Sure, why not? Actually, I can picture how Ben-Hur might look different during the chariot scenes, but not in a way which would matter to the story line. To me frame rate doesn't matter unless it's distractingly jerky, which happens fairly often at lower rates but not at higher ones. I just don't see this being a critical component of great movie-making, and I'd guess that if 60p had been the standard for the past 50 years we'd be saying how wonderful that looked.

Exactly, when you watch something shot correctly on a lower fram rate its like your watching a story and being carried along. When your watching a soap opera, not that I do but its like live viewing. I think the reason film or 24p shooting is so attractive to the consumer is because its different then what we are seeing every day 60p is more like what you see when you go out into the world every day nothing new! 24p or 30p ect.. is different than what we normaly see and thats probabley the attraction of it,its like looking at something different and more comforting to watch assuming its put together correctly.

Well its a good thing Hollywood and most of the TV community dosent agree with you but hey its America and everyone has the right to their own opinion, as for me I will continue to shoot most of my material at 30p. Thanks and goodnight.

Exactly. 60i/p is great for reality, news, sports, game shows, soap operas . . . but for DRAMA, you want to be taken away.

Not to carry this topic much further but how many movies do you know that were shot at 60p

All stuff where they want you to see what you see every day, live and in your face. its not a dramatic story its live TV its the world. Like was stated earlier in this post every fram rate has its place.

I may be wrong, but I believe George Lucas did some tests at UCLA, a number of years ago, projecting film at 60p. If I remember correctly, one of the side effects of the 60p motion was that it made some people crazy. It was a really dangerous frame rate. After those tests, if I'm not mistaken, George Lucas made his next movie in 24p. I don't know if it was for insurance reasons (the high premium on insurance rates for a 60p film because of the inherent danger of possibly making people crazy), but it may have been.

Ever since those tests most films have been shot in 24p. (It was speculated that even 30p might make some people half crazy.)

There are currently some Korean soap operas on American television that appear to be shot in high quality 60p. If you watch these soap operas for 7 or 8 hours straight, the high frame rate causes, it seems, some people the need to go to a movie theatre for soothing 24p experience. The motion in the video is smooth, but the person inside becomes really jittery and excited.

It is my understanding that Europe adopted PAL and 25 framerate so that soccer fans would not get over excited during the world cup as would happen if they watched the soccer at the high frame rates that are recklessly allowed in America and Japan.

It seems the implication of some of the posts here is that 24 fps is what makes movies look like movies--to the exclusion of other probably more pertinent elements likes first class lighting and set designs, aesthetic elements unique to the film medium etc. I don't know how much 24fps contributes to what makes movies "look like movies" but I really don't think if "Gone with the Wind" was shot in 30fps it would look like "Days of Our Lives".

No one's saying 24 fps *alone* "makes movies look like movies." What we're saying is that it makes movies MOVE like movies.

If GWTW had been shot at 60 fps, it would move like a soap opera.

Did you happen to see the live episodes of "Will & Grace"? They were shot at 60p. Everything else about the show -- lighting, sets, acting, etc. -- was the same. But because they were shot at 60p, they looked like they were a stage play, just like soap operas do.

I do not want to get into the 50 year old debate on if 60 hz is better than 24 fps but I will list some of the reasons why I prefer 24p.

1. Universal. Can easily be adapted to any world market.
2. Less frames to rotoscope.
3. Higher quality on DVD.
4. Faster to encode than 60i/p
5. Uncompressed takes up much less space and bandwidth.
6. A true progressive image on DVD for digital display devices.
7. Faster to render.
8. Easier to scale/rotate/warp than interlaced video.
9. Animation at 60i takes longer to render.
10. Animation at 60p really takes a lot longer to render.

The only thing 60i/p gains you is smoother motion. There is no other advantage to 60i/p. I for one hope Hollywood never moves to 60p. Visual Effects would end up costing 2.5x more and take 2.5x longer to create. Rotoscoping would become a nightmare.

Sounds like an urban myth to me, but if someone can provide a reliable reference about that it might make interesting reading.

As for the question about how many movies I've seen shot in 60p, ask me again about 10 years from now. Like I said before, our fondness for 24p is partly a consequence of having it be a standard for several decades, which is arguably just a compromise due to the cost of shooting film. Now that film is about to go away for most purposes we'll see whether 24p really holds up as a desirable frame rate in the digital era.

You really think great film-makers wouldn't have done great work shooting at a different frame rate? To me that's assigning far too much credit to a minor technical detail.

It's been long decades past since the time when any framerate was practical, but they've stayed with 24p as the standard, even after experimenting with different rates.

Why? Because it works; it gives an artistic feel that faster framerates don't. Why do most painters still use brushes and canvas? Why are there portrait painters at all when photography is much more "real life"?

I think you're seriously underestimating the importance of the "canvas" to the artistic output.

But hey, if you personally prefer 60 fps, that's your business.

Perhaps, but as I said we'll see what happens when most movies are recorded and distributed digitally. Not many years ago I had professional photographers telling me they'd never shoot digital because it just didn't look right to them; today I don't know many photographers who don't do digital work. Not quite the same issue there, but the point being that times do change and sometimes perception changes too.

So maybe there really is something magical about a 24p frame rate for video, but I don't see it. I like motion images to look smooth and realistic, and that simply works better at higher frame rates than lower ones. And note that even in this modern era of digital processing, many of the arguments in favor of 24p still boil down to a matter of cost-effectiveness. If that's what works so be it, but I'm still puzzled there isn't more push to go to 60p.

Exactly David and by the way Kevin several years ago digital cameras were not 12 mega pixes and climming with improved technology either. I am currious about one thing you keep bringing up the fact of motion not being smooth in 24p Star Wars, Pirates of the Carribean, Lord of the Rings ect ect ect which one of these movies dose not have smooth motion they all look smooth to me because they are shot with the experiance of working in the 24p frame rate and getting the most out of it, yet still offer the look and feel of a movie you just cant get with 60p. If 24p was as full of judder and stutter as you claim I dont think the movie industry would be plunking down millions upon millions of dallars for films using this fram rate. I think the industry has decided already what works best and as far as the future goes digital film shot at 24p I believe or for example the most recent Star Wars which was a breathtaking movie experiance as far as film quality gose is where the future is most likely going.

I guess the best thing I can say here is that I certainly hope people shooting 24p are doing that carefully, because even 30p can look funny if not done right. I don't notice the artistic characteristics of low frame rates as much as I notice motion judder when low frame rates are used incorrectly, and while that may not happen much in major motion pictures it is a risk of shooting that way. Maybe if I ever made a feature film I'd feel differently about this, but for my work I just want smooth motion.

As far as digital still cameras are concerned, it's not just a question of megapixels and other enhancements - some photographers swore (and a few still swear) that they don't like the digital look. But it's all subjective in the end: if we'd been shooting digital pictures for 50 years and someone brought us film cameras we'd probably think the film pictures looked funny. Same for 24p: it's what we're used to.