Frame Rates in Cinema and Television

[Marc Wielage]

Also the reason why america is not doing 25p is the US electric standard of 120V 60Hz. Simply you get flicker in normal lights tubes etc if you shoot 25fps in the states. And this 60hz standard is also what set the TV standard in the us. First 30fps and then 29.97fps. the last little oddity in frame rate was made due to interference between sound and picture waveslengths in the signal when color was introduced for TV... they sorted the problem with changing the frequency with .03 hz... Not an odd thing to do for a country that got yards, feet, inches and gallons.

I agree with most of your points, but be aware that 24fps is the world standard for cinema and has been for about 90 years. Traditionally, American news, documentary, and reality shows have been shot at 29.97fps, which is perceived as a more "live" look; most scripted programming is done at 23.98, though we had a long period where videotape sitcoms were done at 29.97.

Another funny historical note: the guys who established the NTSC color standard who ruled that we had to switch from 30fps B&W to 29.97 for color later found out about ten years later that it was unnecessary. They could've stayed at 30fps (locked to AC line current) with hardly any color subcarrier interference at all on B&W receivers. But... by then it was too late. Interestingly, Japan has gone with 30fps for post on some shows; I dunno what the norm is these days.

I agree with the previous answers that shutter rate has a lot to do with "smooth" motion perception. But I also think the blur of 24fps is a valid artistic choice. Maybe having no blur is not necessarily a plus for comedy and drama. Go back and read some of the criticisms on The Hobbit: I can recall quite a few reviews that said they thought the movie looked like "a cheap cable sitcom," which I think was a little unfair but also understandable.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Peter Jackson made 48 fps pretty much it, no? Also he did so with 360 shutter.So he could still get a master in 24p 180 shutter from his 48p capture. To me that did not look good in 48p and I can not say I liked the fast camera moves in 24p either.

24-25fps is to me a gold standard it makes it possible for the eye to see the texture of each frame but still have enough frames to cover for motion up to a speed which the eye can follow. The way 24-25p let us pan a full frame in about 7 seconds or swish pan under 2.5 seconds is quite nice. With higher framerates those numbers become all different and I like what could be hidden in a swisch pan, 25p 180shutter behaves quite the same as our own eyes when you spin your head quick your vision is blured, or atleast my vision is blured in about the same way. Possibly some people have some sort of super eyes and like 120fps for the same reasons but I´m not one of them.

One of the first times I worked in the states I was there to VFX sup for a Nike Campaign. This was 17 years ago and I did not then quite understand the reasoning behind 3:2 pulldown, 24p filming and all that. So instead of stepping back and listen to people who know better I instead convinced the DP, producers and the rest involved to shoot the films in 30fps and then telecine to 25fps 601 (my idea was then we get better resolution and can pan around in the frames) as pal has slightly bigger frames than NTSC. Then we would master on 30fps NTSC D1 tapes after all the post was done. Long story short, at the time that stuff was quite a trick to get trough the pipe, offline, sync sound, grading composting and mastering all jumping between different frame rates and resolutions... and in a total we did 20+ VFX heavy films like this in a really short time. And in the end the stuff looked really strange like a mix between shit video and super35 50 ASA film. Now these films had the really rapid camera moves and should benefit from the extra frames per second but I very much prefer straight 24p or 25p I can not really say I can see a difference between the two, 30fps playback I find look very different from 25p in a bad way. the 30fps sticks in my eyes as video even on old youtube compressions like on those almost 20 years old nike spots.

Yes, I didn't like as well, but it seems you are referring more to the complications of shooting 30 fps rather than the result. The thing is that all the references we have of 30 fps aren't in anyway close to the type of cinematography that exists in feature films. Having well-lit scenes and a two hour running time with 30 fps on a big screen might not be as bad as people think because there aren't any real references for such a movie shot in progressive 30 fps with a shutter based on that specific frame rate. We already have a reference for 48 fps with the Hobbit and I personally don't like it for 2D, it's perfect for 3D though.

But that 25 fps looks like human vision is an illusion. Our eyes/brains doesn't work like that. Especially if you are in a place without natural sunlight/daylight. Your eyes and brain will adjust to the frequency of the light you are looking at or that's hitting the objects you are looking at. The actual frame rate of the human eye has been "calculated" around 60 - 75 fps, but even that isn't true to how the eye/brain works since it doesn't work in frames the same way as screens and cameras do. That's because of how an object looks as we are following it on the screen. It's affecting the motion blur or being non-motion blur (HFR) when you look at it when a similar motion in real life would look completely different. That's why an extreme HFR video would make people sick, because the eye follows movements that would look completely different in real life.

If playing with frame rates I really like when filming in 33.333fps and then playback in 25fps and stretch audio to fit. The sound change is very possible to get away with and the dreamy feel it creates I really like. I would love to see some strange David Lynch feature done this way all the way trough dont understand that it´s not more commonly used.

It's hard to calculate timing in this way. When directing that's a big part of the job, looking at the monitor and judging if the speed is going to work. It might be cool for certain sequences, just like Andrew Dominik did in the opposite way for Chopper in a cocaine sequence.

Give me 24 or give me death. I utterly despise any other frame rates at all. Film was not intended to look "real." It was intended to be a window to another world. That world, for me, has 24 frames per second.

Stephen

The intention of the early days of cinema might just have been to make it look as real as possible. The notion that film "was never intended" to look real is an individual opinion. I also like the 25 fps (PAL) look, but I'm not afraid to look into other possibilities. I like 48 fps for 3D on a big screen, hate it for 2D on a regular screen. I'm intrigued by the "middle-way" for clarity in 4K using 30 fps instead of going full blown 48 fps.

So you guys like high frame rate? Do you keep the sub frame / smoothning funcion active on your tv sets as well?

Nope, but I think different frame rates have their place in certain situations. 48 fps looks great for big screen 3D, not so much for 2D. 60 - 120 fps works great for VR, but might look even worse than 48 fps on a regular 2D screen. 24 and 25 fps works great for cinema, but as my initial thinking, 30 fps is untested for cinematic work. A film like Bourne would be greatly improved by the slight increase in frame rate and I don't think it's going to look like the Hobbit. I've seen enough games using 30 fps for cut scenes and it looks great. Just check out "The Order" which even mapped the Hawk anamorphics to get the look of old lenses. It has a little too much motion blur, but it still works better than at 48 fps.

It's not about a single defining frame rate for everything. While 48, 60 and 120 fps might have it's places in either competitive gaming, 3D movies and VR, 24, 25 and 30 fps might have it's place in 2D narrative works. 24 and 25 fps may be perfect for lower energy camera work, drama etc. while 30 fps might be great for more action driven cinema or where movement and camera movements are more apparent.

So here's a crazy idea: since cars have gearboxes, and electric cars simulate infinitely varying gear ratios, what about dropping down a gear (boosting the frame rate) during faster moves/zooms, and returning to normal speed when the move is complete. The time base stays constant, to keep sync sane. But framerate can vary during recording, and equally so during playback. Dreamy cine look when most of the action is happening within the frame, and crisper, less juddery look when the frame is doing the moving across the scene. We're all used to downshifting when accelerating in cars...why not movies?

Intriguing idea, it would help action in movies to have more clarity, especially for 4K sharpness, while keeping more slower drama scenes in the realm of cinema as we are used to it.


In essence, I feel that we do not polarize the idea of higher frame rates into either HFR or Classic, I think we haven't really experimented enough yet with the nature of frame rates in movies. I still think 30 fps is an idea that should be tested for narrative 2D films. No one has seen it on a big screen, references to soap operas and similar aren't really viable when comparing to well-lit cinematography projected onto a big screen.

 

[Anton Shavlik]

To play off this idea with something we can do today, how about hdrx with 180 and 360 shutter (i.e. just one stop down), on the camera move shift (nuke node fade) to 360 shutter then fade back to 180 shutter when the pan is over (i.e. go between to the hdr images based on move speed).

Can HDRx work with 360 shutter?

I know Evil Dead II randomly over and under cranks shots in action scenes (this shot 22fps, this shot 28, then this one 26, but all conformed to 24). I know The Grandmaster opens with some shots grossly less than 24 frames per second with massive motion blur. Saving Private Ryan had the small degree shutter for the beach scene POV. I can think of a few other well known examples of mixing frame rates and motion blur for creative purposes, beyond just slow motion and time lapse. Since only recently have theaters been able to playback at larger than 25p rates there's less examples of that but I'm sure we'll have more and more soon.

Another option opened to us is changing aspect ratio, which has been explored by films like Biutiful, Mommy and Grand Budapest Hotel.

It's interesting how powerful but subtle these effects are. I never noticed the aspect ratio change in Biutiful while in Mommy it's unmistakeable. Frame rate and shutter speed are much less obvious to normal theater goers but with the impact of the hobbit being notabily that 'it looked cheap' there's obviously a big new dimension to be played with by DPs.

 

[Mark Phelan]

...it was like reading a book written in comic sans.

Be careful, some camera companies love Comic Sans, even if it was only for a short while.

So I was thinking back to 24 and 25fps cinema but that also made me think about it's limitations. We have a lot of problems with "stutter" when panning, there's a lot of movies looking disoriented and chaotic at that frame rate, to the point you cannot follow the story. So is 24fps really the best frame rate for cinema in 2D? Is there perhaps a better frame rate that at the same time doesn't feel like "comic sans" 48 fps?

There you go again with the Comic Sans references. You're playing with fire my friend.

I agree with the stutter problem. 24/25/30fps have a definite problem with panning. Woe to him who wants to whip the camera faster than eight seconds.

Here's an idea. Since we're rapidly moving towards cameras that have infinite depth of field and variable field of view with unlimited storage on our computers shooting in unlimited Ks, why not add the ability to have variable frame rates? It'd be like shooting everything with a Phantom and then selecting a lower frame rate, even down to the hallowed 24fps, you know for future-proofing? So what if it's massive overkill and wasted storage, that's the same argument we have now for shooting 4K when 90% is being down-converted to HD, at the moment. It won't have a start/stop button since there would be no need, just aim it in the general direction.

The RED Blunderbuss. There, I've already named it.

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

The RED Blunderbuss. There, I've already named it.

Bahahahaha love it! Make sure to trademark it before RED does

Also, this thread has a lot of really interesting ideas in it. Will definitely be testing some of these in the near future! Especially Michael's "gear change" theory! I don't know if I buy that the world will switch over completely to a new standard (30,48,60,120 whatever) but I can absolutely see frame rate and shutter angles being a much bigger part of the DP's toolset. As we move deeper towards a world where decisions are increasingly made after the fact, I could definitely see DP's using it to make making their mark on their footage. I've only messed around with variable frame rates once, and it worked brilliantly, but it's definitely something I want to explore more!!!

I was shooting the climax of a cabin in the woods type, slasher horror film and there is a super wide shot of the killer sprinting across the frame to tackle the protagonist. He sprints in between a row of trees so he already flashes in and out as is, but on the last take, just on a whim, I shot at 18fps instead of 24 and it makes the shot SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better! I don't think the whole take is going to make the edit, but even a tiny piece of it helps tell the story in a more visual way! Which I'm pretty sure is one of the main jobs of a DP

I'm in michigan for a shoot right now but when I get back I can post the 24fps and the 18fps shots for you to compare!

 

[Marc Wielage]

I do wonder, do we like 24/25 because it is a better look or we are simply used to it. I know I did not get into the Hobbit. I ended up walking out of the second one about 2/3rd's the way through. I could not take the HFR anymore. The story did not help either.

Jackson was kind of wounded by the criticism on the 48fps frame rate of the first Hobbit film, and he went out of his way to mention they had added more motion blur to the 24fps theatrical versions of Hobbit 2 and 3 when those came out. They looked a little bit odd, but not nearly as "stacatto" as the first one did.

To me, the 30fps/60fps look begins to seem a little too real and edgy, to the point where it pulls me out of the movie. Maybe for a younger audience geared for video games, they can handle it better. Me personally, I think the 24fps motion blur adds to the "unreality" of the movie and makes it work better as a fantasy. I don't have a problem for 30fps+ frame rates used for documentaries, theme park rides, or non-scripted shows.

I agree with the stutter problem. 24/25/30fps have a definite problem with panning. Woe to him who wants to whip the camera faster than eight seconds.

The American Cinematographer Manual has an entire chapter devoted to shutter speed and panning speed and how each affects the other. As long as you follow the rules, it works fine. Fast pans don't work in quite a few situations, and they have to be planned and rehearsed and tested.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

To me, the 30fps/60fps look begins to seem a little too real and edgy, to the point where it pulls me out of the movie. Maybe for a younger audience geared for video games, they can handle it better. Me personally, I think the 24fps motion blur adds to the "unreality" of the movie and makes it work better as a fantasy. I don't have a problem for 30fps+ frame rates used for documentaries, theme park rides, or non-scripted shows.

I think this is the key thing for most people. Some like HFR and some don't. I think it comes down to how you look at what cinema means to you. Some want a "filter", they want the grain, the smoothness and so on. They want the texture of film to be visible. For those people, like yourself, I think you like it in the same way as when looking at beautiful black and white photography. It's not meant to look "real" it's meant to have it's own look.

Then there are those, which I think Peter Jackson is a part of, who want films to look real. They want the frame to be a window into another world, to achieve total immersion. Higher frame rates, better 3D, no grain or texture in the way or any lens characteristics pulling you out of the illusion. They want the magic trick of cinema to be total.

I'm in the middle, I like both things and I think everything has it's place. Some films need the texture and cinematic look and some films need the "window-effect", the immersion and illusion to be total. I'm fine with 30 fps as I'm as used to video games as I am for cinema, I'm fine with 48 fps if it's made for VR or 3D on a large screen not for 2D and I'm also in the 24/25 ballpark for most cinema. I'm flexible based on what type of movie you're making.

But I think 30 fps isn't killing the cinematic look, I think when you switch between 24 fps and 30 fps you might feel that it's awkward, but that's because your eyes and mind haven't had time to adjust to it. That was said for 48 fps as well, but that's such a leap from 24 fps that it's impossible for people to just adjust to it. If 30 fps was a standard for film, people would probably love it as much as 24 fps. Because they are so close to each other you won't destroy the cinematic feel of it like you would with 48 fps. 24 fps is such a hard wired look in our brains that there's no surprise we find everything else strange or weird. But it's still more based on what we are used to rather than what might be "better".

I think 30 fps can look quite cinematic, it's just that no one has done testing and experimented with that frame rate. My point being that if we want clarity in 4K and reduce stutters in motion without getting the, in most peoples opinion, bad look of 48 fps, 30 fps may very well be the best "HFR" setting for a cinematic look.

I would like to see a film in theatres that was shot and projected in 30 fps, I haven't seen that, ever, and I think no one has. So I'm not sure why people are so sure that 30 fps won't look good for cinema.

 

[Björn Benckert]

No Christoffer. For me its not looking good with 30p. I done a few progjects that actually where shot in 30p by mistake. Light and everything was perfect still it looks like shit to my eyes. Especially when paning fast etc. If camera is still and there is not much action then 30p looks not much different from 25p but for every other occation it looks like playing quake to me. or like watchkng 50i.

What i find really nice on the other hand is shooting 30 fps or even 33.333fps and playback in 25p and stretch and pitch audio to fit. That to me gives possibly the most cinematic look of all and its strange that its acually possible to do such sound change and get away with it.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

No Christoffer. For me its not looking good with 30p. I done a few progjects that actually where shot in 30p by mistake. Light and everything was perfect still it looks like shit to my eyes. Especially when paning fast etc. If camera is still and there is not much action then 30p looks not much different from 25p but for every other occation it looks like playing quake to me. or like watchkng 50i.

What i find really nice on the other hand is shooting 30 fps or even 33.333fps and playback in 25p and stretch and pitch audio to fit. That to me gives possibly the most cinematic look of all and its strange that its acually possible to do such sound change and get away with it.

33.333 as "high speed" footage is pretty regular for commercial or music videos. I get that you personally don't like 30 fps, but a 2 hour planned 30 fps feature film in a theatre is a big difference compared watching a short clip shot by mistake. Panning speeds needs to be made in certain speeds at 25 fps so they need to be adapted for 30 fps. But all of this is a personal preference. There's nothing saying that cinema couldn't be 30 fps and most of this "cinema needs to be 24/25 fps" is down to what we are used to. What I'm trying to get at is that all people who disliked 48 fps and who cherish 24/25 fps can choose a HFR mode that's closer to the preferred cinematic look if they choose 30 fps while still having some of the clarity, especially high resolution footage, that you get with 48 fps. The main reason I'm after clarity is that at 24 fps 180 degree shutter you will loose almost all of the 4K resolution whenever something moves even the slightest. 4K is totally unnecessary for films like hand held action films, since there won't be any details left to have the clarity of 4K resolution. Putting the fps a bit higher might bring better clarity to 4K films while still not look like the 48 fps Hobbit.

But it's really down to two personal choices. Either you love the texture of film or you love the "window" of film. One focus on the texture, be it noise/grain, lens distortions and imperfections etc. the other one focus on clarity, no distractions in the cinematography, no imperfections that draw attention to themselves etc. 30 fps is about clarity. These two options are not right or wrong, they are just that, choices.

And... I doubt you played Quake at 30 fps :tongue_smilie: while 50i is essentially like 50 fps, not 30 fps.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

For those interested in doing VFR in post, there are some worked-out ways to do this (based on 24fps playback):

Shoot 48 fps at 360 degrees. Every other frame gives you 24 fps at 180 degrees, but you can double the motion blur to 24 fps/360d if that's your thing. You can also under-crank to get 2:1 slo-mo with 360d (or 180d in 24fps-land) shutter.

Shoot 48 fps HDRx -1 with 240 degrees for the A frame and 120 degrees for the X frame. If you sum the two (adjusting the exposure of the X frame), you can play every other summed frame to get 24 fps/180d, every A frame to get 24 fps/120d, or every X frame to get 24 fps/60d. You can also under-crank to get 2:1 slo-mo with 360d (180d), 240d (120d), or 120d (60d) shutter.

Shoot 72 fps at 360 degrees. Summing all three frames gives you 24 fps/360d. Summing two of three gives 24 fps/240d. Playing back one of each three gives you 24/120d. You can also under-crank to get 3:1 slo-mo with 360d (120d) shutter. And you can under-crank to get 1.5:1 slo-mo with 360d (240d) shutter.

Shoot 96 fps at 360 degrees. Summing all four frames gives you 24 fps/360d. Summing three of four gives you 24fps/270d. Summing two of four gives you 24fps/180d. Playing back one of each four gives you 24/90d. You can also under-crank to get 2:1 slo-mo with either 360d (180d) shutter or 180d (90d) shutter. And you can under-crank to get 4:1 slow-mo with 360d (90d) shutter. Summing three of four and under-cranking, one can get 1.33:1 with 360d (270d) shutter.

Shoot 120 fps at 360 degrees. Summing all five frames gives you 24 fps/360d. Summing four of five gives you 24fps/288d. Summing three of five gives you 24 fps/216d. Summing two of five gives you 24fps/144d. Playing back one of each five gives you 24/72d. You can also under-crank to get 5:1 slo-mo with 360d (72d) shutter, 2.5:1 slo-mo with 360d (144d) shutter, 1.67:1 slo-mo with 360d (216d) shutter, 1.25:1 slo-mo with 360d (288d) shutter.

But shooting 120 fps to toss 80% of the data except during pans is why I think it would be cool to change the frame rate on the fly (and back again).

 

[Elsie N]

I'm one of those people who are actually taken out of a movie by motion blur... like a fight scene poorly done that is covered up by motion blur. I actually want to see that as real as possible to keep me from suspending disbelief and taking me out of the movie/TV show.

My simple idea was to shoot at higher frame rates speeded up in post or faster shutter speeds to give me a clearer picture of what is happening. This thread offers so many good suggestions that I see a lot of other possible avenues to getting that to a better place.

IDK, maybe a general audience doesn't care about that sort of thing and is happy with the way things are. Admittedly I am that person who looks at the whole frame rather than just what the director/DP was directing my attention to. In commercials especially, I am looking at the background rather than the center of the shot... unless they use a particularly attractive girl as the main focus. '-)

As for 30 fps vs 23.976, I feel the 30 fps for streaming and 24 for theatrical, of the same content, might turn out to be optimal.