Frame Rates in Cinema and Television

[Christoffer Glans]

Many of us thought that Hobbit looked awful in 48fps, while many others thought it looked great. There's no scientific truth about it, there's only the creative, individual and culture aspects to it. If you have grown up with 24 fps you will feel that this frame rate is "true cinema". The fact is though that there aren't any problems using other frame rates today, especially if much of the content will be shown online and not in cinemas.

I liked the 48 fps, but I think it only belongs to 3D, immersive and "clean" movies. The improvements to 3D was tremendous and the clarity it brings is very underestimated for that format. However I don't like the look of it for 2D, it didn't feel like the fiction I'm used to, it was like reading a book written in comic sans.

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?

Playing games, 60 fps is the norm or the most desired feature today. We want it that way in order to have clarity, we want it to feel real. Immersion in games is more important than the "look". But there are however games that go for a more cinematic look, but they don't focus on going 24 fps for the game because that is quite unplayable. The frame rate games go for in order to keep the shaders and resolution quality and at the same time have a cinematic feeling is 30 fps.

Now, 30 fps is indeed a noticeable difference to 24 or 25 fps, but it doesn't feel as overly clarity-smooth as 48 fps or 60 fps. So it does add clarity to moving cameras, chaos and action but still retain the motion blur and cinematic qualities we feel is essential for the cinematic look. It also doesn't demand a doubling in lights as you need for 48 fps.

There's a reason games settled on 30 fps as the lowest playable frame rate needed to have a smooth experience and the difference to playing in 24 fps is enormous. Why not have the same lowest standard as games? Especially since we need more clarity for 4K in order to really experience that resolution.

This is of course my personal and individual opinion about this, but what do you think about 30 fps for Cinema? Might it be a better frame rate to show movies and series in rather than 24 and 48 fps? Might 30 fps be the best of both worlds?

 

[Phil Holland]

The world we live in and will be living in will be 24-60fps with the occasional desire for 120fps jumping out from a few creatives.

A few things come into play, but generally speaking the motion blur found within 24 fps is very pleasing to the human eye and brain as there's enough missing where your mind wants to fill in the blanks and there's enough there to tune in to and want to watch. More or less the same concept as if I were to throw a set of keys to you and asked you to close your eyes at the last second. There's a good chance your mind will fill in the blanks and allow a decent attempt or success at catching the keys.

In America 30 fps (29.97) has been common place for broadcast for decades. It is what many have described as the typical "soap opera" look and remains somewhere between ugly and pretty good for nearly everybody.

HFR in the realm of 48-60 is an interesting concept and has been both received well and poorly for narrative content. For 3D and VR it makes a pretty big difference.

For me where 60p really works is in the world of sports or exhibition level visuals (nature content for instance). I've seen tennis and basketball in 4K and it's amazing. Like a whole different viewing experience and I can imagine field sports such as soccer, football, and others being very good as well. For narrative and casual viewing it's sometimes too much information for the brain to be comfortable with in regards to two dimensional images.

Resolution and the concepts behind certain HDR productions can indeed benefit from a higher frame rate, especially if they are exploring a higher contrast ratio, but not a necessity in my opinion. The goal here is to avoid additional strobing from lingering highlights in particular. Our eyes and brain, much like plasma screens, suffer a bit from burn in.

Games benefit from higher frame rates in the realm of 30-60 fps and beyond due to the tactile nature of human input, hand/eye coordination, and the distance between the signals of touch responsiveness and your brain. I typically like games at 60 fps.

There's a great deal of science behind how much information your eyes and brain can ingest. And it can indeed ingest a lot and how it does it is equally as fascinating. Look up Ocular Microtremors for instance.

The interesting thing in practice is due to how our brains work we are more aware/conscious of imperfect camera movements at higher frame rates than at lower frame rates. Partially due to the effect of motion blur, but also due to how much information is being fed into our noggins. There were some lovely examples of this chaos at NAB this year and on productions I've been on over the years that have explored higher frame rates it's been a rather difficult monster to tackle occasionally. Even post stabilization efforts can be picked up more clearly, which makes it that much more tricky.

Personally I like 24fps for narrative work. It maintains that dreamlike effect and makes you look if you utilize the frame rate as part of the medium. There are limitations in regards to panning speed and judder, but work within and around some of those limitations and lovely things can happen with the moving picture.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Yes, I've read up a lot on how the brain and eyes work together. Another factor is also that too high frame rates with sharp non-blurred motion can induce a kind of motion sickness. There is a fine line when talking about mediums such as VR as to what frame rate and blur there needs to be in order to mimic the human eye/brain correlation.

As for 30 fps in cinema, the thing is that it's not only about the actual gameplay being 30 fps, but the cutscenes and non-playable moments in the games. They still have a cinematic quality that gets a bit lost in 60 fps. Just as the cinematic quality gets a bit lost in 48 fps. The cultural aspects of it also gets into play, here in Europe, or in my case Sweden, we do not have 30 fps soap operas. The ones that shipped from US was always converted in some way. So we don't have the relation to 30 fps in that same way here. But then there's an entire cultural shift that knows 30 fps more from gaming than from soap operas, so the relation to soap opera TV for 30 fps is I think a bit of a dying reference point.

If we make a 4K film at 30 fps with film cinematography I'm not sure it's going to "feel like" a soap opera. It's easy to dismiss the idea when the only reference point is that type of imagery. But I truly think that 30 fps is an untried middle way, just like the 2:1 aspect ratio is a mostly untried middle way for series (with House of Cards being mostly the only series using it).

There's a small trend right now of shooting 16:9 series with anamorphic lenses. It can be seen in Fear of the Walking dead and utilized in a better way for 11.22.63 to divide modern day with the past. But it lacks a bit of the anamorphic feel to it because of the 16:9 image. Instead, it would be interesting to look at how something would play out if we used 2:1 with anamorphic lenses and a 30 fps frame rate.

I agree that the motion blur is needed to help the brain process moving images smoothly, that higher frame rates doesn't necessarily help the brain experience movement or clarity. But you will still get motion blur with 30 fps, it's just that whenever there's too much movement with 24 fps it breaks apart. Imagine the Bourne type of movies in 30 fps instead of 24. The audience would have a much greater increase in spatial and spacial orientation during the chaotic action sequences. That was the main problem I experienced when watching the movies on a big screen.

We also reduce the resolution loss in smaller movements for 4K. Playing back 4K at 24 fps is rather pointless for anything other than locked down cameras or extremely slow moving objects. As soon as something moves in any normal speed the resolution drops to the floor. 48 fps reduces that loss a lot, but we loose the narrative feeling we like. But because 30 fps isn't as extreme as 48 fps, we get a small increase in the ability to have motion while keeping the visible resolution of 4K without loosing that cinematic quality of 24 fps or the larger motion blur for faster movements.

I think it's an untested concept of bringing the progressive 30 fps feeling of games to cinema. Check out cut scenes from games using 30 fps, there's still a cinematic quality to the movements, but you "see more" than 24 fps. For HDR 4K feature films I believe it needs to be tested

 

[Phil Holland]

I think it's an untested concept of bringing the progressive 30 fps feeling of games to cinema. Check out cut scenes from games using 30 fps, there's still a cinematic quality to the movements, but you "see more" than 24 fps. For HDR 4K feature films I believe it needs to be tested

60p HDR 4K was on display at NAB 2016. Looks very good.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

60p HDR 4K was on display at NAB 2016. Looks very good.

Yes, definitely would look good, but I mean to combine the cinematic feeling we have about 24 fps, combined with the HFR concept for more clarity. I think 30 fps is a better middle way for that. If the goal is true HFR, 60-75 fps is probably the best place to be in order to not create motion sickness with too high fps. As for cinema, 24 fps is a bit "slow" for 4K I think. But I don't want 48 fps, that drains that dreamy quality that you mentioned earlier.

 

[Phil Holland]

Yes, definitely would look good, but I mean to combine the cinematic feeling we have about 24 fps, combined with the HFR concept for more clarity. I think 30 fps is a better middle way for that. If the goal is true HFR, 60-75 fps is probably the best place to be in order to not create motion sickness with too high fps. As for cinema, 24 fps is a bit "slow" for 4K I think. But I don't want 48 fps, that drains that dreamy quality that you mentioned earlier.

Was/is 24 fps slow for 35mm? 65mm? IMAX 15-perf?

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Was/is 24 fps slow for 35mm? 65mm? IMAX 15-perf?

Haha, no, but it can be better

Then there's that difference in how pans on film looks compared to digital, 35mm feels smoother. But a good example of how camera movements could be improved is if you check out the pan just after James Franco went back in time to 1960 in the series 11.22.63. That reveal shot has so much stutter in it that it breaks the flow and it's almost unwatchable. 30 fps in that situation might have helped a lot to smooth out motion.

 

[Bobby Farokhzad]

I know many people will jump on me for this, but I really think high frame rates (specially 60 fps) will become the future of cinema. I understand the cinematic beauty of 24fps and all that comes with it, but if you let go of this bias that 60 fps belongs only in sports and day time soap opera, you will see just how much better it is. We kill ourselves for every bit of detail with spatial resolution and then we throw half of it away when it comes to temporal resolution. Hollywood cinematographers probably laugh at the idea of high frame rates today but I don't think this will be the case ten years from now. I've shot projects in 24, 30, 48, and 60 frames per second and to my eye 60 fps looks the best.

 

[Robino_J]

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.

I'm curious about the movies you feel are disorienting and chaotic at 24fps to the point of not being able to follow the story - do you have examples?

 

[Brice LeCarre]

Bobby,
It seems that across cyberspace the frame rate conversation is been discussed more and more. I remember not too long ago, camera manufacturers touted 24fps as their number one selling point. Which is, IMHO, a fallacy to believe 24fps will give you the film look. It is, as we all know, much more complicated than that. 24 fps is only part of the process to obtain the "film look."
What is exciting in the conversation above is using this incredible new technology to explore new looks for different content kinds. I feel it is counterproductive to compare everything to the almighty 24fps (which i love btw). Red cameras for example are allowing us to explore without much boundaries.
I agree with you that as time goes a new "film look" will emerge. it is inevitable. I hope I make sense.

 

[Bobby Farokhzad]

I'm curious about the movies you feel are disorienting and chaotic at 24fps to the point of not being able to follow the story - do you have examples?

Try watching any car chase scene from any of the Jason Bourne films without sea sickness medication and tell me how it feels...

 

[Mark Toia]

The world we live in and will be living in will be 24-60fps

I shoot all over the world.. and its all 25fps. ? Maybe you should say 'The America we live in'.

The states is pretty much on its own with 24fps. Curious why everyone else went 25?

Majority of films are 24p yes... but with all the digital projectors out there now can play pretty any time base.

Would make it easier if the planet aligned itself. Since 97% of it is 25fps, Seems logical for the US to join the rest of us.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I know many people will jump on me for this, but I really think high frame rates (specially 60 fps) will become the future of cinema. I understand the cinematic beauty of 24fps and all that comes with it, but if you let go of this bias that 60 fps belongs only in sports and day time soap opera, you will see just how much better it is. We kill ourselves for every bit of detail with spatial resolution and then we throw half of it away when it comes to temporal resolution. Hollywood cinematographers probably laugh at the idea of high frame rates today but I don't think this will be the case ten years from now. I've shot projects in 24, 30, 48, and 60 frames per second and to my eye 60 fps looks the best.

It may very well be so, but not everything might work for 60 fps. Remember, you loose most of the motion blur at that frame rate, which might help the brain interpret motion better. The brain works by taking "snaps" and creating images in between in order to achieve motion. That's the reason we have motion blur in real life, because it helps us locate where things are. The thing about HFR is that the higher you go the less "real" it tends to get. A screen that shows action at a 60+ HFR might look really freakin awesome when you first see it, but on a big screen, watching for longer time-spans it might become weird for our brains since we do not see the motion blur as we do in real life. Much of this is because our eyes match the frequency of the light we are in. If you hold up your hand and move it quickly in different types of light you will notice that in some there aren't any motion blur, only frequency matched sharp images of your hand moving. The same happens with screens and HFR; the motion blur is gone and you see every motion too sharp.

This is why I think 30 fps is the better frame rate. Maybe even 35 fps is the sweet spot, that's unknown because it's not really tested on a large scale. It's a combination of retaining the cinematic quality that we know of, finding clarity with movements while not tricking our brains into motion sickness. I don't believe "higher" is better. I believe in having a balance.

There's also the issues with shooting 60 fps. That's more than double the material you need, it demands much more from the sensors and cameras and it's harder to do high speed shots when the base is so high.
60 - 120 fps might make sense for VR, but I'm not so sure about traditional film cinematography

Try watching any car chase scene from any of the Jason Bourne films without sea sickness medication and tell me how it feels...

Yes, as I mentioned earlier in this thread. Also watch the panning shot in 11.22.63, or any movie with hand held "documentary" style shooting. If the editing is based on chaos editing like the Bourne movies (especially Bourne Supremacy), the scenes will make even less sense. Watching those movies on big screens makes some people vomit and others... well, they just wait for the action to be over so they'll know what the hell happened in the story.

Since 97% of it is 25fps, Seems logical for the US to join the rest of us.

Just like imperial vs metrics :tongue_smilie:
But even in this discussion, I think 25 fps is less good than 30 fps.


Reason I've been thinking about this is because I'm editing for a big game developer right now and we are mixing real life shot footage with gameplay cutscenes, which had us shooting in 30 fps to match the cutscenes frame rates. I think it looks much better than 25 fps and also much better than 48 fps.

 

[Björn Benckert]

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.

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.

And just the other way around in Europe TV´s had difficulty to run in 24fps as the electricity that synced the TV sets to had/has a frequency of 50hz. So it was a simple trick to just shoot TV material in 50i or 25p and play back in those rates.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPLkg7-pNrE

http://www.luerzersarchive.com/en/magazine/commercial-detail/nike-26291.html

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.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Majority of films are 24p yes... but with all the digital projectors out there now can play pretty any time base.

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?

 

[Stacey Spears]

I see mixed frame rates being interesting. You can have high frame rates for fast action if you wanted and 24/25 for talking heads.

Over at AVSForum, there were a bunch of enthusiasts who don't understand why filmmakers want to shoot 24 (or 25)p. They want higher frame rate. I tried to explain creative intent.

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.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

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

 

[Daniel Reed]

I see mixed frame rates being interesting. You can have high frame rates for fast action if you wanted and 24/25 for talking heads.

Is there a way to set hotkeys on DSMC cams so that a button ramps the frame rate up(to 72/75/90),
and then another button is set to ramp the frame back down to your project timebase(24/25/30)?



I thought I recall reading about it somewhere, but never tried figuring it out.
It would be a great way to blend different framerates in camera as desired.


I'd love to know how to do this in camera, instead of shooting HFR for all of it and keying frame ramps in post and waiting on renders

Maybe Phil or Graeme can chime in :thumbsup:

 

[Björn Benckert]

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

 

[PatrickFaith]

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?

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).