Is the future 60fps?

[Craig Schober]

talk

talk

ever been to a party where one guy seems to hijack the conversation and talk incessantly? and the more they talk, the more you realize they have nothing to say and can only offend and infuriate those who patiently listen. i think we can try this topic again sometime in the near future after some people leave the party. alright, now i'm gonna go hit on that blonde in the corner.

 

[Daniel Gourley]

...amazing depth of field???

Shallow depth of field is not only aesthetic element of film-making, but also one of the tools of storytelling.

This guy should get some shitty mini dv camera, with 1/3" ccd to have everything in focus...

I believe Red should be for people who understand at least the basics of making films.

Now THAT'S FUNNY!

 

[Steve Gibby]

24fps is just one of scores of frame rates available on RED One. Why are those other frame rates there? To fully enable the creative and genre options of RED One. RED One was designed from the beginning as a digital cinema camera system that could easily be setup for a diverse variety of cine style and EFP style productions – and that wide variety, and in many cases segments or scenes within, calls for different frame rates.

Someone who uses RED One and shoots nothing but 24fps is making a perfectly valid choice if they only shoot genres that strictly call for 24fps. Conversely someone who uses RED One on the wide variety of genres and sub-genres that the camera is capable of and designed for, and consequently uses a wide range of frame rates in the process, is also making a perfectly valid choice.

24fps tends to be what the imagination sees – and higher frame rate equivalents tend to be what the brain really sees before the imagination kicks in. IMO there is a time for both. When I’m directing and shooting a production one of the very first things I do is analyze what format and frames rates within that format will most effectively convey to the viewer the intended meaning of each scene or segment of the production. There is a time for a cinematic look – and there is a time for a reality look.

Each year I serve as a judge for several of the national Emmy Awards competitions (PrimeTime, Daytime Entertainment, Sports, etc.), where I regularly judge the directing and camera work. When I judge the camera work it is definitely about the technical aspect choices, like frame rate, lighting, camera movement, appropriate DOF, etc., but it is always in the context of how well those technical choices tell the intended story, or in the case of unscripted content, how well the camera work enabled the editors to create the story in post. I can always tell when a DP or cinematographer stubbornly shot a scene/segment with an inappropriate technical parameter just to be lazy or because of a bias. IMO the very best cinematographers insist on the most appropriate technical parameters for each shot, scene, segment, or portions thereof. The most versatile cinematographers regularly win the camera work Emmy Awards, and I think you could say that for the Oscars and any other judging competition.

The bias that all sports or reality is sloppily shot at 60i or 60p is simply not in touch with the demands of the television market today. For instance, the best (and Emmy-winning) sports productions will utilize a variety of frame rates: 60p or higher for fast action and slo-mo sequences, and 24fps or 30fps for the artistic look-back or personal mood montages and interviews. Even reality programs like American Idol will have a mix of frame rates, depending on what is shot: the body of the program, the look-back montages, the lifestyle montages, the Ford commercials, etc.

We’re artists, but the motion media industry is a business. Maximum leveraging of our footage through multiple principal and ancillary revenue streams requires us to shoot aesthetic and technical parameters in our productions that will generate their highest economic potential. If we stubbornly limit ourselves to a narrow set of skills, genres, or technical parameters, then we may feel rewarded artistically in that comfort zone – but the fiscal reality is that we have commensurately limited our revenue. A “24fps and narrative cinema only” attitude doesn’t work for me, especially as I approach using a flexible, scalable, and highly utilitarian camera system like RED One. I’m agnostic when it comes to production style, genre, and the production values thereof. I’ll tackle any project that interests me, analyze its “best choice” technical parameters (including frame rates), and proceed accordingly.

 

[Jason Francois]

as usual Gibby you have a great way of summarizing in a very objective sort of way.

I read your posts and find a bit of calm, even on a divisive topic.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Nicely done Gibby! Anyone that knows me knows I'm pretty even keeled to begin with, but Jonathan almost got me fired up. Not by his opinion, but by the invalidation he bestowed upon those who like things like 24fps, film stock, etc. He made it sound like we are idiots for choosing these formats. But it's all good. Gibby brought us back to reality.

Steve

 

[Thom Steinhoff]

I think the transition to digital theaters will move faster and faster as the economics are just too compelling especially as projector prices plummet and print costs cannot compete with fedex’ing a hard drive or pushing the bits via satellite.

Once the theaters are mostly digital and frame rate becomes just a bit of meta-data on the movie that the projector adjusts to fit the piece--to even set frame rates on the fly--then I can see the frame rate become just another tool for filmmakers to use.

Once the chains of locked delivery framerates are broken, then Intense scenes of action and suspense can shift to 80fps to reflect our heightened sense of fear and awareness, or to 10-8fps in a confused impressionistic state. Maybe some young rebel will insist that all of his movies run at 26fps--just because--and it won't matter, because he's the next Martin Scorsese.

Maybe the next generation of film makers will change frame rate as often as we change lenses and after a few years and a few blockbusters that stun and amaze with their use of frame rate to convey emotion we will all adopt it as the only way to work.

This is an amazing time and I, for one, can't wait to see what the future holds.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Fact 1

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

Fact 2
We all grew up perceiving cinematic storytelling on 24fps.
Only on 24 fps.

Fact 3
TV standards were based on hardware limitations of the time they were set in.

Fact 4
Much of the TV material is "fast food" for brain, concentrated on quantity, being informative, sensationalistic, and cheap entertainment.

Fact 5
Most of us prefer 24p "feel" over higher framerates.

"Crash" over

"In-the last-episode-I-blew-up-your-house-and-now-we're-getting-married"

...

I think "coincidence" is a term people often use to compensate the lack of cognitive abilities, being unable to recognize the logic...ranging from subliminal to very obvious...but that's me. I could be wrong. Maybe coincidences really exist...

There is undoubtedly something in the "surreal" feeling of 24fps motion, and although I still prefer it, I don't believe it should be a rule "sine qua non". For each feeling adequate...

There are a lot of tools to create surrealism, and in this digital era only our imagination is the limit. With countless filters available in the future, 24p will be only one of many tools to provide surrealism or jump in and out of it...multy framerate movies, intelligent dynamic multilayered filters...if you can't imagine it don't think others can't also...

When today's tv sets get replaced by ultra real visual panels with nK resolution and nfps, showing true to life imagery - maybe then all the UV heavy proteced folks will perceive 60 fps as just right...

Can you make high FPS material look dramatic, moody and wonderful - yes. Can you make 24p material look shallow, plastic and awful - yes.
There is no one perfect look for everyone - just as oils are not better than watercolour and watercolour not better than oils - just different.
Use fps as a creative tool. Don't let things as silly as standards get in the way of being creative.

Greatly put.
As I wouldn't want to be limited by resolution, amount of colours, dynamic range, DOF options, light, audio channels, instruments, samples, filters...you name it....I feel same about the framerate.

These all are tools...our brushes...we are blessed with the amount of which we can use to express what comes from within.
Our creativity comes from undefined dimension, without rules and standards, and we try to transfer it to this dimension based on our perception and tools available.
Tools evolve. So does our perception. A bit slower, but it does.

I don't think things will stay the same. Not if creativity will decide. I see choices.

...I've been earning in the film & TV industry since I was 17 (35 now) and you know what? I'm quite happy to confess that I don't know shit. There's way too much to learn and I'm truly happy about that... the learning is the fun part.

bravo.

I love to work surrounded with that type of mentality.
Assuming you know enough mounts a cork on your brain input. Ego kills evolution. And people still don't get it...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I agree with Gibby -- we may see a day when digital projection, if commonplace enough, allows a director to pick a frame rate that best suits the style of the project, either a more hyper-real immersive effect or a traditional "classic" 24 fps look. A lot of this is simply conditioning -- there's no "right" frame rate just as there is no "right" aspect ratio or depth of field characteristic. There is simply tradition and audience conditioning (and that can be changed over time), and sometimes you want to challenge that and sometimes you don't want that to be a factor for the viewer.

But for now, which frame rate you choose for "normal motion" may have an impact on your delivery requirements, so just think it through.

While it can certainly be argued that high sampling rates are more "real", not every type of production needs to be realistic -- there is an aspect that can cater to our dreams and fantasies. I'm sure there are some middle-aged actresses who would prefer I not get too hung up on capturing them as they "really" are... but use some slight of hand to alter reality into something more pleasing to the eye.

Making something fake look real is a different skill than capturing something as it really is (I'm not referring to attributes of certain actresses here... :innocent: ) Half the time on a narrative production, you are masking the reality of something more than capturing it faithfully. For example, filming a movie set in Kansas in California instead ("is that palm tree in the frame?") This is why the most hyper-real process is not always going to suit the type of production.

The argument for shooting video in progressive-scan at lower rates (24/25/30) is partly a question of whether you want to avoid or minimize the "classic" or traditional video look of 50i/60i, more than necessarily copying film exactly. Again, this is just a choice to think about, although of course there are also technical advantages of progressive-scan over interlace-scan capture.

Some of these arguments can also be applied to the notion of 3D versus 2D. One of the most hyper-real narrative works I've seen was the 3D IMAX movie "Wings of Courage", but in the cafe scene, I found myself staring at the 3D food on the table rather than watch what the actors were doing; so sometimes the more "real" the experience is, the harder it can be for the director to direct the audience's attention to what's important (assuming he didn't just want to simply cut in tighter all the time to what was important.) This is why selective use of focus, focal length compression, camera movement, 2D framing, etc. can all be useful directorial tools.

 

[Jason Francois]

Some of these arguments can also be applied to the notion of 3D versus 2D. One of the most hyper-real narrative works I've seen was the 3D IMAX movie "Wings of Courage", but in the cafe scene, I found myself staring at the 3D food on the table rather than watch what the actors were doing; so sometimes the more "real" the experience is, the harder it can be for the director to direct the audience's attention to what's important (assuming he didn't just want to simply cut in tighter all the time to what was important.) This is why selective use of focus, focal length compression, camera movement, 2D framing, etc. can all be useful directorial tools.

This is a VERY good point.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There may also simply be budgetary restrictions -- hyper-real, hyper-sharp images may demand better sets and costumes, better visual efx, maybe more time spent on some element (make-up, lighting, etc.) This isn't always possible. We get away with murder sometimes being able to work in 2D, throw things out of focus, work at low-enough resolutions that certain incorrect details won't be visible, etc.

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

Oh Yeah?

Oh Yeah?

I for one disagree with every single thing Gibby said.

So there.




By the way.. Those of you that wanted to see Lucas.. Finally here you go:

Lucas is the small one.. 3 weeks old with Mama and brother Joshua.. Time does fly..



Jay

 

[Steve Gibby]

LOL...I see that smiley face emoticon Jay!

Congratulations on your new son Lucas and a happy looking family...

 

[zak forrest]

For example, if "Lost" was shot at real 60fps, I think that it would look good. Sure, it would take us a week to get used to it (and initially maybe fans would camp outside ABC and ask to go back to what they are used to), but after that initial time, I think it would look more real to me, and it would actually help me escape reality MORE, rather than not! You see, it's more difficult for a viewer to escape reality in a 24fps environment that is not natural to humans, rather than a 60fps one which is closer to what he/she knows and understands.

stuff shot like that has less motion blur, which is less similar to what i see with my eyes. when i see things shot at 30fps, let alone 60fps, i immediately feel like its less close to what i know and understand.

in my opinion 24 frames per second is the magic number, and there is a reason its a century old.

--edit: hahahah sorry i just read the rest of this thread. i have nothing new to add, its all been said. (i should just delete this post...

 

[tj williams]

Ah Fortunate Lucas, who will grow up in a world where the frame rate, smeareness, sharpness, screen aspect ratio, color, detail, depth of field screen contents, peoples appearance, and all the rest,will more and more be under the control of the artist and not limited by what limited machinery of production can accomplish. Eventually the photography/Digital creation of entertainment will approach the freedom that was displayed by the paintings of the time before photography. Fortunate people, who could violate the laws of physics, in their paintings, at will.
Has he opened his eyes yet?

 

[kraemer]

This is all "blah blah blah". The second that a "Michael Bay" or somebody else makes bank on a summer blockbuster that does 60FPS, every director and his brother in Hollywood will be shooting it like there is no tomorrow. Say what you want about it, but explosions blow up better, cars speed faster, and transformers transform better at 60FPS.

Old-old schoolers said that movies didn't need sound. Now look at em......

 

[Joe Carney]

I like that fact that I can use RED to do either 4K 24p or 1080 60p via the SDI output.
Live broadcast shows would certainly benefit from 1080 60p, even if the eventual delivery is 1080 60i. It would be cool to watch the Super Bowl at the local theater in mind numbingly good 4K 60p (dream on, I know). I have a feeling RED will become very popular among the reality TV crowd looking to up their production values to stay competitive. Where else can you get affordable 1080 60p at 10bit 4;2;2 for under 60 grand?

Still, it is really sad to read statements by clueless dilettantes making woefully uninformed statements about film. They probably don't even know what dilettante means, or sciolist, or what a Schneider Di optic lens is or...hehehe

 

[Jeremy Hughes]

I can't wait untill there is a way to have a direct video feed without frames. Then people won't have to argue about which one is the best or when to use them.

Just use lenses, mirrors and fiber optics and project it onto a screen live. I want to see that. A completley dark room and a huge lens.

 

[number6]

I for one disagree with every single thing Gibby said.

So there.




By the way.. Those of you that wanted to see Lucas.. Finally here you go:

Lucas is the small one.. 3 weeks old with Mama and brother Joshua.. Time does fly..



Jay

Nice casting for your "Real"ity show

 

[Keith Alan Morris]

One of the most hyper-real narrative works I've seen was the 3D IMAX movie "Wings of Courage", but in the cafe scene, I found myself staring at the 3D food on the table rather than watch what the actors were doing; so sometimes the more "real" the experience is, the harder it can be for the director to direct the audience's attention to what's important (assuming he didn't just want to simply cut in tighter all the time to what was important.) This is why selective use of focus, focal length compression, camera movement, 2D framing, etc. can all be useful directorial tools.

I agree wholeheartedly. I saw that film awhile ago on the upper west side, and i still tell people who will listen to me about that table popping--you could almost grab those cheese squares! Hyper-real is too much.

And on this random thread: I think as Red matures, we're going to get lots of knuckleheads popping up and posting random rude comments. A shame, really...

 

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

>Hyper-real is too much.

That's what they said in 1928 about sound and color too.

>And on this random thread [...] knuckleheads popping up

I hope you didn't write this for me, because I came here with the best intentions for a serious discussion.