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 :)

Is the future 60fps?

I can't wait for 60p (maybe even 120p), but it will take a long time. Sure, we will all have to get used to it, but it will look so real – which is a good thing. Visual storytelling is not just about the frame rate. It is mostly experienced through framing and lighting. High speed frame rates are just another tool to immerse the audience in the movie. People who say 24p is king are just short sighted… its like grain in film, people complain that digital capturing is too crisp and lacks grain, but they forget that grain in essence is a byproduct of film, not an aesthetic. Now, over the years we got used to grain (like 24p), and today it is considered as a "quality", but it's just a matter of getting used to the digital medium. The problem with high frame rates is the bandwidth. It’s a pain in the ass from that perspective and that's the reason it will still take a lot of time until we really see it happening.
 
I went to many showscan shows. While it did look sharp and clean it was just a gimmick.
The new wave will be 3D for the foreseeable future.
60p shooting does give you the option for nice slo-mo.
I am trying to get my clients over to HD much less 60p HD.
 
Why would I want a "fictitious" feel to my movies? That is silly. I want reality to come alive on screen from what I shot, and 24 frames per second is just like standard definition -- a remnant of past eras. The ONLY reason film started at 24fps was because it was the absolute minimum number of frames you could shoot per second without having it look completely unrealistic. But as far as the argument that 60fps would be better, or 48, or whatever, I am not sure about that. It really depends on the exact situation, because when something is moving incredibly fast it would make more sense to shoot it at a higher frame rate to get smoother motion, but when people are just walking, if you really want to tell me that 24 fps looks "fake" and not "real," then you're crazy. I've watched thousands of movies in my life, most of the time 24fps is completely realistic, the eye doesn't see faster than that with most motion, I mean the movement seems completely fluid. But of course when you're talking about car chases, or bullets flying, or things like this, it might make more sense to have 48fps or more. I certainly don't think 30fps hurts, though, which is what most video shoots at anyway.

But then again, you will always encounter old-school types who think that there's something mythical about the age-old, laughable process by which film captures its images, and that somehow that "magical" 24fps is really the best looking image. Whatever. It's all about facts, in my mind, more frames per second is smoother, less grain is more realistic, and the ultimate goal is for film to recreate reality as perfectly as possible, or create an alternate reality, ala Star Wars.

Now whether filmmakers choose to use these advances in another matter entirely. If someone wants a specific look for their film that is not realistic, that's fine, that's a conscious choice that should be left up to the filmmaker, but to say that all movies should be shot looking like cruddy old 19th century technology is pretty far out there.
 
danielk said:
I can't wait for 60p (maybe even 120p), but it will take a long time. Sure, we will all have to get used to it, but it will look so real – which is a good thing. Visual storytelling is not just about the frame rate. It is mostly experienced through framing and lighting. High speed frame rates are just another tool to immerse the audience in the movie. People who say 24p is king are just short sighted… its like grain in film, people complain that digital capturing is too crisp and lacks grain, but they forget that grain in essence is a byproduct of film, not an aesthetic. Now, over the years we got used to grain (like 24p), and today it is considered as a "quality", but it's just a matter of getting used to the digital medium. The problem with high frame rates is the bandwidth. It’s a pain in the ass from that perspective and that's the reason it will still take a lot of time until we really see it happening.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right. And I still think people who think grain is good are morons, but that's another matter. That's like saying it's really great to have mud all over your windshield. Whatever, get real, people need to get over ancient technology and just move on. There's nothing that bothers me more than people living in the past.
 
Graeme's comment that both 24P and 50/60P can be valid choices is no doubt the right perspective, but I have to admit that I am in the camp that prefers 50/60P since it eliminates so many motion artifacts.

Excusing those motion artifacts as "dreamy" is hilarious. It is particularly ironic that it was the miserly studio accountants that forced things to 24 fps 80 years ago to save on film costs, over the objections of most artists who would have preferred faster frame rates to eliminate the annoying artifacts of 24fps (bad enough to make many viewers sick, as noted above). Now many so-called creative types are unknowing shills for those long dead stuido accountants. LOL

Note: I am of course overstating for effect. Think of it as a surrealistic dream and an escape from the reality that the current DCI spec locks us into 24P for a few more decades...
 
I think this is an example of "Science enables stories. Stories drive science". Artists will find ways to use non-24p frame rates to help them tell stories, and our science will enable them to do that.

Graeme
 
Welcome Danielk; nice reel.
Aloha
-A
 
Interesting thread. Did anyone happen to catch the NHK 8K demo at NAB. That was running at 60P and I have to say, it wasn't that appealing to me. There may have been a lot of other reasons why but compared to the demo in the Red booth, I'm still a fan of 24fps.

However, I do see a generational thing happening (Oh man, I'm about to sound like an old guy and I'm not that old actually). The current 25 and under crowd has been brought up on video games, high definition video, etc. I think this may explain some of the tendencies towards wanting to see images that are very clean, smooth. I don't think there is anything wrong with this. It just so happens that I personally love the look and feel of motion picture film running at 24fps. So, why do I want a Red camera then? I also happen to like the look of the images I have seen from the Red camera. They seems "filmic" to me, and in some ways the images are not quite film and not quite video, yet very pleasing. It's a medium that will be affordable, that can produce images that fit the particular stories I want to tell.

Eugenia, welcome to the fold. This is a fun place to hang out, lots of good discussions like this one.

Steve
 
Floris Liesker said:
If I understand correctly your DVD player retimes a 24 fps signal into 50 fps in real time?
It seems your DVD player is quite a few years ahead of it's time, or we're not talking 50 unique frames per second.
Click to expand...

I had a Philips TV that was doing the same for PAL something like 8 years ago. They called it Natural Motion and they created 100 frames from 25 to match the TV's 100HZ refresh rate.

I hated every single one of those frames! :-)
 
Don't worry steve you old dog (bet I'm older) if you are buying a red there is still hope for you. LOL
Aloha
-A
 
The NHK demo, to me, was super-high rez VHS video look, which for some strange cultural reasons, the Japanese love as much as we like 24p flimic material. To me, the big downfall with the NHK footage was no drama (story), only natural lighting (if memory serves me right) and poor dynamic range. Still, was very clever what they did.

Graeme
 
I've never liked the look of 29.97 fps which is slower than 60 or 120 fps. To me is just looks way to unrealistic. When is the last time you ever saw blur free motion? Just hold your hand up in front of your face and slowly wave it back and forth.

Yep, motion blur!

I do however think it wouldn't be a bad idea to perhaps have higher frame rates as playback standards, at least that way you have options, but I would never go for shooting at 120fps and then playing back at that same speed. One CON to higher frame rate standards though... creating high speed shots. Man, can you imagine how fast you need to shoot to create slow motion at 120fps? Better bust out the Xenon lamps and Soft Sun units... 3 feet away from the subject!

LOL

Edit:

did some thinking, I suppose you could just do the telecine thing.... whatever LOL :)
 
JonathanLB said:
Why would I want a "fictitious" feel to my movies? That is silly. I want reality to come alive on screen from what I shot, and 24 frames per second is just like standard definition -- a remnant of past eras. The ONLY reason film started at 24fps was because it was the absolute minimum number of frames you could shoot per second without having it look completely unrealistic. But as far as the argument that 60fps would be better, or 48, or whatever, I am not sure about that. It really depends on the exact situation, because when something is moving incredibly fast it would make more sense to shoot it at a higher frame rate to get smoother motion, but when people are just walking, if you really want to tell me that 24 fps looks "fake" and not "real," then you're crazy. I've watched thousands of movies in my life, most of the time 24fps is completely realistic, the eye doesn't see faster than that with most motion, I mean the movement seems completely fluid. But of course when you're talking about car chases, or bullets flying, or things like this, it might make more sense to have 48fps or more. I certainly don't think 30fps hurts, though, which is what most video shoots at anyway.

But then again, you will always encounter old-school types who think that there's something mythical about the age-old, laughable process by which film captures its images, and that somehow that "magical" 24fps is really the best looking image. Whatever. It's all about facts, in my mind, more frames per second is smoother, less grain is more realistic, and the ultimate goal is for film to recreate reality as perfectly as possible, or create an alternate reality, ala Star Wars.

Now whether filmmakers choose to use these advances in another matter entirely. If someone wants a specific look for their film that is not realistic, that's fine, that's a conscious choice that should be left up to the filmmaker, but to say that all movies should be shot looking like cruddy old 19th century technology is pretty far out there.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you would pick Star Wars. I actually prefer the look, feel, storytelling, etc. of the orginal films. The new ones just don't do it for me. But again, younger people may be developing a taste for all things digital and Star Wars I-III and George Lucas represent that look/feel now. When you say recreate reality as perfectly as possible, I think what you actually mean is create the world in which your characters live as perfectly as possible. That I agree with.

Steve
 
stevesherrick said:
I think what you actually mean is create the world in which your characters live as perfectly as possible. That I agree with.

Steve
Click to expand...

I think to create motion pictures that look the way we actually see calls for a frame rate slower than 60fps. 26fps might the money frame rate for creating that type of look. 120 fps is just gonna look "ultra unrealistic" to many. Don't just assume faster is always better.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
The NHK demo, to me, was super-high rez VHS video look, which for some strange cultural reasons, the Japanese love as much as we like 24p flimic material. To me, the big downfall with the NHK footage was no drama (story), only natural lighting (if memory serves me right) and poor dynamic range. Still, was very clever what they did.

Graeme
Click to expand...

I think the material that they were presenting, in addition to the natural lighting did make it a hard comparison. All I know is that I preferred what was happening in your booth. :biggrin:

Steve
 
JonathanLB said:
I certainly don't think 30fps hurts, though, which is what most video shoots at anyway.
Click to expand...

Only if you happen to live in North America or Japan. For the rest of the world - most of the world's population, by far - it's 50i, or 25 frames.

But then again, you will always encounter old-school types who think that there's something mythical about the age-old, laughable process by which film captures its images, and that somehow that "magical" 24fps is really the best looking image. Whatever. It's all about facts, in my mind, more frames per second is smoother, less grain is more realistic, and the ultimate goal is for film to recreate reality as perfectly as possible, or create an alternate reality, ala Star Wars.
Click to expand...

And I still think people who think grain is good are morons
Click to expand...

You keep wanting to make this about intelligence, and "facts," and you keep wanting to convince others here that you are the only one who understands it. You seem to think it's about rigid thinking, and you seem to think it's about age. It's not about any of that. It's about art, and it's about personal choices and taste. It's also about artistic principles that have been with us for many years, which doesn't make them "old," it makes them studied. There are reasons why humans respond to certain colors a certain way, and there are reasons they respond to things like projected frame rates a certain way. Some of it is learned, much of it is not. Although it's said that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, it has also been shown through many, many studies that certain artistic truths are universal, and that certain stimuli have a similar effect regardless of the subject's nationality or environment. You're not right, and everyone else is not wrong. Your opinion is, to be sure, just as valid as anyone else's. But that doesn't make everyone who disagrees with it a moron, and it doesn't make what you happen to feel is true a "fact." And it doesn't invalidate the opinion of anyone over the age of 30. Visual storytelling isn't always meant to be visually literal. If you want your pictures to visually depict reality, that's fine. Many other filmmakers don't. That doesn't make them dinosaurs, and it certainly doesn't make them "morons." If you crave artistic freedom, allow others to claim the same right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top