be done, and you have the internet, you can learn how to do all the deliverables yourself, and the cost to compared to the cost of the the world's broadcasters completely overhauling their systems to work with anything from 1fps to 120fps is fairly minor.
But content creators almost NEVER get a say in delivery specs, in recent times only Peter Jackson/James Cameron have managed to impact the end chain of deliverable for their content, and that's because exhibitors were having to upgrade at the time anyway and they were doing significant lobbying.
Studios pushed 3D out to combat piracy/increase uptake of digital as much or more than content creators did. Thinking that content creators can lead the way on how content is delivered is backwards.
And really, the fact is 23.976 IS the best compromise given the history of all the formats. It's not the best solution (Best solution would have been a universal film and television frame rate and power grid refresh rate rather than the 50HZ/60HZ infrastructure debacle), but having produced a feature film film at 23.976 and done the conversion to 24 myself to author the DCP and knowing that we'll also be doing the conversion to 25fps with a pretty standard speed up, it may be a pain but it's actually turned less work in terms of time spent than doing the manual process of doing the dialogue transcript.
If you have the tools, and the tools needed are now the same tools most people already have to make the film in the first place (rather than bizarre esoteric equipment or hugely expensive turn key software), and you have the basic understanding of whats needed to be done, and you have the internet, you can learn how to do all the deliverables yourself, and the cost to compared to the cost of the the world's broadcasters completely overhauling their systems to work with anything from 1fps to 120fps is fairly minor.
paulherrin
Well-known member
i don't think online delivery is any less controllable... maybe more because discerning viewers take care of their own stuff and it's always updating and i wouldn't be surprised to see better standards... sometime.
on another note, here's an interesting write-up about the latest smpte meeting
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/12/future-ultra-hd-recent-smpte-meeting-update/
on another note, here's an interesting write-up about the latest smpte meeting
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/12/future-ultra-hd-recent-smpte-meeting-update/
Patrick Tresch
Well-known member
Also but another reason was that the motors used for synch in the US where 1440 rpm.
1440/60=24
Pat
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
The argument that 24 fps was chosen because it was the lowest framerate that allowed smooth motion doesn't really make sense since silent era movies were shot at speeds from 16 fps to 24 fps.
What happened was that projectionists in the silent era started cranking movies faster than 16 fps to get more showings into a day, and some filmmakers started cranking their cameras faster than 16 fps, either to counteract what was happening in theaters or for the look. So by the time sound movies were being implemented in the late 1920's, a survey by engineers was done and found that the average movie was being shown at something between 80' and 90' per second (as I recall reading somewhere), which came to be around 24 fps. So they picked that speed in order to standardize frame rates for sound movies.
What happened was that projectionists in the silent era started cranking movies faster than 16 fps to get more showings into a day, and some filmmakers started cranking their cameras faster than 16 fps, either to counteract what was happening in theaters or for the look. So by the time sound movies were being implemented in the late 1920's, a survey by engineers was done and found that the average movie was being shown at something between 80' and 90' per second (as I recall reading somewhere), which came to be around 24 fps. So they picked that speed in order to standardize frame rates for sound movies.
paulherrin
Well-known member
i don't think it's an argument, more of an assertion that (as you mentioned) oversimplifies the situation. i do think there is an aggressively exponential difference as you drop below 24 to 16 to 12 and so on...