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 know that editing takes a long time. I have worked with 720p even before I got my HV20 (my panasonic camera is able to capture that). But you know, just like in 1920 Hollywood didn't have to worry about sound or color, and then they had to, same today, in order to move forward, more work would be required...

The world is getting more complex, not simpler (unfortunately, of course).
 
Red Guy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, in all fairness to those in favor of the higher framerates, it's probably shortsited to say that the computers won't be able to handle it. We've seen the technology come a long way from where it was a few years ago, and the same would apply moving forward.

I'd love to see a "shootout" between 24 and 60. A scene shot simultaneously with one camera at 24, the other at 60. That way, same material, same lighting, etc. I want to see what my gut tells me at that point.

By the way, I agree wholeheartedly with Graeme about choosing what's right for the story. I'm also interested in hyperreal imagery, because I've always had an interest in immersive cinematic experiences, i.e. Virtual Reality. So, I'm openminded about all of the possibilities.

Steve
 
My personal view is that I want to tell stories. Currently the audience associates 60P with a newsy aesthetic having been brought up on interlaced video. I'm happy to say I've tried shooting higher frame rates and most of the time prefer the look of 24/25P. But then I might want to tell a story that is about a very realistic situation, captured in a newsy way...then I'd look for the higher frame rates I'm sure.

I used to deliver my mograph work in interlaced 25FPS, I got so shocked when I saw it on tele that I now do them progressively. It just looked too clean and real.

Purely my own preference of course, but I find it interesting that we are in a time to try lots of new things with visual story telling, and it's equally interesting to see that there are some legacy formats like 24FPS that are really quite nice and add their own elements to the story.

I want to try everything, but I"m happy not to throw out things that work too
 
IMHO ;) Reality is great for some things and not great for others. I would love to watch a hockey game at 120 fps. I don't want to see a narrative film that way. I think that 1080 60p would be more remeniscent of 1080 60i than it would of 1080 24p. Never seen it, though. Still..... I have no interest in it. I'd trade it for lattitude / color/ res/ all day long.
 
Two ideas for the RED team:

Two ideas for the RED team:

1. I was impressed about the bias towards 24p among the future RED users so I would suggest a competition for the best artistic short shooted at 60p either with RED ONE or even at 720p@60 with whatever camera supports it. That would be a very interesting challenge, especially if it would be open world wide. The goal would be to take advantage of the high frame rate in an artistic manner and explore new ways of cinematic expression at that frame rate. Maybe 50i and 60i converted to 50p / 60p could be allowed too, so that more ideas would take place. A succesfull 60p example (winner) could promote further the RED ONE concept.

2. A highly artistic example at 60p motion from the RED team using of course the RED ONE. I understand that its a bit risky in marketing terms and most of all its time consuming...

Ok, I'm dreaming I know... but I'd definitely take place in the competition! :shifty:
 
I think that such a competition could really bring light to what 60fps can do compared to 24fps. I hope the RED Team considers the idea, because let's face it, it can also be a selling point for the camera if the results are good!

One thing to consider: I read somewhere that in order to make 60fps video to look artistic new ideas on how to shoot must be employed. This might be true, maybe the reason many don't like 60fps is because no one has thought of the issue as something that needs a new way of shooting angles or overall movie feel. For example, when sound was added to movies in 1928, suddenly the feel/shooting/art of the movie was completely different to what was before. A new kind of movies emerged. Maybe the same kind of out-of-the-box artistic thought is required again in order for this to work.
 
Hi Eugenia. I saw the Showscan demo back in the day. And unlike the wikipedia description that calls it more smooth or real looking shooting at 60fps, I'd say just the opposite. It is unnaturally sharp (no blur) and stobes with any motion.

It is sharper or hyper reality. The showscan people even said, many people got a headache watching this rollercoaster footage that we were to see. Showscan was competing with IMAX with faster frame rates rather than bigger images - they lost. Why?

For one, when you ride on a rollercoaster the front rung of the wooden tracks going underneath the cart is naturally blurred... but in the movie it was tack sharp - like taking a still photo stopping the motion. You can get a similar look on video by cranking up the shutter speed to 120 or more... Helicopter blades will slow and stop and be sharp, so will spinning tires...

You might like the hyper reality look of everything 'being sharp without blur" like a BAD VIDEO GAME... but the more realistic and natural games have added motion blur. Hollywood effects like the stop motion look of King Kong have come a long way. (Its taken years and more computer power to add blur. After Effects allows you to turn blur on and off and see the difference!)

What you want is what our eye sees naturally. Hollywood chose 24 fps because it was the minimum level and cheapest plus alternating black or 48fps. TV chose 30 frames or 60 interlaced per second.

I believe 1080p at 30fps is about optimal. You will not see the flicker of film and yet motion blur will approximate our natural eye's latent image. It will take time for audiences to get use to it, much like RED's non grain, wide latitude and natural look at 1080p 30p or more the more romantic film look 24p.

You need to get in a fast car and shoot at not only different frame rates but also at different shutter speeds. Coke commercials use faster frames rates and or higher shutter angles (like you enjoy) to make their bubbles hyper real, sharp and yummy in their drinks.

It's a look but it is not natural. Now, 24 frames is cheep and less natural but it is far better than overly sharp 60fps.
 
1) I don't care that most of the world's population lives outside of the United States because most of the world's FILM INDUSTRY is right in the U.S. In fact about 90% of the movie industry is dominated by the United States. We are the world's only super power when it comes to film, and have been since the 1920s when German cinema was arguably bigger than U.S. cinema, as was perhaps Soviet cinema. Since World War II, America has dominated the film world and you know that. I know there will always be foreign filmmakers who are insulted to hear that, because they don't like to hear the facts, but you need look no further than the worldwide box office charts to see that our movies absolutely and COMPLETELY dominate the cultures of every nation in the world that plays our movies. And don't for a second think that I am not educated about foreign film because I come from a background in film criticism and film history, so I absolutely love many foreign movies, especially Kurosawa's work from Japan, Hong Kong action movies, French New Wave films (Contempt is especially vibrant, for instance), a few Italian Neo Realist films, I love Japanese animation (Hayao Miyazaki), and there are great movies made in every country. But it's not incorrect to generalize film standards based on what is done in the U.S., because this country is where the film industry is based, has been so for 80 years and will be so for quite a long time into the future until there is unleashed a much greater wave of competition. So enough with that argument. I'm not concerned with film standards in other countries right now, it has no interest to me.

2) When I say I think anyone who likes grain is a moron, I'm obviously giving my opinion, because there is no fact about art really, it's about interpretation and opinions. But you misunderstand what I'm saying, I think, because I can see times where you would WANT grain (to show old footage, for instance, or to imply something along those lines), but I'm talking about when people think that grain present in all film stock actually makes it better, now that's ridiculous. That is as backwards and completely stupid as saying that a car is better if it has scratches on it because it adds "character." That is an opinion, but it's also a really stupid opinion that really can't be justified logically.

3) Vinney, who the hell are you, and who really cares? Your very existence is both stupid and insulting, now go back into your cave.
 
THe correct and original frame rate for movies is 16 fps
The correct color is Black and White
The correct dynamic range is about 7 or 8 to 1
The correct form of the origination film is reversal
The correct recording and playback requires a grinder who can manually turn the handle very consistently and a little faster in projection to get more seatings in per day.

This is the original version of film and still the only way to actually show film so that it doesn't appear too real and ruin the intention of the audience to believe in fantasy. The addition of on film sound or locked sound is just wrong and also ruins the career of the organ player.
 
JonathanLB said:
HAHAHA, that was a great post.
Click to expand...

Jonathan...Are you 12? I would NEVER work with an A$$ like yourself. You perpetuate an image that Americans are uncultered idiots and it pisses me off...
 
I think all the frame rates mentioned here have their place as a tool to create the look you like. To me the DOF is what determines the video look FAR more than the frame rate. Something shot at 60 fps with a 35mm dof does not look like video.
Aloha
-A
 
Oh Poi Boy, haven't you been paying attention? This thread isn't about frame rates anymore. It's about watching Jonathan dig himself deeper and deeper into a hole. It's all about the conflict. The drama.
 
Point taken...my bad.
-A
 
Ha-ha, so funny, you two are geniuses. I have no idea what you are going on about, but I guarantee I know more about foreign film than you both, that still doesn't change the fact that the center of the film industry is in the United States. I'm sorry if that fact offends anyone, but don't shoot the messenger. Work to change it, if you don't like it. Maybe you can. The world needs more great filmmakers, no matter what the country, and I'm sure not saying America has a monopoly on great films because most of what shows in theaters now days is NOT great film, but it makes the most money in the rest of the world, so people are watching it. Obviously someone likes that stuff.

pretopost, I'm sure not immature enough to be calling into question peoples' ages, but I could ask the same of you if I were that low, couldn't I? You added nothing to this thread whatsoever. Why did you even bother posting? For no reason at all. You wouldn't have the pleasure of working with someone like me, so don't worry about it.

(not talking about you, Poi Boi, that was a good post that was actually *on topic*)

Nonetheless, this whole video versus film argument really drives me up the wall sometimes, because every single supposed "advantage" of 35mm film is actually just yet another one of its miserable shortcomings. The completely terrible depth of field is not intentional, it's a fact of shooting with a limiting medium, the grain is not intentional, that too is another artifact of an old medium, and the frame rate is a limitation from a now-past era. I don't understand how these horrible limitations have somehow become "wonderful mythical magical elements of filmmaking" or something. It's just silly to me. If you shoot something in perfect 4K resolution with amazing depth of field at 30 frames per second, and it's a visually interesting shot, you're going to have a great image. It's not going to be "video-like" unless by that you mean "far superior to film," in which case, ok, yes, it will be video-like.

I don't agree that the goal of HD (or ultra HD) is to be as much like film as possible. Screw that. It's to be as much like REALITY as possible, which film has failed to do as well as possible. It worked for a long time, well enough, and it was the best we had, but let's not get stuck on tools that are now below our means. It's just a failure to let go.
 
Let's try to bring the conversation back to the frame rate debate then. It's a very interesting issue for many directors it seems. I wonder, is what Poi Boy said true? Is it true that if you shoot with a better DOF/35mm camera (maybe like the RED) you will get acceptable non-video-like results?
 
Eugenia said:
Let's try to bring the conversation back to the frame rate debate then. It's a very interesting issue for many directors it seems. I wonder, is what Poi Boy said true? Is it true that if you shoot with a better DOF/35mm camera (maybe like the RED) you will get acceptable non-video-like results?
Click to expand...

Hi,

Shooting wide open with digiprimes on a 2/3" chip camera is about the same as T4 on 35mm. Its been done many times. The important part IMHO is that the camera should have no digital sharpening, thats what screws up the Bokeh.

Stephen
 
absolutely, no sharpening.
Aloha
-A
 
JonathanLB said:
that still doesn't change the fact that the center of the film industry is in the United States.
Click to expand...

Sure that might be true but the way you state your "Facts" calls into question your character. Repeatedly in this thread you have made your "points" at the expense of this community which is international.

I have not posted yet because, like many people on this forum, I am content to listen and LEARN from people on these boards. But your responses and in particular your "Delivery" show ignorance as to film production.

I say that, not because of any technicalities you have brought to light, but that either you have no experience or have gravely missed the fact that a film is a cooperative effort between many individuals.

You have alienated a good portion of this board with your assertions and that is why you must be loads of fun to work with. I'm sure the starter of this thread who is not located in "the center of your UNIVERSE" is happy that she has no hope of creating anything worthy in your eyes.

Now, be a good boy, have a juice-box and take a nap.
 
And you would be pleasant to work with, considering your obvious air of superiority? I don't think so.

If you knew how to read properly, which you obviously don't, you would realize I never said anything about great filmmakers only coming from the United States -- many great filmmakers have come from all over the world. Don't even try to act like I said otherwise, especially when my understanding of film is obviously ten times as deep as yours and my background far more intense. What I said was only a fact of the industry, not a discouragement to filmmakers everywhere. But to use standards that are not used in the U.S. is a mistake. You can't expect to pull even with the U.S. film industry if you aren't even using the same types of standards. This is where the industry thrives and where the power rests. A high budget movie anywhere else in the world is maybe $5 million. Here it is $100 to $200 million. There is no entertainment industry like ours in the U.S., love it or hate it.

And, for the record, I often hate it. I think U.S. music, for instance, is some of the worst music imagineable, at least right now it is. There couldn't be worse crap in the entire world than mainstream U.S. music; any other country's music is preferable.

As far as film, there are great movies made in other parts of the world. But you can't deny the fact that the center of the worldwide film industry is in Los Angeles, CA, just like the center of this world's economy is in New York City, NY, on Wall Street. That is not to say there aren't many other areas of interest, however, and your assumption that I am somehow dissing other countries because of stating a simple fact is completely wrong. I have no idea what about any of my posts led you to believe that, especially because I could not have been more clear in my appreciation for worldwide cinema. What makes this medium so rich is the injection of independent voices, and those come from all over the world. The mainstream views and ideas presented in Hollywood filmmaking do NOT interest me, and I gather they don't interest many people on this forum either.

If we have had a misunderstanding because of something you thought that I believe that I clearly do not believe, then I apologize for that, but your personal insults need to stop. They have no place on this forum or anywhere else. It is you who is failing to show a mature attitude, not I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top