Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

24P and the myths

This is a fascinating discussion.

My personal opinion is 24 all the way. I have never had any problems with it personally, nor in the many films I've watched. I love the look. And I am one of those young people that have been mentioned (I'm 22 and have shot fifteen or twenty shorts).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the film projectors in theatres run at 120 fps effectively - 24p and a 5-bladed shutter.
 
24x2=48

24x2=48

AngusChandler said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the film projectors in theatres run at 120 fps effectively - 24p and a 5-bladed shutter.
Click to expand...

Many 35mm projectors have a two blade shutter and show each frame twice, so you get 48 flashes per second.

The screen brightness cannot be too high or you see flicker, which you can see if the film runs out at the end of the show.

Some 16mm projectors used for video film chains had a 5 blade shutter to reduce flicker on the vidicon camera.

Most 16mm projectors had a three blade shutter since they could project at both 16fps and 24fps, you need three blade for 16fps to get 16*3=48 flashes per second.
 
I agree in the mystery of 24p, almost in the bressonnian way where you show less and people imagine more. But I also believe The 48p or more will create a new illusion, no longer focused in the mystics of the camera which creates a portrait of reality, a painting. It will stress the reality of time as an oppresive continuum and so cinema will have to grow a new body of expression. Just like sound and color changed cinema.
 
24p or death

Everything else looks like a soap opera or reality show.
 
I worked on some tests about eight years ago for a guy named Bob Weisgerber, who owns Metropolis Studios in Manhattan. His system was 65mm, shot at 24 fps OR 48 fps, and projected at 48fps***. Sort of a new twist on Trumbull's system. The advantage was that 35mm prints could be extracted quite easily and different sequences could be "hyper-real", or not.
Not sure how much traction he's gained, but here is a link to his website:
http://www.superdimension70.com/
I agree that the higher frame rates take me personally out of fantasy and into reality. But it's in degrees for me; I can tolerate 30p shown at 480i and 1080i. Beyond that it loses something special.
And I agree with some other here that the effect of some of these new displays is AWFUL.
But to each his (or her) own.
Cheers,
Harry
*** I should note that the print would be 48 DISCREET images per second, not the double-bladed 48 fps variety for 24 fps projection.
 
Imagine one day 'them' perfecting 3-D and of course the frame rate matching 'real life' vision.

That's be one hell of a voyeuristic experience.
 
MrGlory said:
Bingo!

The idea the the viewer is demanding an anti-24P revolution is ridiculous. 120hz itself is nice, it's the "120hz PLUS motion-flow" interpolation software that makes everything look like a soap opera, and I don't recall anyone pushing to have films look like soap-operas. When I'm at a store that has the "motion-flow" technology on, I'll turn it off to straight 120hz and then people will be like, "ah, looks like a movie again" While they might find the motion-flow "hyper-real" look interesting, it's not some dream come true. The first time I saw it was on an in-store display of Hancock, and I thought it was a behind the scenes Entertainment Tonight kind of deal until I realized it was never ending.

I would be interested to hear why the article writer believes it to be a problem at home viewing, and not in the theaters? The only time I hear people complain about motion is when watching films like Cloverfield or the Bourne series, when the camera's flying all over the place.

Is the image we see at the theater any smoother because of the projector, and if so, can that be replicated in the home environment if it is truly worse at home?
Click to expand...

Good point! I walked out of the Bourne movie. Couldn't take the crazy ugly visual images created by the fast pans.

I suspect the industry will move toward a higher frame rate standard over the next generation of filmakers.
cheers
JohnG
 
John Godden said:
Good point! I walked out of the Bourne movie. Couldn't take the crazy ugly visual images created by the fast pans.
Click to expand...

Besides, taking you right into the action, those fast pans in sequences, such as the fight scenes, in films like Bourne, are necessary to hide the defects. It is difficult to perform action, and there are always problems -- have you ever progressed frame by frame through action sequences and noticed anomalies that are undetected during regular play. The action director wants your brain not to be able to see a sequence for more than a minuscule amount of time so that you are not picking up the mistakes and anomalies that happened during shooting.

I thought the action in the recent film Kingdom at the start of the movie was done quite well, to me it appeared I was there in the action, because of all those fast cuts and pans.
 
If you watch the behind the scenes work on the Bourne films, if you stand back and watch it instead of watching the shakycam sequences, it looks like Damon is moving at regular speed, nothing special.

Once you throw the shakycam into it, and all the big slapping noises, your brain registers a super-fast fight sequence.

So the ugly pans and stuff have a purpose.
 
The rate at which images appear in front of your eyes, is the first thing you will notice. When I flip through stations on my television, I can instantly tell what I'm watching by simply looking at the frame rate. 24P - Movie, 60i- Soap opera...

So the argument that frame rate has no bearing on what looks "cinematic" is false. Because of a hundred years of moving images, and thousands of hours of viewing per person, we are conditioned to recognize what makes a film look film like and what makes a soap opera look crappy...

When I see TV's on Best Buy's showrooms I cannot help but cringe at their attempt to lure the average stupid consumer by turning on those interpolation settings on feature films. I picture some dummy who is used to watching smooth sports, wanting his movies to look the same way.

This is an attack on cinema and it should stop!

I guarantee you if all of the sudden movies were all 30 or 60P you'd get a lot of complaints from people in the theaters, asking what is wrong with the projector or why does it look so fake?

24P, just like DOF and Good Lighting are all equally important in the cinematic experience.

You take one away and it cries "indie!" or "low budget!" or "Soap opera!"
 
I once conducted a small, unorthodox, and highly undocumented experiment on a class at the local university I attended. I showed them two short films that had been made by two university students, one that was shot at 24fps and one that was shot at 60i. I asked them to tell me which of these was a "movie" and which one wasn't. They all picked the film that was shot at 24fps. Later, when I asked the class to tell me why they picked the one that was shot at 24fps, and I'll never forget how this was phrased, one young man in the second row raised his hand and said, "Because it looks and moves like a movie."

So my highly illogical conclusion from this highly undocumented experiment was that 24fps has become so burned in to people's brains as being "movie-like" and 60i has become associated with news, reality show, and documentary type media content. I would never in a million years tell anyone that this undocumented experiment proves squat, but it did re-enforce in my own biased mind, that 24fps is still the best frame-rate at which to capture a narrarative story.
 
24p is and has always been a pain in the A... for us European (and a big rest of the World).

We have 50hz and we where pushed by the US imperialism (and studios) to use 60hz 24p shooting method.

I like to see movies on what ever frequencie but now lets make the change for DCP!

Give us 24p/25p/30p DCP!

I know a lot of indie picture that are only planned for DCP or video distribution so 24p as only shooting method doesn't make sence anymore.

Patrick

Ps: I always shoot in 25p even for theater release. I'm European.
 
We have 50hz and we where pushed by the US imperialism (and studios) to use 60hz 24p shooting method.
Click to expand...

Lol

Who was pushing ? It's just the way it is over here.
 
J.R. Hud said:
Lol

Who was pushing ? It's just the way it is over here.
Click to expand...

Not quite. This choice was an economical for you 60hz folk who didn't wanted to use 30p. So the nearest "common multiple" was 24p.

24p was definitly introduced by the sound movie coming from the US.

Now if we have to discuss if movie was a cultural imperialism tool... we will have to argue all night!:sarcasm:

Patrick
 
Tresch said:
Not quite. This choice was an economical for you 60hz folk who didn't wanted to use 30p. So the nearest "common multiple" was 24p.

24p was definitly introduced by the sound movie coming from the US.

Now if we have to discuss if movie was a cultural imperialism tool... we will have to argue all night!:sarcasm:

Patrick
Click to expand...

Hi,

24 FPS is because a sync motor with 60HZ turns at 1440 rpm, very simple indeed.

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