Is the future 60fps?

[Vincent Rice]

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.

Your post is both stupid and insulting. I suspect you are about 14 years old. Cinema was and never will be about 'reality'.

 

[number6]

Eugenia, I wonder if this is the right bunch to be asking your question about frame rate. Most of them (sometimes, me too) watch more how a movie looks as opposed to becoming absorbed in the story. Ask a movie goer who knows nothing about what a frame is. If they they watch 10, 24p movies and like 8 of them, and watch a comparable ten, 50 or 60 fps movies and only like 3 out of 10, then you get a statistically relevent set of data.

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

The future of cinema is not 24fps. A lot of people just don't want to admit it.

Here's what I'll admit, filmmakers demand 24p.

Want to know how I know? Heres how:

I grew up during the transition from analog to digital video. I was getting started when Beta SP was clearly the target in the sights of DVCPRO 25 and 50. So my first experiences were with faster frames rates (29.97, which already looks faster than what your eye sees).

I also messed around a bunch with 30P video as well.

And guess what..... All I could think about is "when will 24P video be invented!"

The future of film frame rates is clearly 24p.

Just ask all of the younger filmmakers out there like myself, who mind you, got started shooting higher frame rates. We simply don't like the look. Going faster is clearly not the answer we were looking for, nor will it ever be unless we want slow motion shots.

 

[Warren Kommers]

Here is where I stand. There is no right or wrong to these standards. Grain is a tool. It identifies the screen. Maybe you want your audience to be aware of it. 98% percent of the time probably not, we want to see through the screen into an implied 3D world. The other thing to realize is that the human eye is far from perfect. The reason why 4k projection people came up with algorithims for simulated projector registration error is not because we are used to it but because it mimics the human experience. Our eyes are actually vibrating all over the place when you talk, walk, or even breathe. Your brain stabalizes it. Hence why it is better for storytelling. I would say it is the same thing for 24 fps versus 60. We have motion blur in our vision. Why do you think the 45 and 90 degree shutter effect work so well for action. Cause it contibutes to actual of experience of seeing frozen moments when you adrenaline is flowing. Some things are conditioned however, more frames does not = more immersive expereience cause our the human experience on average is closer to 1/48 than 1/120. But hey, maybe I'm telling a story that should feel hyper real like 60fps. Oh and one more thing, if we shot 60fps as sync then we loose more slo motion opportunities. Boooo.

 

[Warren Kommers]

People in the industry are perhaps too quick to forget Trumbull's research and work during his Showscan days. Clearly, 60fps is where digital cinema ought to be. Particularly if maximizing the viewer's visual (read: sensorial) experience is the ultimate goal.

Honestly, I have been wishing 24fps image acquisition went away, alongside celluloid film based cinematography, since the early 80s. That's why I now welcome Red. The only reason 24fps image acquisition became what it has become through the years is basically because of the existing technical and economic limitations at the time of its creation. These have certainly been overcome since. When you reconsider the whole motion picture production and distribution system under a digital workflow, it really, truly begs to reconsider 24fps based production.

Now that we have advanced digital image acquisition, manipulation and projection techniques down pat, we ought to move on to produce the kind of cinema that truly heightens the audience's cinematic experience and avoid working within the constraints brought forth by an obsolete technology time capsule, simply for the sake of tradition, folklore and good old-fashioned vintage Hollywood culture.

Personally, I can't wait for the 24fps "standard" to go away. Hopefully, advances such as Red, along with the work of a few fresh, young, creative minds- not bred in old Hollywood culture- will finally bring that curse to an end.

And this comes from someone who's shot film from Super 8 to Arri 35s, mind you. And, if you're wondering, I've always felt 65mm (even in Showscan format) was not the answer, either.

With the current and upcoming advanced digital acquisition hardware and techniques such as Red, the time to do away with 24fps is now. I understand it's a big humongous shift, but it's doable and it certainly needs to happen. Sooner or later. And it will happen, whether the old-school types want it or not.

People used to drive horse drawn carriages before the automobile, you know? Would you drive a horse-drawn carriage now? I don't think so.

Eugenia's take is not flawed by any means. It's a clear glimpse into the real future of cinema. A future where 24fps image acquisition will become "how vintage films used to be made years ago."

The future of cinema is not 24fps. A lot of people just don't want to admit it.

There is a reason why 24p works so well and it isn't tradition nor conditioning. Even your eyes are seeing something more like a 1/48 like everyone else. Although that must be frustrating for someone who wishes he was seeing 1/120 everywhere. I felt like I could sense that in your message. More does not always mean better especially when talking about how it is percieved by a human. Just like in food or alcohol. There is a right amount.

 

[Michael Schrengohst]

Shooting 2k or 4K at 60 fps and then finishing at 60p is upping the demands of computers and hard drives to a point where most dare not tread. Not to mention the fact that you are more than doubling the amount of hard drive/backup space needed. And you would have to have 2k/4K projectors and recorders capable of playing back at 60p. Don't think this will happen for awhile. If you saw Peter Jackson's short that was shot with the RED at NAB you would probably understand why so many would be satisfied to shoot and edit 4K 24p.

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

With all due respect, methinks you don't quite get the point. One thing is to shoot digitally at 30- or 30-drop frame in an attempt to match, as close as possible, "the look of film shot at 24fps."

Another thing, however, is to shoot and project digitally, at whatever speed it'll take (60fps has been suggested as ideal), in an attempt to match-- as close as possible-- "reality" as sensorially experienced by the human brain.

Big difference.

No, I understand what you aim for, recreating what we actually see, and I've shot plenty high speed (I shoot 60 fps regularly at work), and when I'm watching that stuff play back at 60 fps, the first thing everyone says (not just me), is that it doesn't look "right". The sheer lack of motion blur isn't human. I suppose you could argue various shutter angles at 60 fps, as shutter angle also plays large role in recreating human vision as well. If reality is your goal, I'd recommend something in between 24p and 30p, as for the shutter angle, thats open to debate.

On the topic of the 24p look, I know for a fact that the next generation of filmmakers (That would be me and everyone else my age) prefers the look overwhelmingly. 24p isn't quite what human vision sees, but thats the look they all go for. We just associate anything faster with being "non-film like" or "live at 5 TV news looking".

 

[Michael Schrengohst]

And if you have tried to edit lowly 720 60p it is hard not to drop frames.
And try viewing a 60p QuickTime on a lower end computer - not going to happen. 24p is a great frame rate for shooting and editing. Data rates are
lower and I can make a 24p file that will play great on the web. Most Hollywood files are still shot and edited 24p and that is what you are
seeing on DVD as well (even though most DVD players add a 3:2 pulldown
so it will play 29.97 for NTSC sets). I love the look of 24p and have been
shooting film and video at that rate for 20+ years. Anytime anyone wants to shoot 720 60p I give them a dirty look.

 

[Justin Anderson]

(29.97, which already looks faster than what your eye sees).

if you can PERCEIVE the difference between 24 and 29.97, then you can SEE 29.97. If your eyes couldn't see it then you wouldn't be able to perceive that it's there.

 

[HD Hildebrand]

60 fps - you got to be kidding. Well, if you like the look of video - power to ya'.

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

if you can PERCEIVE the difference between 24 and 29.97, then you can SEE 29.97. If your eyes couldn't see it then you wouldn't be able to perceive that it's there.

Humm, interesting point, guess I should rephrase it, basically, it just plain old doesn't look like what I'm seeing when I view the action taking place with my own eyes. When I look at the screen, well, it doesn't look exactly the same. Thats what my comment meant. The appearance of the motion (speed and motion blur) just looks different. The average consumer might not see this, but I see it (course, I work with lots of frame rates and actually think about this stuff too...)

I have to say, I'm very surprised to see a debate like this on Red User. It's usually the Film VS Digital that gets people all fired up, but frame rates... thought everyone was totally cool with 24p.......

 

[Graeme Nattress]

60fps is not the look of video though. Video isn't 60p, it's 60i or 50i and yes, they do look different to 60p or 50p. The look of video is as much defined by it's gamma curve as the frame rate or shutter speed. Video is usually shot 1/60th shutter, effectively 360 degree for each field. Film is usually 180 degree shuttter.

Can you make high FPS material look dramatic, moody and wonderful - yes. Can you make 24p material look shallow, plastic and awful - yes.

24p was chosen for no other reason than it was the slowest they could get away with.

There is no one perfect look for everyone - just as oils are not better than watercolour and watercolour not better than oils - just different.

As I've said earlier - use fps as a creative tool. Don't let things as silly as standards get in the way of being creative.

Graeme

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

60fps is not the look of video though. Video isn't 60p, it's 60i or 50i and yes, they do look different to 60p or 50p.

They certainly do look different, but I think most people see them as being awfully similar in appearance, or at the very least, 60P being amped up 29.97 interlace video (aka 60i, man whats up with all the different ways of saying video LOL).

 

[Proteus]

How about using hyper-real 60p to your advantage, to make your fictitious footage convince the viewer that he actually experiences it (to a much higher degree)?

Imagine you have gained the skills required to express all your artistic qualities and achieve a highly artistic result *at that high framerate* so you feel no need to go back to 24p.
You would have discovered new cinematic tools in that super-smooth motion feel and because of this, your footage would not look like a soap opera at all! I think it would be like "a new sound" in music - a new era in cinema!

Too good to be true? I doubt it.

Definitely 60fps is the future -and even higher!

P.S: Sorry, it seems I was writing at the same time with Graeme -I saw his post the last moment but anyway I post it. I absolutely agree with his point of view.

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Graeme,

Just curious, why does video have so many frame rate designations (29.97, 60i, and believe it or not, 30i, not so sure where that last one came from, but I swear I've seen it used)? Did people just not agree and come up with their own way of saying interlaced video?

 

[Cail Young]

2. Will we see a shift to 48 or 120 fps in cinemas? If yes, when do you think this would happen?

If it were to happen it would severely limit the run-time of features unless a massive upgrade of the platter systems was to happen - currently most projectors will triple-project each frame for a 72Hz flicker but only 24 frames per second; if you were to actually screen 48 or indeed 120 frames per second you would need much better transports and platters on every single screen... not easy.

Digital projection is another kettle of fish, however. That's definitely available for higher framerates in the near future.

 

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Eugenia, I wonder if this is the right bunch to be asking your question about frame rate. Most of them (sometimes, me too) watch more how a movie looks as opposed to becoming absorbed in the story. Ask a movie goer who knows nothing about what a frame is. If they they watch 10, 24p movies and like 8 of them, and watch a comparable ten, 50 or 60 fps movies and only like 3 out of 10, then you get a statistically relevent set of data.

I think I asked the right bunch... without all of you, I won't be able to find 60fps movies to show to anyone, not even for comparison sake... :-D

BTW, near the center of France there is an entertainment park of sorts, where there are 3 special cinemas showing specially-shot short movies (about 1.5 hours south of Paris). In one of the three theaters, there's an action movie shot at 60fps, back in early 1990s, using custom hardware. My husband has seen that short movie and he said that it was an amazing experience. Personally, the only real 60fps video I have seen, is the one I shot with my Canon A700 in QVGA.

Edit: http://www.futuroscope.com/eng/ The park with the next-gen theaters.

 

[Keith Alan Morris]

60 fps - you got to be kidding. Well, if you like the look of video - power to ya'.

no doubt! it'd be like watching a bad british drama. or a mexican soap opera. ...just saps all the life out of it and makes all your hard work look totally ghetto.

 

[Proteus]

Eugenia, why don't you use your hv20 in interlaced mode at 60i? That should give you the same sense of smooth motion as 60p except that moving parts in the scene will have half the resolution -but it will definitely be better than QVGA!

 

[Michael Schrengohst]

I think I asked the right bunch... without all of you, I won't be able to find 60fps movies to show to anyone, not even for comparison sake... :-D

BTW, near the center of France there is an entertainment park of sorts, where there are 3 special cinemas showing specially-shot short movies (about 1.5 hours south of Paris). In one of the three theaters, there's an action movie shot at 60fps, back in early 1990s, using custom hardware. My husband has seen that short movie and he said that it was an amazing experience. Personally, the only real 60fps video I have seen, is the one I shot with my Canon A700 in QVGA.

Edit: http://www.futuroscope.com/eng/ The park with the next-gen theaters.

To even edit 720 60p video requires a decent computer and fast hard drives.
You cannot understand the real world experience of HD editing if your
only frame of reference is your QVGA video.