Everybody having the slightest amateur analogue photography experience is well aware about shutter speeds used in realy life with real (amateur) film. For example, 1/100 or shorter speed is totally typical for outdoor sessions...

So then, why on the earth do they continue using 24fps process? Were are in 2007, btw. You can go beyound 24fps when shooting clips with $250 Panasonic pocket camera (it can do 30fps), but $10,000 studio camera continue to shoot at 24, even nowadays...

24fps is just not good enough for quick camera movements, you can mention the judder on the big theater screen.

We do need a higher frame rate, and in the HD century we do have enough storage on HD DVD/BR disks...

Even if outdated theater machines can project only 24fps, one can shoot at 48fps and make two versions: a legacy one (by discarding every second frame), and an advanced one, intended for use in modern theaters - and for digital tranfers, of course.

Please comment.

Well, it's an old idea. How about 60 fps?

http://www.showscan.com/company_1.htm

Well, I agree they should move to 30 or 29.97, but we still have the issue of catalog being 24.

Hasn't anyone ever heard of Todd-AO? It was the 50's 70mm 30fps format that failed for all the same reasons this usually does. You can change how you do things but not how others do, especially if it means they have to buy new equipment to support your whim.

In a 100 years of cinema the public has neither demanded 3-D or higher resolution though the waters are tested every twenty years or so. I'm also not sure aesthetically everyone would agree that the ultimate goal of the cinematic image is for it to appear as if one were simply looking through a window.

The best reference on earth for technical history of the cinematic image is Widescreen Museum, everyone should give it a look it's fascinating (no, really it is)

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/index.htm

Its very easy why they still uses 24fps.


When they first used it where for that was the amount of frames needed for the audio on the filmstock should get acceptable quality.

Why they still use it today when technology can do so much more.

Most films are still made of film (and filmstocks costs)
24fps are already a standard for theaters all around the world.
24fps are the best framerate for both PAL and NTSC conversion.
Experiment with framerates of 60P and 72P havnt got succesful. 24P is filmlook, 48P,50i,50P, 59,976i and 59,976P give realitylook. And when people go to the theaters they prefer filmlook.

And its not like you can shoot 48fps and just discard half frames in post. Films shoot most of the time 24fps with 1/48 shutter. If you shoot with 48fps you would have to use open shutter to get the same look. Filmcameras cant shoot with open shutter. So that leaves digital cameras left. And digital cameras with open shutter get the "Miami Vice look"

And no way I want that with my movies. Keep 24fps and let the homevideos shoot 50i and 59,976i.

ps
Starwars Ep 2 and 3 could have been shot with 30P(F900 and F950 can that) but they still filmed it in 24P. Guess why.

I agree with the post above. People like the "movie" look when going to the movies not just a big TV. It is just one of those standards that would be too expensive to change out at this time. Kindda like driving on the right side of the road (not necessarily the correct side for you left handers) and having power delivered at 60 Hz.

Maybe years in the future when the entire production and delivery chain is digital things will change.

Laters,
Jeff

Keep 24fps...

My words. That is what a movie makes special and other to video. Film has to be 24fps - even in the future. Just keep that cinema flair ;-)

The desire for 24p is purely aesthetic today.

If you're a Filmmaker you want your productions to look like film. You don't want them looking like video. The TV show ER did a live show one time at 30p and people didn't like the way the show looked.

As a person who's interested in "filmmaking" myself I know that 24p is acceptable for making a movie and it is desired.

Now if you're filming a Documentary then 30p is probably desired to make if feel "real" and "gritty".

Hell, even before moving away from 24 fps, they need to bring back 65mm/70mm!!! That blows the crap out of 35mm any day of the week and twice on Sunday! And digital photography would shrivel up in PQ comparisons.

Dan

24fps are the best framerate for both PAL and NTSC conversion.
.


24 fps is a terrible standard to use for PAL. You have to speed up the movie by 4% to get one-for-one frame transfer, thus altering the pitch of the soundtrack. This can be fixed with pitch changing software, but it is far from an ideal solution.

24 fps exists simply because if you want your film exhibited in theaters, you'll need to at shoot at 24 fps. This standard predates US video by several decades. It has very little to do with "look"; it's pure distribution economics. If you shoot at something other than 24 fps, your film will forever need to be played back on video equipment. 24fps film projecting equipment is a world standard, and even if you go to some out of the way town in Asia or Eastern Europe, they will probably be able to show a 24 fps film. Remember, film distribution is a worldwide business. The big economies of the business drive the standards for the rest.

Some TV shows and music videos are shot at 30fps on film as these shows are never intended to be shown in theaters, especially shows that will have a lot of post production visual fx or CG. It's easier to composite this material if you don't have to worry about the merged fields of 3:2 pulldown. All shows shot at 30 fps are posted on digital or tape, as just about all mechanical film editing equipment runs at 24 fps. These shows are transfered to tape or digital at the negative stage, and then the negative is never touched again.

Keep in mind that shooting at 30 fps on film will increase your film stock and processing costs by 25%.

Cost
Any changes would add more to the amount of 'film' to be used per movie.
All the demands for closer world wide release dates would not help.
So you need to keep the amount of film used to a min.

Even if I agree with all you say jimby I dont se thats it goes against my statement.

even if speed up pal isnt ideal, it isnt that bad. Ive got 300 dvd movies that proves that. But what i meant was 24 was the best compromise for a mastering format for both pal and ntsc. 29,976P and 59,976P would be far worse for PAL.

Sure 24P is standard, but that doesnt take away the estetic with film at 24fps. 30P could work but 48 50 and 60 would take away the classic filmlook.

as for shows shooy at 30fps, they dont look good over here.

As said before 24p is the best compromise for a Universal Master. Content has legs for many years all over the world.

A couple of notes...
No television shows (shot video) are 30p, the are shot 24 frames/sec or 60 fields/sec... in some cases 60 frames/sec (720p). These days the standars are - shoot film 24fps transfer to 1080p24 for post and convert to 1080i or 720p plus SD for network delivery. - OR - Shoot 1080p24 video and skip the film to tape step. Early HD programming was (sometimes shot) posted in 1080i59.94/60 or 720p59.94/60 because pro gear was available to the industry in these standards long before 1080p23.976/24... The downside is that you lose the "Universal Mastering" benefits of 24fps.

60p looks great for things like sporting events... take a look at some action shot 720p.
60p for theatrical movies and television shows would be a nightmare to deal with. #1 you have 2.5x the number of frames to deal with... Maybe not so much of a problem for the consumer who has nice new high capacity drives on his/her HTPC or a HD DVD/BR that could hold a 60p file but think about what it would take for Studios and Facilites to deal with that much data? Film is transferred to 2K or 4K files for digital intermediate and when the work is complete on the picture it is downsampled to HD and SD for your viewing pleasure. Some of you are very familiar with the storage requirements for large frames specifically when they are deep color not to mention the bandwidth and horsepower required to process and move these frames around. For those of you that don't.... It would blow your mind. #2 someone else mentioned visual effects budgets/time... remember, now you have 2.5x the work!

Trevor

The desire for 24p is purely aesthetic today.

If you're a Filmmaker you want your productions to look like film. You don't want them looking like video. The TV show ER did a live show one time at 30p and people didn't like the way the show looked.

As a person who's interested in "filmmaking" myself I know that 24p is acceptable for making a movie and it is desired.

Now if you're filming a Documentary then 30p is probably desired to make if feel "real" and "gritty".

I remember watching a couple episodes of the original Twilight Zone that were shot in video and it totally lost the effect of the film-based epsiodes.

60i isn't a very good dramatic medium.

Might have missed it above, but if it hasn't been mentioned, 24 fps is typically shot at ~1/48-sec shutter speed. Expressed a preference in this archived post (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=3085589#post3085589) for the smoother-motion, crisper 1080/60i video 'look' for dramas compared to 24p, and suggested (not too seriously) capturing 24p and 1080/60i simultaneously (two cameras, akin to early Jackie Gleason filmings/tapings). Today it's possible to capture 1080/60p on tape/disks for dramas, but haven't seen any practical way of delivering it into homes (without considerable compression). -- John

I very much hope that most film makers will maintain the look I associate with and love about "film". 24fps is a huge part of this. Capture more frames, and you quickly end up looking reality TV.

Digital cameras can do stuff analog cameras can't. It was mentioned that most films use 24fps with a 1/48 sec shutter (that's a 180° shutter angle).
But when filming with a digital camera you can go as high as a 360° shutter angle, giving you an exposure of 1/24 sec.

The result is very smooth but smeary looking motion and a "video feel". Mel Gibson's Apocalypto used this way of shooting extensively during the chase sequences. I hated it (the style, not the movie).

Yes im thinking of starting

No Open Shutters Association


I cant stand smeary digital footage on the big screen.

Apparently Panavision and the industry is (slowly) moving away from their film cameras and using Panavisions digital cameras. Check out Panavision's site.

Many have tried to make changes to technical movie standards.
The Super Dimension-70™ (http://www.superdimension70.com/) is one of them. Sadly,not much has happened with this since 2004.
Interesting system in the quest for better picture quality without losing the
"film look" in its 24fps, 48fps mix that is displayed as 96fps.
I think movie enthusiast deserve to see this system used in a high budget drama. Its been too long since the era of 70mm greats.


From the Welcome to SDS-70 Super Dimension Movie System (http://www.superdimension70.com/) web site:
Super Vista Corp's Super Dimension-70™ (SDS-70™) is a patented theatrical film process that employs five perf. 70mm advanced film based technology.

The SDS-70™ 65mm camera operates at either 24fps. or 48fps. to photograph scenes that have the conventional "third person" 2-D content, or a "first person" 3-D like, in the movie experience.

One of the patented features of the SDS-70™ process is the compositing of cinematic image components photographed at twenty-four frames per second with other image components photographed at 48fps. Each image photographed at 24fps. is re-formatted onto two successive frames and strung together with film photographed at 48fps.

The projector operates at 48fps and presents each frame twice at a display rate of 96 images per second. At this display rate there is no projection flicker and the images on the screen are brighter, sharper and clearer than any motion picture film format.

The precision digital cine-max transport provides for rock-steady images, no jump or weave on any size screen. There is no significant film wear because there isn't a film trap mechanism on the projector to cause excessive friction and no part of the SDS-70 IMPACT™ projection system comes in contact with the picture area.

Screens as big as 70 feet can be employed and have a reflective light level of more than 16ft Lambert's. SDS-70™ can fit into any Megaplex without costly construction and most importantly participating exhibitors will NOT have to buy the projection equipment. The technology will be licensed to the distributor of a SDS-70™ feature film and paid for through the "value added" admission price paid for at the box office.

Even if I agree with all you say jimby I dont se thats it goes against my statement.

even if speed up pal isnt ideal, it isnt that bad. Ive got 300 dvd movies that proves that. But what i meant was 24 was the best compromise for a mastering format for both pal and ntsc. 29,976P and 59,976P would be far worse for PAL.

Sure 24P is standard, but that doesnt take away the estetic with film at 24fps. 30P could work but 48 50 and 60 would take away the classic filmlook.

as for shows shooy at 30fps, they dont look good over here.

Well, since I work in the music industry, sound tracks sped up by 4% is a bigger issue. It's quite noticeable for music. Remember, a delivery medium is best when it doesn't substantially alter what the content producers intended. Changing the running time and speeding up audio and picture fall into the category of substantially altering the original content as far as I'm concerned :)

About current TV shows at 30fps, I am not sure if there are any in production now. I guess HD and the wide support of 24 fps equipment makes that less of an issue. Weren't there a few TV shows shot on 3-perf 35mm at 30 fps a few years back?

I do know that some music videos are shot on film at 30 fps where the extra stock costs are not objectionable.

James Cameron, I believe, wants to shoot above 40fps for his next feature.

I don't understand the desire for the esthetic look of 24 fps. With the increasing resolution, surround sound, and all the new technologies, the desire is more realism, so if you can shoot at a rate that is compatible with current screens and is smoother, why not? Could they not make televisions that are compatible with 30 fps and 25 fps no matter whether they are connected to 50 hz or 60 hz power? That way the video quality wouldn't suffer in different locations.

I don't understand the desire for the esthetic look of 24 fps. With the increasing resolution, surround sound, and all the new technologies, the desire is more realism,

The desire is more realism? Maybe for you, not for me.
If I want realism I can watch a documentary.

Film lighting alone is an art in itself and is mostly far from being realistic. Bounce cards, diffusors, all kinds of artificial lights, shadow casters etc. are used to create a highly unrealistic but visually pleasing result.

The DCI Digital Cinema spec includes support for 48 fps. It's in there mainly for stereo 3D (24p for each eye), but once it's in projectors and playback processors, it'll only be a matter of time until someone decides to use it for a movie.

As for why 24p is so prominant, it's hard to convert from anything else to 24p for theatrical distribution without it looking weird. And movie theaters are still a pretty important release venue :).

But shooting 48p with 1/48th of a second exposure would maybe work for both 48 and 24 delivery.

James Cameron, I believe, wants to shoot above 40fps for his next feature.


I'm not sure what the frame rate will be, but Cameron is shooting AVATAR entirely in Digital 3-D. 20th Fox releases it on May 22, 2009 (in both 3-D and 2-D versions)

Eric

There is an application that would benefit from 30Fps . . . .IMAX

When SHOWSCAN came out, IMAX saw it as a threat to it's fledging theater chain. So to "answer the call, IMAX filmed (1) movie (the name escapes me) in 48Fps and called it IMAX-HD. It was shown in (1) theater in Europe for a very limited time.

The problem was that it looked "too real" and many in the audience were getting vertigo and had to shut their eyes during the presentation . . .not the ideal way to view a movie.

Holloywood is very stubborn about changing anything when it comes to the "camera." About 10 years ago it was suggested to go to the "compact 35mm" print as we no longer show 1.33 in theaters. The CP would have an AR of 1.85 and would be compatiable with all current projectors in theaters. The only downside was the loss of "real estate" when shooting anamorphic. Panavision was the lead company to kill this idea as they also were for the now defunct Super 35 format.

the 35/70 debate is dead as the screens are so small they cannot take advantage of the extra resolution. The print cost is 4 times higher ($1200 vs $5000) and the only sound advantage 70mm had , the 6 track discrete sound went bye bye with diigital

The 65/70 scenerio died MANY years ago with the exception of IMAX. Main reason the size of the theater/screen.

Before multiplexing a small theater had 1000 seats while the larger ones were in the 3000 to 4000 seats. The largest commerical movie theater ever built in the USA was the Stanley Theater in N.J which had 5000 seats. Screens went all the up to 30' x 72'

Again the cost fact was the killer and Holloywood looks at every penny. The last film to be in 65/70 was K.B's HAMLET and only about 100 70mm prints were made because by that time out of the 25,000 screens inthe USA, few had the ability to play 70MM anymore.

We are "stuck" with 24 for a while . . .which means as HT owners . . .we are stuck with the 3:2 pulldown issue as well.

Long Live the Movies!

Thanks guys for your extensive replies, but I still miss something.

Here is a simple real-life example. I have seen Matrix 3 in both standard and IMAX versions. Ther IMAX one looked more realistic (not sure what FPS they use) and more exiting. Now you say, realistic is not always good. Does it mean you do prefer non-IMAX version for Matrix and other "futuristic" filcks (lets not discuss traditional drama here)?

When you go to an IMAX theater to see a non-IMAX movie, you are seeing a "blowup" where the 35mm film has been blown up tp 70mm. The taking negative is still 35mm.

There is a special process that allows IMAX to do this (name escapes me).

The benefits of seeing a fiest run movie at an IMAX theather are two fold:

1. BIG screen - some are has high as a 7 story building

2. BIG sound system - using high quality equipment with LOTS of watts.

Where I live now (so. FL) the Muvico chain offers excellent presentation and prides themselves on this.

But when I lived in NY, going to the movies meant taking a trainride into NYC and going to The Ziegfield Theater - 1000 seats HUGE screen an $250,000 worth of Meyers sound equipment.

Today, 3/07 the revenue gained by the movie being shown in a theater is less then 20%. The other 80%+ comes from all the different video variations. All the studio wants to do is break even at the theater . . .then everything else is pure profit. But it all starts with the movie.

A very little known fact is that most times (with exception of big Sci-Fi and action films) more is spent on the advertising of the movie and the actual budget used to create the movie.

Too bad P.T. Barnum isn't around . . .he might have overyaken Bill Gates as the richest man in the world . . .this theories all proved correct.

Panavision was the lead company to kill this idea as they also were for the now defunct Super 35 format.


Since when is Super35 defunct? Someone should tell Hollywood, because they still seem to be producing plenty of movies in it. Currently in theaters - Ghost Rider & Wild Hogs, both Super35 productions.

There are serious mechanical problems in doing film at higher frame rates. Intermittents have to yank the film down for each frame, and it becomes very hard on the film and equipment.

30FPS has been used as mentioned in early ToddAO. 48FPS and 60FPS have been used. Doug Trumball had a process called Showscan that was 70MM at 60FPS. Looked really great.

One of the problems with higher frame rates is then you have to downconvert. The first two movies shot in ToddAO (Oklahoma! and Around the World in 80 Days) were actually shot twice, once at 30FPS and once at 24 FPS. Beginning with the third ToddAO picture (South Pacific), the frame rate was changed to 24FPS just to avoid double shooting.

I personally believe that frame rate is the largest single issue today. We don't realize how much better things would look at higher rates because we normally don't see them. This is particularly true of today's fast/action fast/cutting films, that often really look more like a big jumble than anything realistic.

I would like to see all production at 4320P120. A rate of 120RPS is neat because 120 is evenly divisible by 24, 30, and 60, thus allowing us to downsample easily to all known formats.

PAL is still odd-man-out at 25FPS. Why that happened is a mystery to us all.

50 Hertz mains?

Since when is Super35 defunct? Someone should tell Hollywood, because they still seem to be producing plenty of movies in it. Currently in theaters - Ghost Rider & Wild Hogs, both Super35 productions.

Still alive heh? Too bad. It is just a method of trying to shoot for film and and video at the same time . . .while we the movie patrons get the short stick on quality of image.

10 years ago I predicted that the movie theater indusry would have to do something drastic as screens for the home viewer had gone from 27" to 50" and beyond. Patrons weren't going to the movies as much.

I thought that Digiital Cinema wouldn't fly because the proposal had the studios paying for it to save print costs. My preditions are based on the old adage:

"To foretell the future . . . . You must look back to the past."

I had hoped that there would be a resergence of 65/70mm to offer" High Definition" at the movies and just by leaving the frame rate where it is, would be a big incentive for patrons to come back. . . .still patiently waiting . . . but running out of life years.

As the cost of digital storage goes effectively to zero the economics will change and younger film makers will start using faster frame rates. 24p is just way top slow for moving video but will take awhile to change.

- Tom

Well, since I work in the music industry, sound tracks sped up by 4% is a bigger issue. It's quite noticeable for music. Remember, a delivery medium is best when it doesn't substantially alter what the content producers intended. Changing the running time and speeding up audio and picture fall into the category of substantially altering the original content as far as I'm concerned :)

About current TV shows at 30fps, I am not sure if there are any in production now. I guess HD and the wide support of 24 fps equipment makes that less of an issue. Weren't there a few TV shows shot on 3-perf 35mm at 30 fps a few years back?

I do know that some music videos are shot on film at 30 fps where the extra stock costs are not objectionable.

But the problem will remain, 30fps-25fps isnt an ideal solution. As 24-25 been done in europe for a long time an J6P hasnt complained. They are really good at releasing DVDs with upspeed.

Of course Im happy we have 1080/24P for both HD DVD and Bluray.

As the cost of digital storage goes effectively to zero the economics will change and younger film makers will start using faster frame rates. 24p is just way to slow for moving video but will take awhile to change.

- Tom

Since the DVX100 emerged along with XL2, HVX200, XL-1H, XH-A1, HD 100 etc. younger filmmakers have started to shoot slower framerates aka 24P.

Sure HD can go at higher fps, but many including myself dont think that gives filmlook.

And now Canon is even releasing its HV20 handycam with 24P.


24P is hear to stay.

Today, 3/07 the revenue gained by the movie being shown in a theater is less then 20%. The other 80%+ comes from all the different video variations.

Uh, source please. This number seems way off.

The numbers ive heard is more like 50% but that depends on what movie it is.

Anybody know how long it took the movie industry to switch over to sound or color after those two became available?

- Tom

Well the difference is that sound and color gave a different movieexperience in a better way. im not sure higher framerates would give a different viewing experience in a better way.

Sure more realistic but, movies is an art. And slower framerates enforce that felling. Just as addding grain and high shutterspeed helped Saving private ryan. I cant imagine how fake that movie would have looked if it was shoot 48fps. It wouldnt have looked like anything from that time.

Take your 10 favourite movies and think if they where shoot 48,50 or 60fps. Do you think that would have looked better?

Source for proof of statement that the studios make far less on a movie then on video

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/Demyst3.htm

And as you can see, this didn't happen just a year or two ago.

Aha missread. My 50% was the money the studios got from the tickesales of the total tickesale. As for DVD, yes thats the biggest cashflow for movies. Today movies are more a marketing for the DVD sale. A movie that has been at the theaters makes more money than a direct to video release.

Take your 10 favourite movies and think if they where shoot 48,50 or 60fps. Do you think that would have looked better?

IMHO, there is a difference between "looking better as work of art" and "being easier to watch". Maybe we can gradually get acustomed to a new smoother process. No 48fps for Godfather, however, I agree.

Movie:

Take your 10 favourite movies and think if they where shoot 48,50 or 60fps. Do you think that would have looked better?

I believe we were discussing going from 24 to 30 Fps. I definitely agree with your statement as I have seen all film formats at one time in my life, except that 1 film in IMAX-HD, 60Fps Showscan would never work because the entire frame is in focus . . .foreground and background. Information overload.

But I have seen a number of short films using the IWERKS 70 system and the film speed is 30Fps and they held my attention just fine.

We can't say "never" and we can't say "soon" as both may not be truisms but as High Def. continues to grow . . .there will be a reaction . . . .it can't be ignored.

Well its not that we need to adapt we already watching 50i and 60i shows but they in our mind already associated with lowbudget feel, homevideo feel so i dont think that can be changed so easy.

If it were the other way around movies where 60i and homevideo was 24P then we would associate 60i with quality look.

Source for proof of statement that the studios make far less on a movie then on video

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/Demyst3.htm

And as you can see, this didn't happen just a year or two ago.
Wow, that is quite amazing. I suppose the reason studios don't release new features simultaneously in theaters and on home media is that it would pretty much kill the theater revenue?

Given these stats, I would almost have to think it would be worth it for the studios to considder shooting in 48fps, at least for action flicks, as the vast majority of their revenue comes from non-theater showings, no? They could then "down-convert" to a 24fps version for the ~17% of the revenue that still comes from theater showings. It might not look as good as if the feature was originally shot in 24fps, but I personally would much prefer such a compromise over having everything be 24fps forever.

But 48fps will increase production cost. Especially in movies with special effects and what would John Woo do without slowmotion effects...

And I personally would hate if they start shooting 48fps.


Black Hawk down, Saving private ryan, band of brothers, matrix, die hard etc all benefited of the 24P rout.

Action film work fine with 24fps. As does drama,.

a fotballgame on the other hand...

My biggest gripe is camera pans, it is next to impossible to make out details until the camera slows down the panning, or comes to a stop. I'm talking stuff like the opening scene from Sahara. Action scenes where the camera stays still or follows the action from behind or in front is less of an issue I suppose.

To reiterate my desire to have movies shot in 30 vs 24 Fps is two fold:

1. It makes the movie "more compelling" as our eye looks over the entire frame not just where the "action" is happening (director may think different as he would want me to look at the actors . . . not the scenery . . unless that was his intention)

2. We can FINALLY get rid of the 3:2 Pulldown issue for transfers to video - the "lions share" of the revenue generated from a movie. All of our DVD's would look better nomatter whether they were SD or HD as would all SD and HD broadcast movies.

I have seen a demo of a 10 minute short filmed in both 24 Fps and 30 Fps. It was shown at the Ziegfield Theater in NYC about 10 years ago as a private showing and a friend of mine who knows my love for film systems, invited me as his guest.

The scene was 2 people sitting at a table under a weeping williow with a slight breeze. First it was shown at 24 Fps, then at 30 Fps. The person running the demo explained that they used 2 cameras shooting at the same time so that the lighting and such was identical.

Yes it was a static scene (no "action") but the 30 Fps short held my attention more. Again more texture in the background was in focus.

Direct to video can't be counted as 100% of the revenue is derived by video.

I am no DP or Film Student . . .just a hobbist. But my thoughts are if they shot in 30 Fps and down converted (do a reverse pulldown 2:3) wouldn't we have both at the same time? 24 Fps for the movie and 30 Fps for video?

My biggest gripe is camera pans, it is next to impossible to make out details until the camera slows down the panning, or comes to a stop. I'm talking stuff like the opening scene from Sahara. Action scenes where the camera stays still or follows the action from behind or in front is less of an issue I suppose.

Exactly my point!

If Hollywood believes they cant afford 48fps (technically or economically), let them refrain from camera pans, at least.

I did not have chance to see how those camera pans look like on the advanced 1080p HT gear. Anybody can comment? Is it so bad as on big screen in theater?

Orleans:

Here is how the eye/brain works:

1. We see more using our perefferal vision (side to side) then we do looking forward.

2. Our perefferal vision is more sensitive to motion than our forward vision is.

IMO, these come from hundreds of thousands of years of evolution when in the beginning it was an issue of survival . . . eat or be eaten.

Many times, fast camera pans, are used to tie one scene into the next . . . it acts as a bridge . . . just like the "screen wipes" that Lucas is so fond of using in his Star Wars movies. You are not supposed to see anything. It sets you up for what follows the fast pan.

Take a look at films from the 1940's - many times very little camera movement at all. Almost like watching a play.

Then you have a film like MOBSTERS where the director uses the "round and round" shooting style . . . and gives the audience vertigo!
"
All these "techniques" are part of the creative process that directors use to tell a story to the audience. . . . using film as the medium.

SIDENOTE: going from 24 to 30Fps is a very inexpensive change to both the camera and more important, the theaters projection equipment. That point was also made in the demo. Anything higher than 30 Fps and replacement of projectors would be necessary and THAT will never happen.

As far as the film stock cost - that was also addressed in the demo. By going to the "Compact Print" format (4 perfs instead of 5) the amount of film used is the same. Only downside again is when Panavision is used . . . we lose film real estate.

Many times, fast camera pans, are used to tie one scene into the next . . . it acts as a bridge . . . just like the "screen wipes" that Lucas is so fond of using in his Star Wars movies. You are not supposed to see anything. It sets you up for what follows the fast pan.

Take a look at films from the 1940's - many times very little camera movement at all. Almost like watching a play.

Then you have a film like MOBSTERS where the director uses the "round and round" shooting style . . . and gives the audience vertigo!
"
All these "techniques" are part of the creative process that directors use to tell a story to the audience. . . . using film as the medium.

SIDENOTE: going from 24 to 30Fps is a very inexpensive change to both the camera and more important, the theaters projection equipment. That point was also made in the demo. Anything higher than 30 Fps and replacement of projectors would be necessary and THAT will never happen.

As far as the film stock cost - that was also addressed in the demo. By going to the "Compact Print" format (4 perfs instead of 5) the amount of film used is the same. Only downside again is when Panavision is used . . . we lose film real estate.

There are actually two main issues here.

First, some or many people don't feel we could make good movies at faster (48+) frame rates. I personally do feel we could and could give a sense of reality and good HDTV when desired. But certainly it would be different and some folks wouldn't like it, including many folks that have been in the business for awhile.

Second is the cost of changing anything, including all the extra media and processing costs. Technology and Moore's law will help on this one, but it will still be a change. And most technology and cultural changes get delayed until there is enough economic push to do it.

I actually don't feel the change from 24p to 30p would be hardly good enough to justify the cost. It's still too slow for good video and yet enough of a change to cost some money.

- Tom

Anybody know how long it took the movie industry to switch over to sound or color after those two became available?

- Tom


Sound was overnight. Films already shot were redone with sound. No one wanted to see a film in which people did not talk once the capability was available.

Stereophonic sound has a much more difficult path to acceptance which I will not repeat here.

Color was available in the mid-30's with Becky Sharp and GWTW in 1939. [Earlier color processes were not realistic and generally had only 2 colors. 3 color Technicolor changed that.] But B&W continued to be used regularly until about 1970. Occasional films are still made in B&W for artistic reasons. I would say it took 30 years for color to basically take over. I think that it was actually color television that made color film-making a commercial necessity, because B&W films were not so saleable to TV.

Tom:

I actually don't feel the change from 24p to 30p would be hardly good enough to justify the cost. It's still too slow for good video and yet enough of a change to cost some money.

As I stated, there is no cost involved in making this change (or extremely small at the projector side -( one visit - one adjustment)

We are talking about film not video. We need to focus on this aspect. If you would like to start another thread to discuss your 48 Fps please do, it might be interesting

We are discussing movies exclusively and with the handful filmed at a faster rate than 24 Fps, it doesn't affect anything (less than 50 versus 50,000 + for 24 Fps)

We have never seen a movie that does not have the 3:2 pulldown issue. We know there are problems, we know some of our displays/DVD players can't do it properly. We do know that if done improperly, it will affect resolution - the finer details don't show up as clear.

It is a discussion and all posts are based on previous facts, opinions, what-ifs and such.

My only hope is that ticket sales to movies is still going down almost year after year. Less people are going to the movies. Back in the early 1950's there was a "knee jerk" reaction to television when it started to reduce theater revenus. I hope the same thing happens again to the reaction to Hi Def. We may see some ressurections like the 65/70mm system or some higher improvements like 10.2 surround sound or even Digital Cinema.

I did not have chance to see how those camera pans look like on the advanced 1080p HT gear. Anybody can comment? Is it so bad as on big screen in theater?
IMHO yes. I have a 1080p projector (Sony Pearl), and pans look really bad comming from my A1 @ 1080i60. Doesn't matter which HD-DVD title I pick, they all do it. Things improve a bit when I switch to my HD-DVD player capable of 1080p24 output (Asus laptop w/ built in HD-DVD drive and HDMI output), but all that really eliminates is the 3:2 jitter. I still can't make out detail in pans. Ditto when playing Blu-ray titles @ 1080p60 from my PS3.

I agree that 30fps won't make enough of an improvement. I'd love to see some sample clips of pans done at 48, 50 or 60 fps to see just how much of an improvement it would result in. I suspect it would be dramatic. Are there any such samples floating around in MPEG-2 (I don't think my HTPC or Notebook can handle 1080p48,50 or 60 material in VC-1, let alone AVC).

30fps would be an issue for 25i and 50p transfers, although frame interpolation schemes like PhC could be used.

At CES they were demoing displays that were increasing the 24 fps with a similar type of frame interpolation to 60hz to make the motion smooth like video. This doesn't help the motion blur from the shutter time, so they weren't showing really fast motion scenes. If this were to become a common feature, it might make the smooth motion of higher frame rates the norm for the public. Even older films might be viewed differently than we do today. The bad news for filmakers is that they have no control over this process. The 24P look could fade away.

30fps would be an issue for 25i and 50p transfers, although frame interpolation schemes like PhC could be used.

At CES they were demoing displays that were increasing the 24 fps with a similar type of frame interpolation to 60hz to make the motion smooth like video. This doesn't help the motion blur from the shutter time, so they weren't showing really fast motion scenes. If this were to become a common feature, it might make the smooth motion of higher frame rates the norm for the public. Even older films might be viewed differently than we do today. The bad news for filmakers is that they have no control over this process. The 24P look could fade away.
Upsampling fails in all kinds of non-trivial places. For example, train wheels would still start going backwards after 12 Hz, just smoother.

Nyquist is not to be trifled with! :)

Tom:

I actually don't feel the change from 24p to 30p would be hardly good enough to justify the cost. It's still too slow for good video and yet enough of a change to cost some money.

As I stated, there is no cost involved in making this change (or extremely small at the projector side -( one visit - one adjustment)

We are talking about film not video. We need to focus on this aspect. If you would like to start another thread to discuss your 48 Fps please do, it might be interesting

We are discussing movies exclusively and with the handful filmed at a faster rate than 24 Fps, it doesn't affect anything (less than 50 versus 50,000 + for 24 Fps)

We have never seen a movie that does not have the 3:2 pulldown issue. We know there are problems, we know some of our displays/DVD players can't do it properly. We do know that if done improperly, it will affect resolution - the finer details don't show up as clear.

It is a discussion and all posts are based on previous facts, opinions, what-ifs and such.

My only hope is that ticket sales to movies is still going down almost year after year. Less people are going to the movies. Back in the early 1950's there was a "knee jerk" reaction to television when it started to reduce theater revenus. I hope the same thing happens again to the reaction to Hi Def. We may see some ressurections like the 65/70mm system or some higher improvements like 10.2 surround sound or even Digital Cinema.

First, we are talking about Hollywood movies, not necessarily film in the future as technology costs change. And I think it is already obvious the lions share of the revenue from here out will be in various forms of digital electronic delivery of those movies, no matter how first shot.

Second, the original thread starter here himself suggested 48 fps so I don't think that (and higher) should be excluded from the discussion.

- Tom

I am curious. . .are you advocating 48 Fps to get rid of the double shown frame?

I am curious. . .are you advocating 48 Fps to get rid of the double shown frame?

Me? No, the double shown frame is just to avoid large area flicker (and accomplishes nothing on modern sample & hold displays like LCD's). I'm generally advocating faster frame rates to be able to portray smooth realistic motion, less judder & jerk, and more efficient motion compensation during compression. Note that at faster rates I believe it also becomes much less important make things exact multiples to avoid judder.

- Tom

Some interesting things in this thread and some raving loonies...as ever.

Firstly what are you expecting to see from upping the capture rate from 24fps to 30fps. Visible pans? less motionblur? Take a look at certain scenes from Gladiator and Saving Private Ryan shot with a very small shutter angle , hence removing motionblur , hence making it look stuttery albeit sharp. Going to 30fps still isn't going to prevent the lack of motion blur from looking stuttery and if you still have to shoot with a shutter angle large enough to generate motionblur then why bother moving from 24fps in the first place? Do you think videoshot at 60i and bobbed to 60p looks more "realistic".

Turn your head to the side , see how blurry that pan looked?

Super35 is probably the most popular 35mm shooting format on the planet and has been for well over the last 10 years. There is NOTHING wrong with it. It has its own pros and cons like any other 35mm film format . If you think its sub-standard please state your reasoning as I could do with a laugh.

3:2 pull down ? Ever heard of inverse telecine ? Ever heard of displaying at multiples of 24? If this stuff bothers you so much why not just buy a better display rather than try to convince the film industry to move to 30fps capture? Seem like a plan maybe?

Regarding film as a on going quest to replicate real life betrays an overly simplistic understanding of film language. Films are created artifacts , the experience of watching one is nothing like real life. Its a language that you have come to comprehend over years of watching them. If you took someone from 300 years ago and plonked them down in front of a conventional narrative film it would appear to them as an incoherent mess of barely related rapidly changing imagery with some music and talking stuck over the top and that's not even a John Woo one.

Films are a communication medium if you want to see how effective they are at portraying convincing reality go to an Imax and see if you were convinced you were actually flying around the grand canyon or riding a rollercoaster . My suspicion would be "not very" unless you have a history of delusional behaviour.

If you want high frame rates and vicarious immersive reality go and play a good computer game. I like computer games , I like high frame rates , I like to see them trying to create an immersive and convincing gaming experience. If want virtual reality I'll go looking for some . If I want to watch a film I normally just go and watch one.

Yep, some people wouldn't like it if movies could be too realistic. ;)

- Tom

Yep, some people wouldn't like it if movies could be too realistic. ;)

- Tom
Yes, and I have difficulty understanding this. If I go out to see a movie I am constantly reminded that I am sitting in a movie theater because when there is any motion, especially panning, the picture becomes a blurred mess. This distracts me from enjoying the story like the person behind me talking on a cell phone does. So I think blanket statements that "people prefer 24 fps" are not true for everyone because it is certainly not true for me. I personally would prefer that not just my favorite films but nearly all films be shot to seem as much like really being there as possible- which means (besides high definition) a frame rate fast enough that a double shutter is not needed for projection (no matter what the original shutter angle 24p shown with a double shutter always blurs motion). I agree that realism like this would cost much more to produce because blur can hide a lot of errors. It would also require re-training the directors and probably the entire production business to know how to deal with the added possibilities. I don't think this realistically sharp motion will be associated with TV dramas for long because TV dramas are now shot 24p (and SDTV was never very sharp). A format that allows realistic motion should also be able to show smeary motion when desired- for instance when a director wants to invoke an old fashioned newsreel look or just during big camera movements to avoid motion sickness problems.

I personally would prefer that not just my favorite films but nearly all films be shot to seem as much like really being there as possible-

I don't know if you're aware of this, but movies aren't real life. They are art. Art is under no obligation to look, sound, or act like real life.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but movies aren't real life. They are art. Art is under no obligation to look, sound, or act like real life.

Your reply is obviously meant as an insult and I think it shows that you lack the ability to envision an art form any different to one you've already experienced.

I don't believe anyone has ever been tested viewing a realistic drama filmed as I described it yet because I don't think such a movie has been made yet. It will only be after audiences have experienced a few well made realistic movies that they will begin to associate realism with art. By the way realist still images, both paintings and photographs, are sometimes seen as art.

[edited]

Your reply is obviously meant as an insult and I think it shows that you lack the ability to envision an art form any different to one you've already experienced...[edited]
Why I am not surprised :)

I think some people have problem with changes. Movies have changed from being silent to with audio, from black/white to color, ...I bet there were probably people arguing against color movies. Given Hollywood is a big money making machine, another big (probably the biggest) reason is money.

I agree with the OP that 24fps is antiquated and should be thrashed for all new releases. We need higher frame rates for a lot of fast action movies and movies with fast pans.

For those of you who say that most people like 24fps film look, speak for yourselves. That is just a lame excuse that the industry uses. Hollywood doesn't want to invest money in all the theaters to change to a different frame rate. It's that simple. They don't want to spend a single dime! I've seen tons of excuses including that faster frame rates require more lighting.

I personally can't stand the theater and 24fps. Even with a three-bladed shutter on the projector, it flickers and camera pans are still jerky. I want movies to look crisp, free of flicker, and LOOK REAL. Not this crap that we are still getting today. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray transfers are not much better coming from 24fps. The jerkiness is still very apparent on home cinema.

I really had hoped that Maxivision 48fps format would've caught on. The projectors were backward compatible with 24fps reels. But Hollywood and directors being CHEAP just gives excuses and doesn't want to change.

Look how long it took for TV's to go HI-DEF. Pitiful. The only reason 24fps was chosen back in the day was because (1) It was the lowest frame rate acceptable to the human eye as motion. (2) Hollywood wanted to get by with as little reels as possible in their distribution model.

Maxivision 48fps
http://www.uhfmag.com/Issue59/Video59.html

. I personally would prefer that not just my favorite films but nearly all films be shot to seem as much like really being there as possible- which means (besides high definition) a frame rate fast enough that a double shutter is not needed for projection (no matter what the original shutter angle 24p shown with a double shutter always blurs motion). .

Deary me I just love it when people rant and rave about things they obviously have no understanding of. Explain to me why repeating each frame two or three times of a 24fps film creates motionblur. ? Its done to reduce flicker.

Have you ever played a computer game or viewed CGI at a high frame rate with the motionblur turned off? Have you then turned on the motionblur? Guess what one looks more natural?

Films are not about realism . Capturing them at high frame rates will not make the fim, experience particularly realistic. Ever been to the "theatre" ?Ever watched a play ? See any obvious level of abstraction going on?

If you want convincing realism, try taking up a sport or go for a walk. It will be a lot cheaper and a lot more convincing compared with what technology based depiction will offer for the next few thousand years.

Do you look at paintings and wish they were photographs? Do you look at photographs and wish they were moving ? Do you watch silent films and wish they had sound?Do you watch mono films and wish they were in surround? Do you watch black and white films and wish they were colour? Do you watch 4x3 and wish it was widescreen? Do you watch wide aspect ratio movies on your TV and wish it didn't have black bars? Do you watch foreign films and wish they were in English ?

Can you see the wood or are the pesky trees in the way?

I personally can't stand the theater and 24fps. Even with a three-bladed shutter on the projector, it flickers and camera pans are still jerky. I want movies to look crisp, free of flicker, and LOOK REAL. Not this crap that we are still getting today. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray transfers are not much better coming from 24fps.

I suggest you find a new hobby.

Films are not about realism
Films are about video and audio, right? Now look how the "audio part" evolved last 50 years, both at cinemas and at homes.

Again, the mere fact of introducing HD is about improving realism.

Frame rate is the last unchanged parameter. All others - screen resolution, color depth, audio sampling resolution, audio channels number - were taken care of. Some day one will need to take care of FPS too.

A medium is simply a channel for passing information. You might say it becomes 'art' when that information is very effectively packaged for human perceptual modes and limitations. Good art thus helps us understand our world better by providing high impact effectively stored ideas or symbols, as memories of the experience.

Providing more capability to the medium can only provide more options to the artist. The fact we have evolved a film maker culture around grainy jerky pictures is a tribute to how artists can take advantage of any medium. But it is little justification for continuing to limit their talents going forward.

- Tom

I don't know if you're aware of this, but movies aren't real life. They are art. Art is under no obligation to look, sound, or act like real life.

True. But most artists desire as large a palette as possible to work with.

If you have a faster framerate, you don't _HAVE_ deal with the inherent judder of only 24p during a pan, if you don't want to. On the other hand, if you want to repeat a few frames to introduce judder you can. It gives the artist a choice he did not have previously.

Having greater resolution gives additional choice, however it doesn't prevent you from down-sampling if you want to present a low-resolution scene (say to simulate a 16mm camera)

Having a greater color gamut gives additional choice, but does not remove the option to use less of the gamut.

Having no film grain gives additional choice to the artist, yet doesn't prevent him from using that medium to present an image with grain.

All in all, I'm in favor of NOT artificially limiting the presentation, as then it becomes impossible to present without that limitation. On the other hand, raising that limitation typically allows you to present with the "previous look" should you care to do so for artistic reasons.

Deary me I just love it when people rant and rave about things they obviously have no understanding of. Explain to me why repeating each frame two or three times of a 24fps film creates motionblur. ? Its done to reduce flicker.

Have you ever played a computer game or viewed CGI at a high frame rate with the motionblur turned off? Have you then turned on the motionblur? Guess what one looks more natural?

Films are not about realism . Capturing them at high frame rates will not make the fim, experience particularly realistic. Ever been to the "theatre" ?Ever watched a play ? See any obvious level of abstraction going on?

If you want convincing realism, try taking up a sport or go for a walk. It will be a lot cheaper and a lot more convincing compared with what technology based depiction will offer for the next few thousand years.

Do you look at paintings and wish they were photographs? Do you look at photographs and wish they were moving ? Do you watch silent films and wish they had sound?Do you watch mono films and wish they were in surround? Do you watch black and white films and wish they were colour? Do you watch 4x3 and wish it was widescreen? Do you watch wide aspect ratio movies on your TV and wish it didn't have black bars? Do you watch foreign films and wish they were in English ?

Can you see the wood or are the pesky trees in the way?

Mmm, no. But I don't want to view an oil painting as conveyed with the limitations of a charcoal drawing.

Increase the capability gamut for the final presentation medium as wide as possible, then allow the artists to choose the subset of that capability that suits the current project.

A medium is simply a channel for passing information. You might say it becomes 'art' when that information is very effectively packaged for human perceptual modes and limitations. Good art thus helps us understand our world better by providing high impact effectively stored ideas or symbols, as memories of the experience.

Providing more capability to the medium can only provide more options to the artist. The fact we have evolved a film maker culture around grainy jerky pictures is a tribute to how artists can take advantage of any medium. But it is little justification for continuing to limit their talents going forward.

- Tom

Agreed. Excellent post.

If all of you who support higher frame rates with added realism, then why wasn't SHOWSCAN a huge hit? It had everything you are looking for yet it failed. Forget the business angle, funding, etc and concentrate on the image on the screen.

When Michael Eisner (head of Disney) saw SHOWSCAN, while walking out of the theater he was quoted as saying, "Too Real."

If the public wanted that height of realism, then SHOWSCAN was the answer . . .but again it failed.

Mmm, no. But I don't want to view an oil painting as conveyed with the limitations of a charcoal drawing.

Increase the capability gamut for the final presentation medium as wide as possible, then allow the artists to choose the subset of that capability that suits the current project.

My point is that films are not about the mere mechanical authenticiy of depicting reality. Upping the technical aspects of a film imaging system is not going to make it a particularly convincing depiction of reality . Its a film!

If you up the capture rate enough you will get increased sharpness with motion ( although there is a lmit to how much smoothness your visual system will appreciate from an increase in frame rate). That's it . You haven't improved the "realism" you've made the perception of the image sharper . You are still not going to sit and watch a film and experience it as reality ...unless you have some serious problems in the brain case.

If you want convincing immersive reality you need to move to a different medium. Reality is not primarily what film making is about . Films and the act of watching them are inherently artificial experiences. Suggesting film is lacklustre because its technical production aspects fall short of "reality" is frankly bonkers and completely misses what the medium is about. You might as well complain that a trumpet can't create as many sounds as the human voice.

But you know what ...its a trumpet!

I watch 50i very day on the TV and that would be as close as possible to 48fps. Well 48fps converted to PAL would look like 50i.

And dramas shoot in 50i looks like behind the scene footage. The magic isnt there. Sure one or two movies could benefit from that look, but for movies like Black Hawk Down (pure art) it wouldnt fit.

I watch 50i very day on the TV and that would be as close as possible to 48fps. Well 48fps converted to PAL would look like 50i.

.

Yep essentially. If you want to see what higher frame rate material would look like . Get some natively shot 50i or 60i and run it through a bob deinterlacer (pretty much what you get as the defacto deinterlace method for field captured material).

Oh yeah ....wonderful sense of realism...welcome to the future. Wood ? Trees?

i thought the human eye couldnt view more than 20 or so fps. would bumping the fps to 48+ make that huge a difference?
99.9% of your typical everyday Joe doesn't even know movies were shot in 24fps. i would like to see movies shot at 60fps though :)

i thought the human eye couldnt view more than 20 or so fps. would bumping the fps to 48+ make that huge a difference?
99.9% of your typical everyday Joe doesn't even know movies were shot in 24fps. i would like to see movies shot at 60fps though :)


Well first of all the eye can detect darnkess and light differenty.

If you stand in a bright white room and it goes dark for 0.02 seconds. You will not notice.

If you stand in a dark room and someone turns on the lights for 0,02 seconds, you will notice.

So the number of frames will depend on different things.


But you will se the difference between 24fps and 48fps. Just as you se the difference between watching a film and watching sports.

If you want to se something in 60fps, Just deinterlace 60i to 60P with any 60i material.

If all of you who support higher frame rates with added realism, then why wasn't SHOWSCAN a huge hit? It had everything you are looking for yet it failed. Forget the business angle, funding, etc and concentrate on the image on the screen.

When Michael Eisner (head of Disney) saw SHOWSCAN, while walking out of the theater he was quoted as saying, "Too Real."

If the public wanted that height of realism, then SHOWSCAN was the answer . . .but again it failed.

You miss my point.

With a higher framerate (like 48fps), I can shoot with an added dimension not possible with 24 fps. Or I can simply frame double and get the same look as 24fps film looks today. I've lost no capability, but gained some.

If I keep 24fps, then even if I wanted to depict what a higher frame rate might look like, I can't. I'm SOL.

I can only tell you what I have seen with my own eyes. I have seen thousands of 24 Fps movies in the theater, and I saw a 25 minute short called "Niagara Wonders" in 1987, at Niagara Falls, New York, at the SHOWSCAN theater that is/was located there.

There is no way to compare 60Fps 70mm to 24 Fps 35mm.

I am not a camera buff but I think I can describe the difference . . . the depth of field that it is focus is as close to real life as you are going to get using film as a capture medium.

Foreground and background are both in sharp focus. Our eye is different than a camera. . . as far as focusing foreground and background at the same time. We do this very easily but usually, for the mosty part a camera (close-up) can only do one or the other.

I believe that Douglas Trumbull, the inventer of SHOWSCAN, figured out how to get around this by using the large format film to start with and moving it at 60 Fps.

In his experiments (before the making of BRAINSTORM), he found moving the film faster than 60Fps (he tried, I believe 90 and 120 Fps), didn't give a great enough benefit to outweigh the cost of the film stock.

And it was "too real" READ: intense.

Actually the larger format the shorter depth of field. If you want everything in focus just use small sensors on the kamera. Thats why homevideo has everything in focus.

All comes down to focal lenght.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but movies aren't real life. They are art. Art is under no obligation to look, sound, or act like real life.

There is no obligation for it to remain incapable of representing real life (especially in the condition where technology has long since progressed to offer new margins of capability), either. If the technology is available, the medium should be capable of anything the director wants, not just classical determinations of whatever "good film" is.

I just don't see the wish for a 24/48 fps compatible medium as any more unreasonable than expecting 16.7 mil colors capability or 20-20kHz audio or 1080p resolution (as long as the technology makes it possible).

To clarify, it's not that 24 fps works well most of the time. I'm will to say it is just fine for typical static scenes. It's the slow pans where a higher fps standard is painfully necessary. It's essentially a wasted shot in the movie, because there is no case to be made that the director "intended" to display the scenery to me in a jutterring, slideshow mess (for specific examples, I cite the panned view in Matrix Reloaded where Neo first enters the Architect's room, and the scenic pan of snowy mountain tops in Lord of the Rings Two Towers in the beginning). These are shots that were utterly mangled due to the limitations of 24p production.

Fast pans are ok, since the typical motion blurring that occurs will be sufficient to keep it a "continuous" experience. It's those slow pans and establishing shots that are a severe eyesore for 24p film.

Perhaps, the best of both worlds lies in a hybrid system that can dynamically switch between 24 and 48 fps modes, as needs dictate? In the digital domain, this should be quite easy, imo. That way you can take advantage of the economy of 24 fps most of the time, while also covering the needs of high motion shots at 48 fps, when the situations arise.

If you want to se something in 60fps, Just deinterlace 60i to 60P with any 60i material.

Better yet, watch a native 720p program.

I am no DP or Film Student . . .just a hobbist. But my thoughts are if they shot in 30 Fps and down converted (do a reverse pulldown 2:3) wouldn't we have both at the same time? 24 Fps for the movie and 30 Fps for video?

It doesn't work that way, you can't reverse a pulldown that doesn't exist. 30 does not go to 24 without looking like crap. You can make 24 from 60i/60p if the material originated in 24 by removing pulldown.

It's the slow pans where a higher fps standard is painfully necessary. It's essentially a wasted shot in the movie, because there is no case to be made that the director "intended" to display the scenery to me in a jutterring, slideshow mess (for specific examples, I cite the panned view in Matrix Reloaded where Neo first enters the Architect's room, and the scenic pan of snowy mountain tops in Lord of the Rings Two Towers in the beginning). These are shots that were utterly mangled due to the limitations of 24p production. .

The LOTR scenes have been respeeded without augmenting the motionblur with a vector based optical flow respeed instead of frame averaging or culling. That's what it looks like to me. It also looks like the camera move has been accentuated with an additional post move which can also increase judder if the original motion and the post move are not entirely sympathetic with each other . However it actually looks pretty smooth to me and isn't something I would necessarily criticise for judder.

The matrix shot I think you are on about looks to me to be a rather messy unoptimised digital respeed handing off ( transitioning) back to a different plate ( if that's the one you mean). this scene does not strike me as particularly juddery though.

Incidentally its not unheard of to run extremely juddery pans through an optical flow process that will add convincing larger motionblur to the footage and perceptually smooth out the judder. I've had to do this once myself otherwise I've dealt with lots of motion picture footage and can't say I find it particularly juddery generally. Maybe its how you are viewing it.

I am not a camera buff but I think I can describe the difference . . . the depth of field that it is focus is as close to real life as you are going to get using film as a capture medium.

Foreground and background are both in sharp focus. Our eye is different than a camera. . . as far as focusing foreground and background at the same time. We do this very easily but usually, for the mosty part a camera (close-up) can only do one or the other.

.


Nope depth of field can extend to infinity or be limited to whatever the DOP likes depending on shooting conditions and intention. Closeups are generaly shot deliberately with a limited depth of field extending little beyond the foreground subject to enhance a sense of intimacy between the subject and the viewer and to focus attention on the subject. Its not a limitation . Its not caused by frame rate or film area.

Remember what I was saying about films not being reality ? What you dismiss as as an inadequacy is actually a tool used by film-makers to communicate with the audience.
The first film cameras would only give you depth of field to infinity as they had pinholes instead of lenses. Depth of field control is deliberately engineered into cameras.

I am not a camera buff but I think I can describe the difference . . . the depth of field that it is focus is as close to real life as you are going to get using film as a capture medium.

Foreground and background are both in sharp focus. Our eye is different than a camera. . . as far as focusing foreground and background at the same time. We do this very easily but usually, for the mosty part a camera (close-up) can only do one or the other.

Shallow depth of field is not only a very important and beautiful stylistic element, it also helps DPs to draw the viewer's attention to certain things. If there's a dialog going on, most of the time the background will be blurred deliberately so as to not distract viewers.

There's a reason why digital cameras such as Panavision's Genesis are manufactured to be capable of the shallow depth of field* you get with 35mm.

*The amount of depth of field depends on focal length, f-stop and the film back size which is very small for a typical digital camera chip and bigger on a 35mm camera.

Perhaps, the best of both worlds lies in a hybrid system that can dynamically switch between 24 and 48 fps modes, as needs dictate? In the digital domain, this should be quite easy, imo. That way you can take advantage of the economy of 24 fps most of the time, while also covering the needs of high motion shots at 48 fps, when the situations arise.

Is it true that Bluray-HDDVD specs don't allow for higher FPS? I guess there is no way to have 48fps with current HD hardware players like Tosh and others, even with future firmate updates.

The good thing is we have enough storage now, so provided somebody develops new codec with *variable* FPS, HTPC solutions will be able to handle it immediately.

In fact, all we need it tagging every frame stored on the disk with TIMESTAMP specifying when exactly the frame should be shown. The size of timestamp (several bytes) is nothing compared to image information size, so overhead is not too big to live with. The camera pans moments can be having denser FPS, statics ones can keep 24.

The decision about how to shown time-tagged frames can be taken by software algorithm during the run-time, taking into consideration wich screen refresh rates are available.

Just wonder if variable-FPS codec is there around now...

I can only tell you what I have seen with my own eyes. I have seen thousands of 24 Fps movies in the theater, and I saw a 25 minute short called "Niagara Wonders" in 1987, at Niagara Falls, New York, at the SHOWSCAN theater that is/was located there.

There is no way to compare 60Fps 70mm to 24 Fps 35mm.

I am not a camera buff but I think I can describe the difference . . . the depth of field that it is focus is as close to real life as you are going to get using film as a capture medium.

Foreground and background are both in sharp focus. Our eye is different than a camera. . . as far as focusing foreground and background at the same time. We do this very easily but usually, for the mosty part a camera (close-up) can only do one or the other.

I believe that Douglas Trumbull, the inventer of SHOWSCAN, figured out how to get around this by using the large format film to start with and moving it at 60 Fps.

In his experiments (before the making of BRAINSTORM), he found moving the film faster than 60Fps (he tried, I believe 90 and 120 Fps), didn't give a great enough benefit to outweigh the cost of the film stock.

And it was "too real" READ: intense.

As the other posters have already mentioned the DoF is related to focal length, not the framerate.

As fo the issue of it looking "too real", if that's what the director wants, let him have it. If he wants it less so, he can frame double so it doesn't look that way. Or post-process.

Again, having a larger gamut to work with does not imply that all uses must push said gamut to it's extents.

There is no obligation for it to remain incapable of representing real life (especially in the condition where technology has long since progressed to offer new margins of capability), either. If the technology is available, the medium should be capable of anything the director wants, not just classical determinations of whatever "good film" is.

I just don't see the wish for a 24/48 fps compatible medium as any more unreasonable than expecting 16.7 mil colors capability or 20-20kHz audio or 1080p resolution (as long as the technology makes it possible).

To clarify, it's not that 24 fps works well most of the time. I'm will to say it is just fine for typical static scenes. It's the slow pans where a higher fps standard is painfully necessary. It's essentially a wasted shot in the movie, because there is no case to be made that the director "intended" to display the scenery to me in a jutterring, slideshow mess (for specific examples, I cite the panned view in Matrix Reloaded where Neo first enters the Architect's room, and the scenic pan of snowy mountain tops in Lord of the Rings Two Towers in the beginning). These are shots that were utterly mangled due to the limitations of 24p production.

Fast pans are ok, since the typical motion blurring that occurs will be sufficient to keep it a "continuous" experience. It's those slow pans and establishing shots that are a severe eyesore for 24p film.

Perhaps, the best of both worlds lies in a hybrid system that can dynamically switch between 24 and 48 fps modes, as needs dictate? In the digital domain, this should be quite easy, imo. That way you can take advantage of the economy of 24 fps most of the time, while also covering the needs of high motion shots at 48 fps, when the situations arise.

Excellent example.

Using this exampe, a 16.7 million color pallete CAN convey a black-and-white scene. Or an older sepia-toned piece.

However a B/W filmstock CANNOT convey a color scene.


Which gives the artist more choice?