Why going beyound 24fps is a so big technical challenge for Hollywood? - Page 2

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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?