24p ? at DVinfo.net

Brad Tyrrell · December 9th, 2006, 11:00 AM

Do you think 24p will last? It's kinda artsy but it always makes me think of adding grain and scratches to footage to make it look like old film. It sometimes makes me think I'm watching a streaming video.

My hunch is that as video-tech gets better people will prefer to look at higher frame rates. Wouldn't film folk prefer a higher frame rate if it didn't cost more?

Hmmm... Then again, I suppose folks are getting used to streaming video. Maybe we should consider 12p for that "computer look".

Just thinking. I guess I'm not very artsy.

Emre Safak · December 9th, 2006, 11:08 AM

I too would like to see 60P become standard. You can always make 60P look like 24P but not the other way round. Interlacing should die though.

David Mullen · December 9th, 2006, 11:24 AM

Just depends on if you like the look of digital images, because 24 fps is part of the classic film look. If that's not important to you, then sure, higher frame rates yield better, smoother images. Even in film, there were attempts like Cinerama (26 fps), Todd-AO (30 fps), Maxivision (48 fps), and Showscan (60 fps.)

It's not a right or wrong issue so much as it is conditioning. IF you are trying to fool someone that something shot digitally was shot on film, it's important to replicate the motion characteristics of the standard film frame rate / shutter speed. If that is not a priority and you are more generally just trying to improve the image, then you may prefer higher frame rates for a smoother, cleaner look with less strobing.

But for some people, the stuttery, flickery, strobey look of 24 fps is part of the hypnotic magic of film - they don't want the image to be smoother & cleaner, like live, immersive reality, which is what Showscan offered. They want something more removed from reality, something transformed.

I suspect that someday when digital projection frees filmmakers from a standardized frame rate, some people will be doing certain types of movies at 60 fps for a smoother, hyper-real look, like for an action movie. Others will stick to the classic 24 fps look and others may pick something inbetween, like 48 fps.

Brad Tyrrell · December 9th, 2006, 11:29 AM

Yeah, down with i, up with p. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that interlacing serves a purely technical/cost purpose. I'm guessing we'll dispense with it as tech gets better and p-products get mass produced and cheaper.

24p seems to be the hot format, but I'm thinking it'll pass fairly soon.

Hey, want a VHS duplicator? How about an 8-track cassette audio system?

Brad Tyrrell · December 9th, 2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Mullen

I suspect that someday when digital projection frees filmmakers from a standardized frame rate, some people will be doing certain types of movies at 60 fps for a smoother, hyper-real look, like for an action movie. Others will stick to the classic 24 fps look and others may pick something inbetween, like 48 fps.

Very cool, - I'm gonna like it.

David Mullen · December 9th, 2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Tyrrell

24p seems to be the hot format, but I'm thinking it'll pass fairly soon.

That's unlikely, not for at least a decade, unless you think that's "soon". There are some 100,000 35mm movie projectors worldwide out there, I believe, and most won't be replaced for some time. And 35mm film won't be going away for at least a decade in Hollywood. And as long as theatrical projection is standardized at 24 fps, then 24P will be an important feature for a digital cinema camera.

And a decade is being optimistic. 24P is here now and it will be around for a while, so get used to it.

Brad Tyrrell · December 9th, 2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Mullen

That's unlikely, not for at least a decade, unless you think that's "soon". ... 24P is here now and it will be around for a while, so get used to it.

Oh, it'll be around... but I'd bet not "hot".

I think the recent availability of high-tech for relatively little money is going to drive quite a media revolution. My hunch is that some young indie producers will take their toys and do some fantastic things with frame rates (and other things), the big guys will see money, and off we'll go. Gonna be fun!

Wanna buy a drive-in?

Nate Weaver · December 9th, 2006, 02:00 PM

24p will around for a very long time.

As Mr. Mullen said, there is a history behind 24fps that has nothing to do with the technicalities associated. People associate the motion characteristics of 24p with movies, and have done so for many decades. Something like that isn't undone overnight.

Add to the fact that there are many producers and directors of photography that have no desire to change that aspect, and you have yourself a "situation".

I can't help but think that folks who get all tied up in the technicalities of framerates ("Well, 60p is better because it portrays smoother motion") are completely ignoring how something like that will be perceived by the audience.

There is a language of moving images that we have all been taught subconsciously from birth. 24p material is one "dialect". 60p is another. Technical considerations have a place, but realize that first and foremost your framerate decisions will impact your message.

Paul Jefferies · December 9th, 2006, 02:30 PM

just look at recent big budget hollywood films, they actually go out of their way to make the image dirtier and rougher, even though the technical equipment and film stocks used are far cleaner and better than ever before. So even if someone introuces 60P cinema projection, we'll still have films made by Tony Scott and Jerry Bruckheimer for that format that look like they were made on an old VHS camcorder balanced on top of a couple of old paint cans...

Brad Tyrrell · December 9th, 2006, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

...Technical considerations have a place, but realize that first and foremost your framerate decisions will impact your message.

No question about that. I just think the market place will ultimately make the decisions. The audience has to like the message or you don't get paid.

It actually doesn't matter as much any more what the producers want if the field is open. If some newbie does something spectacular in 38fps, is able to deliver it, and people buy it, the industry will change quite rapidly.

Come to think of it it doesn't require spectacular, only that people are able to, and do, buy it.

Mike Schrengohst · December 9th, 2006, 04:00 PM

As internet "broadcasting" explodes, the majority of "films" will be 24p delivered files.....It is smaller in file size than 30p or 60p and still looks
good if you view on a computer screen or "netcast" through your media server to your HDTV. The traditional broadcasters will be sucking wind in 5-10 years time as the traditional advertiser supported broadcasters crumble. The new "netcasters" starting with Google on down will have a bountiful harvest of "internet flicks" bypassing the movie/broadcaster/blockbuster route.....
Fasten your safety belts for a wild ride!!

Jaadgy Akanni · December 9th, 2006, 04:13 PM

Without fear of being proven wrong, the answer to whether 24p will ever die, the answer is a resounding, deafening, strident, right in your ear, NEVER! A most indispensable ingredient in the magic of movies is precisely the studderiness, the flickeriness, and the strobiness of 24p. Now, 30p, 60p or any other format that makes motion look closer to "real" or "hyper-real" will never deliver that magic. It's all IMHO :-)

Simon Wyndham · December 23rd, 2006, 05:46 AM

IMHO all it will take is for someone to make a really great movie at something like 48fps, using the new framerate in combination to the way it is shot, and people will then start to copy it. Just like they did with Saving Private Ryan.

I think James Cameron is pushing for 48fps to become an accepted framerate. I think that if a film is good, people will forget about the framerates. I know several people who aren't in the industry, who find the 24fps cadence tiring. Especially if the cinema is full and you have to sit closer to the screen.

December 9th, 2006, 11:00 AM	#1
Brad Tyrrell Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Morristown, New Jersey Posts: 249	24p ? Do you think 24p will last? It's kinda artsy but it always makes me think of adding grain and scratches to footage to make it look like old film. It sometimes makes me think I'm watching a streaming video. My hunch is that as video-tech gets better people will prefer to look at higher frame rates. Wouldn't film folk prefer a higher frame rate if it didn't cost more? Hmmm... Then again, I suppose folks are getting used to streaming video. Maybe we should consider 12p for that "computer look". Just thinking. I guess I'm not very artsy.

December 9th, 2006, 11:24 AM	#3
David Mullen American Society of Cinematographers Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 123	Just depends on if you like the look of digital images, because 24 fps is part of the classic film look. If that's not important to you, then sure, higher frame rates yield better, smoother images. Even in film, there were attempts like Cinerama (26 fps), Todd-AO (30 fps), Maxivision (48 fps), and Showscan (60 fps.) It's not a right or wrong issue so much as it is conditioning. IF you are trying to fool someone that something shot digitally was shot on film, it's important to replicate the motion characteristics of the standard film frame rate / shutter speed. If that is not a priority and you are more generally just trying to improve the image, then you may prefer higher frame rates for a smoother, cleaner look with less strobing. But for some people, the stuttery, flickery, strobey look of 24 fps is part of the hypnotic magic of film - they don't want the image to be smoother & cleaner, like live, immersive reality, which is what Showscan offered. They want something more removed from reality, something transformed. I suspect that someday when digital projection frees filmmakers from a standardized frame rate, some people will be doing certain types of movies at 60 fps for a smoother, hyper-real look, like for an action movie. Others will stick to the classic 24 fps look and others may pick something inbetween, like 48 fps. __________________ David Mullen, ASC Los Angeles

December 9th, 2006, 02:00 PM	#8
Nate Weaver Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,100	24p will around for a very long time. As Mr. Mullen said, there is a history behind 24fps that has nothing to do with the technicalities associated. People associate the motion characteristics of 24p with movies, and have done so for many decades. Something like that isn't undone overnight. Add to the fact that there are many producers and directors of photography that have no desire to change that aspect, and you have yourself a "situation". I can't help but think that folks who get all tied up in the technicalities of framerates ("Well, 60p is better because it portrays smoother motion") are completely ignoring how something like that will be perceived by the audience. There is a language of moving images that we have all been taught subconsciously from birth. 24p material is one "dialect". 60p is another. Technical considerations have a place, but realize that first and foremost your framerate decisions will impact your message. __________________ My Work: nateweaver.net

December 9th, 2006, 04:00 PM	#11
Mike Schrengohst Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 355	As internet "broadcasting" explodes, the majority of "films" will be 24p delivered files.....It is smaller in file size than 30p or 60p and still looks good if you view on a computer screen or "netcast" through your media server to your HDTV. The traditional broadcasters will be sucking wind in 5-10 years time as the traditional advertiser supported broadcasters crumble. The new "netcasters" starting with Google on down will have a bountiful harvest of "internet flicks" bypassing the movie/broadcaster/blockbuster route..... Fasten your safety belts for a wild ride!! __________________ Mike Schrengohst dvd.pro@verizon.net

December 9th, 2006, 04:13 PM	#12
Jaadgy Akanni Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: new york city Posts: 346	Without fear of being proven wrong, the answer to whether 24p will ever die, the answer is a resounding, deafening, strident, right in your ear, NEVER! A most indispensable ingredient in the magic of movies is precisely the studderiness, the flickeriness, and the strobiness of 24p. Now, 30p, 60p or any other format that makes motion look closer to "real" or "hyper-real" will never deliver that magic. It's all IMHO :-) __________________ I will be KING!

December 9th, 2006, 11:08 AM	#2
Emre Safak Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brookline, MA Posts: 1,447	I too would like to see 60P become standard. You can always make 60P look like 24P but not the other way round. Interlacing should die though.

December 9th, 2006, 11:29 AM	#4
Brad Tyrrell Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Morristown, New Jersey Posts: 249	Yeah, down with i, up with p. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that interlacing serves a purely technical/cost purpose. I'm guessing we'll dispense with it as tech gets better and p-products get mass produced and cheaper. 24p seems to be the hot format, but I'm thinking it'll pass fairly soon. Hey, want a VHS duplicator? How about an 8-track cassette audio system?

December 9th, 2006, 02:30 PM	#9
Paul Jefferies Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Croydon, England Posts: 277	just look at recent big budget hollywood films, they actually go out of their way to make the image dirtier and rougher, even though the technical equipment and film stocks used are far cleaner and better than ever before. So even if someone introuces 60P cinema projection, we'll still have films made by Tony Scott and Jerry Bruckheimer for that format that look like they were made on an old VHS camcorder balanced on top of a couple of old paint cans...

December 23rd, 2006, 05:46 AM	#13
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	IMHO all it will take is for someone to make a really great movie at something like 48fps, using the new framerate in combination to the way it is shot, and people will then start to copy it. Just like they did with Saving Private Ryan. I think James Cameron is pushing for 48fps to become an accepted framerate. I think that if a film is good, people will forget about the framerates. I know several people who aren't in the industry, who find the 24fps cadence tiring. Especially if the cinema is full and you have to sit closer to the screen.