Debunking "High Frame Rate in Cinema" Myths
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2024
- Support us on Patreon!
/ filmmakeriq
I've gotten so many comments on my Frame Rate videos that I had to do another one address all the false analogies people keep writing...
Show notes on our site:
filmmakeriq.com/2019/12/busti...
#FrameRate #HFR #24FPS #Cinema #HighFrameRate
History of Frame Rate
• The History of Frame R...
A Defense of 24FPS and Why It’s Here to Stay
• A Defense of 24 FPS an...
A 24fps Filmmaker Reacts to Gemini Man in 120FPS
• A 24fps Filmmaker Reac...
The Joys and Sorrows of Interlacing
• The Joys and Sorrows o...
==================
THE ANALOGY MYTHS
#1 Color vs black and white movies 4:09
Want to Know More: FIQ’s lecture of color history:
• The History and Scienc...
Edison’s Annabelle Serpentine Dance
• Video
Playlist of Early Color Films
• George Méliès - Journ...
Intolerance
• Intolerance (1916) Ful...
The Toll of the Sea
• The Toll of the Sea, A...
-------------------------------------
#2 Silent vs Sound 7:28
Want to Know More? FIQ’s History of Sound
• The History of Sound a...
Edison’s Kinetophone
• Edison Kinetophone Sou...
The Jazz Singer
• The Spoken Words That ...
Starlit Days at the Lido
• Early three-strip Tech...
Edgar Allen Poe
• Edgar Allen Poe (Griff...
Wings Tracking Shot
• Wings (1927) | (4/5) |...
-------------------------------------
#3 SD vs HD 10:15
4K Restoration of a Buster Keaton’s “The General” (1926)
• Buster Keaton's THE GE...
-------------------------------------
#4 Film vs Digital 12:19
-------------------------------------
#5 They’re saying the same thing about 4K 13:34
Steven Yedlin “On Acquistion and Pipeline for High Resolution Exhibition”
yedlin.net/ResDemo/
Upgrading To 4K HDR TV: How Far You Sit From The Screen Is Critical
www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmur...
-------------------------------------
#6 Vinyl vs Digital 14:23
High Frame Rate Psychophysics: Experimentation to Determine a JND for Frame Rate
s3.cad.rit.edu/cadgallery_pro...
==========================
And Other Myths:
-------------------------------------
1. 24fps looks terrible whenever the camera pans 15:57
Too Many Cooks
• Too Many Cooks | Adult...
Filmmaker Mode
• Filmmaker Mode
Bad Shining Encoding
• The Shining • first sc...
General Hospital Promo
/ abcgeneralhospital
-------------------------------------
#2 I saw a side by side comparison of 24 and 60 and the 60 fps video looks so much better. 19:22
-------------------------------------
#3 We should switch to 30 frames per second as a good compromise.
-------------------------------------
#4 Fine, maybe 24 is okay for the theater experience but you should never upload 24 fps for UA-cam 22:17
Official Help for UA-cam Encoding
support.google.com/youtube/an...
Top ten videos on UA-cam
www.digitaltrends.com/web/mos...
#5 3-2 Pulldown is a bad thing 23:42
-------------------------------------
#6 The problem with high frame rate is filmmakers just don’t know how to use it yet. Hollywood Filmmakers need to experiment more with technology and different frame rates: 26:39
Meridian
• Netflix MERIDIAN Full ...
Lucid Dreams of Gabriel
• Lucid Dreams of Gabrie...
-------------------------------------
#7 Variable Frame Rates are the Future 29:07
The Larry Sanders Show Promo
• The Larry Sanders Show...
Video Game High School
• Video Game High School...
-------------------------------------
#8 High Frame Rate can’t Make actor’s performances look worse, haven’t you ever seen live theater 32:00
How High-Frame-Rate Technology Killed Ang Lee’s Gemini Man
www.vulture.com/2019/10/how-h...
Motion Smoothing Is Ruining Cinema Filmmakers hate it. Viewers do, too. So why is it the default setting on almost every new TV in America?
www.vulture.com/2019/07/motio...
Company (DVD)
amzn.to/2PbpoCs
Want to know more about Acting? FIQ’s Video on the History of Method Acting
• The Origins of Acting ...
-------------------------------------
#9 Well if the 24 cinematic veneer just covers up a lot of mistakes, that just means Hollywood needs to stop being so lazy and learn to act better and build better sets. 35:23
Jean Renoir Parle De Son Art
• Jean Renoir parle de s...
-------------------------------------
#10 You’re just used to 24fps - being used to something is not a good justification for its existence 38:22
You'll never win an argument against The Internet.
It's like wrestling with a pig in mud, you just end up dirty and then you realise the pig actually likes it.
Hiya Dave!
And you'll probably drop your phone in the mud and all the electrons will fall out.
What's wrong with becoming a pig? :))) Besides, pigs are far superior than the Internet dweebs.
I think the good old golden rule of "don't feed the troll", still applies and works. Although, engaging in the fight or making a little money out of it every now and then can be fun.
Was just going to post this exact thing (minus the pig analogy). Beat me to it, Dave.
at least not with this SENCELESS STATEMENT! XD
I'm writing my university dissertation on HFR at the moment. It's entitled: 'Do Audiences Experience a Film Differently at High Frame Rate', and I will be conducting experiments on audiences unaware that they are watching something at HFR, and I'm basically aiming to form some quantitative data on a general audience's subconscious responses to 24, 48, 60 and 120fps. You have no idea how happy I was when this dropped into my subscriptions. Great video as ever: really informative.
Somebody suggested they do a blind test of HFR but I don't think that's possible... Take a look at a JND frame rates in my description. I think if you jump people will notice right away.
Also check out the second article from Vulture where I quoted David Niles - might be someone you want to contact about how he did his research.
@@FilmmakerIQI read the article, in fact I've been visiting each of the links in the description one by one since I watched your video, so thank you so much for including them. I'll get in contact now. Thanks.
I'm so glad somebody actually went through those links... They were a lot of trouble to put together but I figured it was the only way.
I believe you miss something in the framerate list. What about 25 and 30 fps?
Fun Fact: Silent Hill 2 the game actually used 30fps in gameplay, then, 60fps for pre-rendered cutscenes. Given the look and feel of the game, it made the character interactions more unusual and uncanny. only for the PS2 though. It had lots of bad ports. But you can mod the PC version.
I agree with most of the points given. I have only two comments: 1) I watched Cameron's Avatar in IMAX in 3D. I was in a front row, so the screen in front of me was absolutely massive. At that size and with the addition of 3D, in faster scenes 24 fps was extremely jarring, sometimes to the point of complete visual incomprehensibility. 2) When you talk about "badly encoded videos on UA-cam": Video encoder doesn't really care about framerate, it's just processing sequence of frames (which are nothing but still pictures) -- time separation between the frames doesn't matter. The problems you pointed out happened before encoding (incorrect pulldown, changing framerate in the editor, or even just specifying wrong framerate).
I want HFR ... but only for the credits. Reading scrolling text is very hard at 24 fps
Thankfully, TV movies would have credits at 60fps, even if the movie was shot at any other framerate. But often the text scrolls faster than 24fps credits do. I can provide examples if need be
i never gave fps a thought until i got a tv that had 'smoothing', in effect making even a multi-million dollar movie look like a cheap 'behind the scenes' video.
Let's not mix up interacing with all this...
Plus technical visual quality requires other variables like resolution display size and brightness... Ultimately it's not really a good measure of anything. Subjective quality always trumps technical quality.
@@FilmmakerIQ
I think you replied to the wrong comment here.
It's so sad, that choppiness is somehow associated with "high budget" just because movies never decided to upgrade for absolutely no reason.
*high frame rate exists
vfx artists : *chuckles I'm in danger
animators: *weeping profusely*
@@swedneck and roto artists ...
There was some push-back to "Talkies", like this one: "A film in which the speech and sound effects are perfectly synchronised and coincide with their visual image on the screen is absolutely contrary to the aims of cinema. It is a degenerate and misguided attempt to destroy the real use of the film and cannot be accepted as coming within the true boundaries of the cinema."
I noted such in the video but not in ANY WAY like the pushback to HFR... Not even close.
I personally believe HDR is a way more exciting avenue to pursue than HFR
agreed
Filmmaker IQ your 40 minute videos are so interesting and transition so well they feel like they’re only 4 minutes long. Keep up the good work!
I think the HDR term has already been ruined by "4K" TVs that don't come anywhere near close to the unreasonably high brightness standard.
Arguing for movies having hfr is a little like someone saying to use f/16 on a camera because more of you shot is in focus. But shallow depth of field has its own artistic look and purpose
Sadly, I actually saw someone defend HFR and also saying that shallow depth of field shouldn't exist.
The problem with pans on high refresh rates is essentially that the TVs are too good at displaying the frames accurately without any blurring or ghosting - exactly the thing that people claim to want in higher-end TVs and monitors.
What you want for watching most video is some degree of blurring to smooth the pan.
It's the temporal version of the spatial thing that happens to video game art made for CRTs on a modern monitor with sharp, separated pixels.
This is correct!
You're making the best educational videos about film on YT! I know the feeling having a video going viral and having the whole keybored army of internet "experts" coming in, happily informing you about everything you do wrong... How nice it is to get a video ride up, it also comes at a price.
In general HFR is an artistic tool that gives a certain aesthetic, and insisting that the aesthetic of 24 is ALWAYS superior for cinema and that 48 looks like a soap opera is missing the point that there are legitimate reasons to choose low or high frame rate when making a film. The 24fps look we associate with movies is great, but it isn't necessary for a movie to be cinematic. HFR isn't the future, it's a tool that filmmakers can use right now and it's worth experimenting with *artistically*, which is a point you never actually addressed. In fact your response to that argument was to ignore it and talk about technical experimentation which is a separate issue, which is an intentional choice to deflect the problem.
Also generally the point that nobody who isn't a filmmaker deserves to have any input on this debate is equivalent to saying people who aren't sculptors or painters are incapable of having legitimate opinions on art. It feels like desperately grabbing at exclusivity to make yourself feel special; sure, if you're not a painter you won't know exactly how the chosen types of paint affect the color and sheen, but you aren't barred from having an opinion.
Likewise, plenty of people prefer 48fps movies when given the option, and casting aside their experiences because they aren't filmmakers is absurd. If they prefer it, you pretend that they don't appreciate or understand the aesthetic of cinema, when the fact is that they simply want to watch films in higher frame rate. They have a different opinion than you and you are deciding for them that they don't know what they actually like.
Viewers are the reason the industry is able to exist, so how is it that viewers who don't happen to be filmmakers themselves automatically have zero say in an argument about what they prefer? To me that's like a chef being so arrogant that he refuses to serve a guest who wants to get a dish with no cilantro. The people who consume media and their opinions are literally the entire market for films, and claiming that they don't matter while knowing that comes across as entitled and childish.
It's not the artistic tool you think it is. The reason you think it is is because you don't have any experience. That's why I advocate making films.
And the thing is people that like 24 make up a far greater portion of the market than those of HFR, so you're right the market has decided. HFR is dead.
@@FilmmakerIQ wow what a haughty response
I do 24fps in my animations because it's less rendering. 😇
I didn't for a long time, suffered through and got very smooth results. But I think Spiderverse turned the world onto limited animation.
Since giving it a shot it's like "Oh I'm doing real anmiation now, it's all about my intention" And compared to that, smoothness is just way overrated.
I do 12 fps in my animations because it's less drawing.
Think of the children, uno doing all that roto in a dark room somewhere. Not to mention us VFX guy/gals. storage space, the list goes on.
Reasonable point. Still not really the perfect way to go.
a lot of animation is in 12fps. that would be even less rendering (and drawing)
When I was managing cinema, it was explained to me that 24 frames per second was about as fast as the human eye could perceive 🤔
That said, that was the 90s with the old school celluloid Xenon projectors
Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse had different frame rates used as well, only instead of HFR, they used LFR, more specifically with the kid. At the start of the movie, he's rendered in 12fps, and when he finally understands what it means to be Spiderman, he's rendered in 24fps.
Spiderverse is why I think there might be more art in lower frame rates than in high
Yeah. And it worked within the medium because most animated movies switch between 12 and 24 anyway, sometimes in the same shot.
The thing I appreciate about even lower frame rates with animation is it gives you a tactile feel of the artistry. The craft comes through, run the animation at high frame rate and yes it looks smoother but you lose the sense that someone had to actually make this.
Anyone else know that feel when you go to someone else's house and their TV is set with that awful fake high fps that's on by default on every TV for some godforsaken reason and you feel physically ill until you can sneakily steal the remote and turn that garbage off.
LOL When I got my current HD set years ago, I tripped over the menu pages trying to get that silly "crisp" or whatever mode turned off. Everything looked like super HD soap operas. When I finally got the set tuned right, it was just like "Hey, that's what it's supposed to look like!" Maybe not as 'crisp' but definitely more movie-like.
Hah - I've done this of several occasions! It's surprising how many people don't notice the HFR "look", or think it detracts from the experience, but most like it better when it's turned off - with the possible exception of sports content.
@@johngwheeler *Ahem* Sports AND porn. Definitively, the two things motion interpolation is good for.
Porn *is a sport*
#tvninja
As someone who's done proper films (as compared to home movies) on Super8 film, I think a lot of this runs true for the 18fps format that 8mm is shot on. It has a real feel that can only be described as 'aesthetic' and whilst the frame-rate and effective resolution are lousy, that's all part of the charm of what I love about rewatching 8mm films.
Absolutely and I totally agree. I never watched 8 mm personally (until recently) but I saw the intro to the Wonder Years every week when it was on showing the 8 mm feel... ua-cam.com/video/-Ob59hsRaFU/v-deo.html
@@FilmmakerIQ You should especially try picking up an old camera and some B&W film. Nothing comes close to B&W on low/res stock, it gives a genuine old-timey vibe if you want a period/noire look.
Also, the thought of waiting weeks for processing it and then editing it later by hand also makes you *really* focus on getting the shot right first time.
I can't stand 48 or 60 FPS films. Smoother image, blah blah blah, it looks weird, and it makes shoddy effects jobs, both practical and CGI, look AWFUL. The Hobbit was a perfect example, where the effects would have looked decent, but the high frame rate made all the faults more visible and everything looked so fake and phony.
I’m a teacher of film sound and I just LOVE your videos! Wow you nail every subject you attack, and it’s awesome when you get pissed off. Keep up the good work! All the best from Sweden!
"I get that every generation wants to overthrow the past, but every generation is nieve and clueless; youth is always stupid, Old people are always out of touch.
The irony is how the same person transitions between the two extremes, and the hubris comes from thinking that you won't too..."
John P Hess
I also prefer 24 fps, but why do you act like this isn't just a matter of habit and taste.
I explained my position clearly in the video. But there is also the very really fact that not nearly all.. but ALL movie and narrative TV shows use that format. As close to 100% as you can get in art. That's beyond a preference...
"Just because you're a film maker with years of experience and a reasonable argument for 24fps based on science and experience you are wrong! I filmed my mate falling off his bike at 200fps on my phone and it looked AWESOME! Get wrecked old man!"
I bet this was Irony.
@@Leprutz haha! Oh yea
And that’s why you won’t be a filmmaker
@@will9357 Slow motion is filmed at a higher frame rate, not a slower frame rate, your comment makes no sense.
Even that looks better on 24 fps...
I’ll say it again. I’ve never walked out of a movie and heard anyone say, “I would have liked it better if the frame rate was higher.”
How true.
Unfortunately I read every UA-cam comment I receive and I have heard those kind of statements. :(
I've used the same example but it was "Hey, nobody ever left a modern movie saying "Darn, I really miss the warm analog sound."
I thought The Hobbit movies looked worse because of it
i've actually thought most david fincher movies look extra sleek in 60fps. his steady cam work would be F L U I D
this guy is a God in film making information period
but he still doesn't get all the this right: ua-cam.com/video/pjMtux_zFU4/v-deo.html
@@will9357 Doesn't it bother you too? Once you've noticed it, you can't unsee it... and thats why people should shoot 30 for youtube. Not fo only me to be happy about, rather for everyones benefit. Its that simple. There are already a couple of youtuber creators doing it, but this knowledge should be spread to everyone. Thats why videos such as this one are so counter productive...
@@JonathanMacher (but not enough sense to understand his limited experience) is an example of someone that took a little bit of knowledge and blew it up to the point of absurdity.
According to his logic, Europeans can't produce UA-cam videos because they can't shoot 30fps with the video cameras...
Plain stupidity.
@@FilmmakerIQ See, now you're just making stuff up.
Guess you never heard of PAL...
Quality of the movie aside, The first Hobbit movie in 3D, 5K, 48 fps was one of the best movie going experience I ever had. Sure, a lot of the stuff in the movie looked faked. But it was like there was a hole in the wall and middle earth was right there in front of my eyes. I just wish we could have the option to bring those experiences home... People would maybe change their mind if HFR was more easily accessible.
wow, i thought this was just going to be a podcast, not a highly edited 42 minute professional production. nice work
John, you are an absolute wealth of researched information and this video was pure joy. I hope you do more videos like this because you are absolutely at your best when your passion bursts through your didactism.
You nailed it with the Wine / Grape Juice comparison!!! Hopefully, this will get it straight. for these people. Thank you!
I watched all the video. First want to thank you for all the effort put into this, I really appreciate that cause I am a young filmmaker and I know how difficult it is to discuss about cinema with people who believe that they know everything just because they Googled it. Honestly the info was great but I would prefer to watch a video with you talking to other experts rather than replying to silly arguments because your knowledge is really worthy, but I understand why you made it. Keep the good work going man!
I come back to this video and the defense of 24 fps one every couple of months, and it's always funny reading the new comments that just keep rehashing the same old arguments.
There's no way I'll ever shot *anything* ever in 30p/60p, unless I'm being paid to do so. I'm actually glad my phone camera has a 24p option. I have it set to 24p permanently. There's a practical reason for this too. Phone cameras in general don't do well in low light, and 24p is extremely helpful in those circumstances.
nice video man ... watched the whole thing ... cool as always!
When you brought up the Company recording, it reminded me of Lars Von Trier's Dogville, which used similar minimalistic staging but with more conventionally cinematic angles, so when a scene was set inside a building you could see everything else happening on set since the walls were mostly represented solely by lines drawn on the floor, and I'd love to see how HFR would change the effect created by those staging choices.
Sure why not? But you got to that far outside traditional cinematic techniques... My guess is it would just look like it was shot on video.
It already does look like it was shot on video.
Thank you, I've been looking for the toupee fallacy for a while
That's kind of related to the "Better Alligator Trap" fallacy. The man who in London tells me has can sell me his new, patented, better alligator trap, and the proof is.."Look. How many alligators do you see in London!?"
@@timbeaton5045 , thank you, I always love to learn about logical fallacies I don't know!
Great video! Love your content, I always learn something.
I admire the work you put into your presentations. Thanks, I enjoy all of your work.
I’ve thought really hard about everything you’ve said. I love 24fps and as someone who has also spent a lot of time making stop-motion animation I’m also a massive fan of 12/15fps. Still, The Hobbit & Gemini Man have been amongst my all time favourite cinematic experiences, in no small part because of the 3D HFR. To me more ‘real’ felt more exciting for those showings. Can’t we have HFR movies too? (I’m still a fan of 3D as well) Maybe all these things are a bit of a gimmick right now, but I love when entertainment gives me a new and novel experience. For the record though, the edges of the screen at my local movie theatre have a LOT of judder when projecting in 3D. The 3D HFR fixed this flaw beautifully.
i'm all for the magi process, shooting in 120 fps, being able to display the movie at different frame rates and being able to sell blu rays/streaming of the movie at different frame rates.
there's no reason to not have more options, i personally would watch everything at 120 fps, but by shooting at 120 fps, but when shooting at 120 fps u can combine 5 frames to regain the blur required to make 24 fps acceptable.
i want the screen to fall away and let me be part of the movie and 24 fps can't do that ever. (for me at least)
@Corpsefoot Gaming Have any movies so far actually tried to replace 24fps though? And what is the harm if a few even do? I don’t think for budgeting reasons that the whole industry would be likely to switch any time soon, but a little more experimentation with the available technology can’t hurt. If it ends up damaging the movie going experience then companies will quickly revert back to 24fps only, in the same way as 3D TVs and for the most part true 3D movies are now a thing of the past.
The reason for 24 is not budgetary, movies will spend the money if that's what's preferred. Deviating from 24 is simply not preferred. That's what the proHFR crowd don't get
When DVDs first came out, I started really getting into cinema (as opposed to being average casual viewer) and I remember renting a made for TV movie and thinking something was wrong and I actually stopped the viewing to rewatch the same scene on different TVs/computer moniters/DVD players trying to diagnose what it was. It was exactly this. A higher frame rate and it didn't look right. It wasn't cinematic. Smoother, yes, but it didn't feel like a movie. This wasn't a side-by-side comparison or even back to back comparison. It was coming home from work and popping in a DVD cold. This was before I knew anything about frame rates, and it was still that jarring and suspension of disbelief-shattering.
Thank you so much for all the effort.
In the future it might be interesting to talk about all that fuss about the properties, or "properties" of nitrate base film and and its "qualities".
Keep it up,
Chris
They don't make that stuff anymore for good reason haha
I love your videos, and I learn something new with each one. Thank you.
I sure hope they standardize the filmmaker mode, because if I’m watching a blu-ray vs playing a game, I have to jump through so many hoops to switch between 24 and 120 on my TV+console+receiver, that I’ve given up for the most part.
My sister got a new TV a year ago, and movies looked so wrong. I had to go into the settings to fix it. This really is a big problem. I hope filmmaker mode becomes a thing
What do you mean exactly? Shouldn't your TV be set to "Game" mode anyway when you play a game? It's usually the mode that gives you the least input lag and also disables all the other picture processing crap so I use it for anything else too. I can't imagine the "Filmmaker mode" being much different from that.
Saphir3000 valid question! I’ve settled on: Sony Bravia: picture mode Game, auto picture mode: auto (24p sync). The Pro is set to auto across the board. I’ve been doing it so often, I don’t even remember what setting combination looked best in the end. Btw Bravia Game mode is separate from HDR mode. I need to load HZD to double check to see if it makes a difference. I can tell there’s a difference on the pro desktop
Auto (24p sync) says it will prefer 24p when receiving 24 Hz data. All other times it’s in auto
@@Saphir3000 I also set it to Game mode but a few other stuff needed adjusting as well. I think the real purpose of filmmaker mode is that it is a standard that TV manufactures conform to that is enabled by default, unlike game mode which is hidden behind a wall of menus that most non tech-savvy people aren't even aware of. Plus, to my knowledge, Game mode doesn't readjust the refresh rate to 24fps (24Hz) Although that isnt a big deal since (as stated in the video) 3/2 pulldown is fairly adequate.
everybody needs to turn off they're smooth motion on their TVs. That crap that adds fake frames. It makes things look terrible
Love your content and delivery, keep it up! Cheers
Did you purposely put a picture of Zooey Deschanel when you were talking about Katie Perry? I know they look alike, just didn't know if it was on purpose or not. @ 23:28
I think your question is answered at 27:03
Voice of a Generation! ua-cam.com/video/MN23lFKfpck/v-deo.html
I've ALWAYS found ALL panning shots unacceptably jerky and flickery, particularly in an actual cinema with real film projection. It's not too bad with a slow pan in a close up shot but when you have fast moving pans of large expansive vistas it's like being at a rave when the strobe light comes on. Action shots are even worse especially with the close up shaky cam fight scenes that are so annoyingly popular in modern movies. They're like being shown a slideshow of a boxing match where the photographer missed half the punches. I dunno it might just be me but I feel like having an epileptic fit sometimes watching a movie.
I have this to. Panning shots, and action shots, feels choppy and jerky and it makes my eyes/head hurt after a while. It is one of the reasons I rarely go to the cinema anymore. It reduces my enjoyment and make me feel like I am trying to play a game on a computer that can't render at at good or steady frame rate.
Completely Argee I can easily notice how choppy 24fps is in cinema once you get used to hfr video and gaming you really don't want to turn back I bet if the standard was 60 instead of 24 and people shoot it 24 they will have the same argument "it dosen't look like a moive" in my opinion 120fps with 1/125 shutter should be the standard since it still has some motion blur but much more like real life and smoothness of real life also.
The panning issues are probably due to display persistence. A 144Hz monitor will have very low persistence so psychovisual effects become very apparent. 24fps always feels uncomfortable to me, but it is much better with slower presentation technology.
@@anorbet2514 What about hand-drawn animation? It often triumphs with limitation, posing and abrupt actions for effect
Did you see the comparison of the panning shots of The Shining in 18:45 of the video? The right side looks perfectly fine to me.
I wouldn't be surprised if many theaters are incompetent
Not everything that higher in numbers is an improvement. There is a reason a book look like a book for hundreds of years. 60 fps should be used where it works best (not in movies).
Fucking codex reading youngsters. What’s wrong with the scroll that we’ve been using for centuries? It just doesn’t feel like a book if you’re not unrolling the next page every so often. Binding loose pages into a stack, bah, newfangled humbug. I mean, sure it makes it easier to use and especially easier to flip back and forth, but that’s not the true bibliophilic experience.
(The fact that I had to go back to the scroll to codex transition which happened in, like... I don’t know, somewhere between 0 and 1000, look it up if you want... sure supports your point)
@@JasperJanssen I absolutely love that I had to scroll to read this whole message. Damn new fangled pocket computer thingy.
Thanks for all the links. Too little youtubers do the effort of linking their example
I remember a lot of HBO comedies including the one you mentioned would be 24fps in their "real world" and 60fps for stuff that was shown on a TV. It was an interesting effect that probably wouldn't be supported by most modern-day streaming services.
I'm guessing another big reason why 24fps has become so standard is because it's compatible with all platforms and your audience doesn't need insanely fast Internet bandwidth to stream it.
(BTW, thanks for captioning your videos!)
High frame rates look great when you're filming something that is supposed to look live. It looks awful when applied to make-believe. It looks evern worse when you're looking at something with a lot of green screen. Every bit of fakery is magnified 1000%. The Hobbit was already a mess visually, but looked astoundingly bad when it was shown at a higher frame rate.
There's a good chance you're the first person in history to use the phrase "cast aspersions on grape juice."
Pliny the Elder beat me to it when he used the exact phrase in his Naturalis Historia.
@@FilmmakerIQ Interesting. I made sure to search for the exact phrase before posting that comment.
I'm joking :P
@@FilmmakerIQ Nice, you had me on a deep Google Books dive!
This was very fun to watch. Thank you for the amazing content.
TL:DR; My question is: Does Optical Flow (in Premiere) have any advantage over Frame Sampling for creating a realistic 24p effect? I know the principle behind Optical Flow AND how it can create passable slow motion shots when true slow mo material isn't available AND I know that when down sampling it creates a different look from "frame sampling" but I can't really tell if it's better, or just different.
Here's the context:
John, If you've read my comments before you'll know that I've been a mild apologist for HFR as a style that could work for cinema, but I must admit that these videos have given me pause to think about the HFR videos I have been producing, and I think I'd like to begin to output in 24fps to see if I can add some of that cinematic character into my videos. But now I'm wondering exactly what would be the best way to go about downsampling my 59.94p source footage into a 23.972p project sequence, and I know that my only viable choices (in premiere, that) is between "frame sampling" and "optical flow" (because "frame blending" looks ugly, lol.
No optical flow won't help you. What you need is a motion blur plugin like real smart motion blur that can add a slight motion blur to soften the movement to work for 24.
Then the best solution is to just to shoot 24 source material.
24fps look bad on those monitors probably because they have such low ghosting. CRT and normal slow LCD both have some ghosting going on where as OLED and fast switching LCD can just skip to the next frame instantly so it looks more jittery.
I think this is the start of a theory but it's not enough to explain what's happening. This detail hit me when I was watching JoJo Rabbit in the movie theater that had a similar sequence and it looked PERFECT. And there's no ghosting in the theater.. I've tested all kinds of things like video size, switching to different refresh rates like 120 or 60 or even 48... Sometimes it goes away some times it doesn't... But the older 60i monitor for the most part shows the motion better.
So ghosting maybe one explanation but there's probably a lot of other factors that I just don't know enough about that affected it.
@@FilmmakerIQ Some of these high refresh monitors and TV also have interleaving black frames to reduce motion blur, never understood why people would want that, kind of the inverse of smoother motion but it used to be a big point to advertise.
I think the black frame insertion might help... I know my cheap monitor doesn't have it.
I think the theory is by inserting a black frame is you let the persistence of vision hold in the mind for second before switching to the next frame. Switching from frame to frame is getting so fast that the persistence of vision carries over and stutters. At least that's my half baked idea right now.
@@FilmmakerIQ I've tried playing around with black frame insertion, and with mpvs interpolation, which does frame blending (no motion interpolation), but none of that gets rid of the judder. At best it alleviates it slightly. And I do notice judder in the cinema as well, it's quite noticeable once you start paying attention to it, and quite distracting at times.
Some judder is characteristic, its the alcohol that makes it wine and not grape juice
Damn, he said film is art. I love it
I have no idea why I found myself watching this video, but you convinced me that you're probably right.
With 982 comments, at 70 I'm to old to read them all. But I will tell you that as a kid I could not understand why the wheels on a stagecoach would turn backwards. Now I enjoy those same movies and pay no attention to the wheels. Love Your work.
I couldn't understand that either, until I studied digital signal processing in college (aliasing). Only then did it really make sense. And yes, this lovely effect contributed greatly to the charm of those movies.
I feel like I may have had something to do with the “okay boomer” reference... 😅 completely agree with you on 24fps tho!
but the host isn't in the boomer generation, his parents are
Tom Servo ok boomer
I'm literally the oldest crop of Millennials
Conclusion : go make films people
The argumentation was BRILLIANT ! The real demand of HFR in cinema is close to zero...
I LOVE THIS CHANNEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Educate & enlighten the masses!
A thing that still bothers me about "the FPS war" is that there has never been a GOOD proper lenght movie shot with that technique , so it's hard to judge properly if it's a matter of the technique or if people are just refusing it because nobody ever used it on something good.
My theory is that cinematic language needs to be adapted to the medium of HFR. Like in 24FPS there are certain things you should normally avoid because it won't look good. In different types of cameras, there are different color, contrast, and skin profiles. Between film and digital, the same camera movements can have totally different feelings of momentum. Movement within the frame can feel different as well. A good filmmaking is considering all of these factors when making something. So why does it seem like Peter Jackson and Ang Lee just shot their last films the exact same way they would have shot it in 24FPS?
I recently shot a feature film in 60FPS. I was going for a living photo/theatre aesthetic so the camera doesn't move. The effect is all the movement within the still frame is heightened. Now combine this with LONG takes and you're basically hypnotizing the audience. That's my hope at least.
But I think the future of 60FPS is going to rely on indie filmmakers trying new things with cinematic language and learning to adapt to the nuances of the medium. James Cameron has already abandoned it. He couldn't figure it out. I think he might be using variable frame rates for action scenes? So we'll see how that goes up against filmmakerIQ's suggestion that it's bad for action scenes.
There's been five proper length movies, and like 50 years of soap operas dramas. You don't need a "Good" film to judge that aspect... Part of being a Filmmaker is the ability to evaluate individual elements of a production. HFR is simply not the tool you think it is.
Sounds like you're acknowledging the issue Lance - the problem though is you kind of have to abandon cinema technique in order for it to work... therefore it's not really cinema anymore...
@@FilmmakerIQ I don't think you have to abandon cinematic technique, I think you just need to learn the limitations of HFR, like you would any of other variants of recording. I think there are also plenty of filmmakers whose techniques would translate well if they tried HFR. (Roy Andersson, Fincher, Vilenueve) If someone figures out how to use 60FPS in a cool way that benefits their story, does it matter what we call it? The audio-visual projected experience with characters and a story I saw in a theatre is not cinema? I'm just not sure defining an expansion or rejection of modern cinematic language as "not cinema" is useful to the concept of cinema. But this all subjective anyway. I think certain youtube vloggers are making cinema right now. I can feel your eyes roll. I know.
I'll be totally honest Lance, I watched your film trailer in 60fps and was not impressed. It really looks like an amateur acting project.
"vulgar realism" - what a great term. Contrast it with 'heroic realism' of the Golden Era...
I'd go to you any day period for tips on film making. I enjoyed this video very much. We need people like you, the veterans of the tech and media industry.
What a great video! I have no horse in this race. But, I sure learned a lot. Thanks. P.S. you didn't get snarky until the very end. Well done.
Ah, man, as always I absolutely agree with you, i hate the soap opera effect, I love film look, and everything... But... 24 fps is so arbitrary and does fit everyone. In fact, i experimented on myself, and yes, i can see the difference between 24 and 26, and i can see it al the way to 200+. But i am absolutely sure that the soap opera effect absolutely disappears everytime when i get under 36. I believe this is just me and that everyone might have a different limit, but nevertheless, for me it's not 24 fps that is unequivocally looking like film, it's a range between 20 and 35. And about the fact that high framerates make action worse that is absolutely true, it actually makes a whole lot of stuff look worse.But to me, 36 doesnt. It might still make cars look slower and actors act worse, but it makes pan look better and a lot of other camera movement. Also, you don't believe variable is rigHt but it's done all the time in a lot of your beloved films. Today, most slow motion is shot at a higher framerate to be able to be seen in 24, but actually a whole lot more has been and is still being shot normally and slowed down by using a slower framers which is clearly easy to see and I personally think it oftens gives a great effect, but domestics i prefer the modern slow motions... I really believe that frame rates can be a cinematic technique which can create amazing effects when used right
Slow motion is not variable frame rate.
And the number that people keep bouncing around is around 40. Also I'd be careful about what you think is 200 frames per second... You may be noticing effects of pull down rather than the actual frame rate
When slow motion shows a great amount of judges because of repeated frames, yes, it is variable frame rate, as i said it's not the case when the camera actually took more frames in order to keep 24 per second at projection. After all 24 frames per second has actually been 72 at some point with frame repetition, what modern TVs might be calling black frame insertion today, but it was because of judder induced by real world camera projectors limitations at the time
Re: the "pans look terrible" argument
Honestly, I think it's more to do with the uneven cadence that comes when displaying 24fps content on a 60hz display. I've seen some slower pans that look absolutely godawful on my TV which doesn't support proper 24fps display with even frame persistence. I actually think the wider adoption of 120hz TVs will do a lot to help dispel this myth, since at 120hz every frame in a 24fps video will be shown for 5 frames, thus eliminating the inconsistent frame cadence and thus the stutter.
My experience showed Pans looked better on the uneven cadence of 60hz than they do in the even cadence of 144... That's counter you're point.
@@FilmmakerIQ Yeah, but like you said, the display was of fairly poor quality, so maybe that had something to do with it. I don't know your setup, but it's possible that your computer might've had issues displaying a full 144hz alongside whatever video source you were using.
That's the kicker there's a lot of factors at play. But I do think it was refreshing at 144 Hertz because you can tell by the mouse trails. I think the dangerous thing is people go searching for a monitor just solely on refresh rate and not considering all the other factors that can determine the look of the monitor... I mean Tom's hardware gave it four and a half stars and I wouldn't put it past maybe three even at the price...
@@FilmmakerIQ Tom's Hardware are morons. Anandtech is better but for monitors you need to go to TFT central. I hope this helps in the future.
People assume that HFR is new technology. It has been around for a very long time and people know what it looks like. Some people prefer it while many people have always rejected it in cinema. Think about how long 3D has been available. It's good for certain movies and certain contexts, but the masses have never clamored for it to replace the standard cinematic experience.
Awesome video. You deserve a standing ovation!!! Bravo!!
Why go to film school? This guy just taught us everything we “historycally” need to know
Film is an artistic impression of reality, the idea that vision is being simulated is a non argument, it never was, high framerate or not, its not how we actually see. 24 fps was just a fortunate accident, reality is overrated, the Instagram filter hammers home this truth.
Don't trust the opinion of people who use Instagram.
Thanks to the wine analogies I got an ad for a masterclass in wine tasting.
Sing it brother. Appreciate the time and effort you put into your videos.
I commend you for reentering the fray and addressing most of the major counter-arguments for HFR in precise and impassioned detail. I'm sure this video will stand as the definitive word on the subject.
However, all you have to do to find flaws in some (just a few) of your arguments is flip them and see if they apply equally if you were arguing FOR (not against) HFR. Two of these stand out: 1) Wine vs. Grape Juice. You might as well be saying you like the sweetness of 24fps grape juice because your tastes aren't adapted to the richness and layered, adult flavors of the HFR Marlot. Not a strong argument (even though I agree with your tastes). And 2) Disproving your own point by quoting Director Jean Renoir declaring "when the technique is perfected everything is ugly except things created by artists who are ingenious enough to overcome the technique." That would seem to fully endorse the possibility that HFR, while technically perfected years ago, has not yet been tamed by an "artist ingenious enough."
Anyway, you have definitively, persuasively proved that producing "art" in HFR will be very, very difficult but I hope we can agree (as you said) that the only proof that matters is an "artist ingenious enough" showing us an HFR film that works artistically. After all, it's OK to be deeply skeptical that unicorns exist (you should be) until narwhals appear at your shore and you allow yourself to see them as an equally wondrous fulfillment of the supposed myth.
I don't believe any artist can make HFR work. It's inherently flawed for the cinematic medium.
@@FilmmakerIQ Yes, we got it! You dedicated 5000 thoughtful words saying so. I wholeheartedly respect how you methodically picked through the bones of the HFR-cinema unicorn and sanely, scientifically declared it to be a mythical creature. Very sensible. You made it clear that you won't believe otherwise until someone brings you an actual specimen of HFR art. Fair enough. I'm completely, utterly OK with that. I concede that unicorns don't exist in all the territories you've mapped so meticulously. It is just unfortunate that you feel the need to scrawl "There might be dragons" on the map with such absolute certainty just to cover your blind spots and discourage curiosity. That's OK. Some un-sensible sailor (not you, not me) will sail into that uncharted creative sea anyway. They might not ever find an HFR narwhal that vividly suspends your disbelief but the adventure might just extend the art in ways you don't expect.
60fps looks just fake in feature films, especially in sci-fi movies where HFR reveals every single imperfecion of CGI (and plastic costumes too). And even if filmmakers "are used to" 24fps, they won't adopt to HFR just because of that. As a creator or artist I would definitely choose a technique that makes my movie (or any piece of art) good looking, not shame-looking.
thanks man , love your videos !
what was that info window at 18:54 that showed the frame rates on UA-cam?
Stats for nerds... Look it up. I'm sort of addicted to checking the frame rate of every video I see on UA-cam and you'd be surprised how much 24 FPS content is out there. Even Logan Paul uploads everything to 24 although no one's talking about him anymore...
I support you. Also let's put in jail people who use intelligent motion option on their TV
To play the devil's advocate here; many TVs come with that option turned 'on' by default, and that means lots of (or maybe even most?) consumers don't even know it exists (and what it does).
So I'd actually put the blame on the TV manufacturers on this one. THEY are the ones actively confusing many people.
This is just like when the Luddites tried to destroy steam powered looms!
HFR folks are closer to Flat Earthers than they care to admit.
We don't need VFR for artistic purposes. Spielberg and other directors have proved that variable shutter angle/speed can be used for such purposes, without completely ruining the experience and making the film look like a news broadcast...
Exactly. Variable shutter is much more of an artistic tool than frame rate
Great video as always!
I'm a passionate and young film student, but if more directors start shooting HFR, I'm going to kill myself. That is not the filmmaking I signed up for!!!
This was great. I would add one thing though that you didn't touch on, and that is shutter speed/angle. Shooting in a HFR means you remove a lot of motion blur, this is partly what makes films look real, and can be a tool in adding a specific look to the film. The standard motion blur in 24fps (1/48th of a second or 180 degrees) is very close to how we perceive motion blur. Filmmakers can play with this shutter speed, usually going higher but occasionally slower, to evoke certain emotions or feelings. Shooting at HFR especially 120 removes that creative tool because everything has little motion blur. It also then looks a little faker because we perceive motion blur in real life.
Well that's a common myth honestly, and one that's only partly true.
Yes it's true that 24fps footage has more motion blur than let's say 120fps.
But what's not true is that 120fps looks fake because it lacks motion blur that we perceive in real life. 120fps can have the same amount of motion blur as 24fps. It's just that in case of 120fps the blur happens in your eyes instead on the screen.
Hear me out on this:
Motion blur is an artifact of persistence of vision. When anything moves in front of you and you don't follow it with your eyes it will be blurred out because the image of where the object was just a moment ago persists on your retina and slowly fades away. So it's essentially like a trail behind any moving object that you don' track. But the moment you start tracking an object it becomes 100% sharp and instead the stationary background becomes blurred by motion.
But if you're watching a 24fps movie it works differently - the motion blur that you would see in real life is already in the footage and you can't change it. When you start tracking an object it won't become any sharper because it's blurry on the footage.
It's a different story for HFR. If there are enough frames, there is little motion blur. And if there's little to no motion blur then everything is sharp as it would be in reality. Then it works essentially the same way as if you were watching reality so if you don't track a moving object it will appear blurred, but when you do it will become sharp and you will be able to track it well. Obviously the higher the framerate the closer you are to "reality". I estimate that it would take around 5000fps to completely fool your eyes in every possible scenario, and 240FPS should be good enough for 95% of cases.
Also what i didn't mention was that your eyes are naturally drawn to moving objects - they want to track them, but to do that the object must be moving continually which isn't the case for 24fps - sometimes fast moving objects will just "skip" large distances on screen so you get no chance to track them because there is no actual movement in between these points, whereas in HFR there is.
Now before anyone jumps at me here's what I think about HFR:
Do I think that every movie ever should be done in HFR?
-No
Do I think that some movies could benefit from using HFR?
-Absolutely
Do I think that HFR will at some point become "the standard" in Holywood?
-In the near future - no. In the far future - maybe.
So to summarize: if you say that HFR doesn't look cinematic or that it feels off or something then that's okay, but don't try to quote some bogus science in order to prove your point.
If you say that that it removes the creative tool of choosing whether the footage has less or more motion blur then yes, kinda, but you could also add more motion blur to the HFR footage (more than possible to capture in camera) to essentially achieve similar result. I don't know if that would look any good, but maybe?
Loved the wine vs grape juice analogy! :)
As someone who is currently studying and working in film, I can definitely concur that this is a complex issue that is far beyond "the next technological step". You've really done the subject justice giving it so much time.
Of course the practicality aspect comes in (the fact 60fps will always be twice as hard to process as 24fps, etc) but there's something to be said for the way we engage with film. I think sometimes there is such a thing as too much clarity. The "film look" is actually one of slightly squashed blacks and unsharpnss. Just as a book invokes images in the mind, emotions, a film takes on a vicsral transformation as we view it. There's imagination at play as we fill in the gaps or explore tiny elements in great detail. That is precisely where HFR can become uncanny, in that it's a little too real, too much, to closed-off. Some of the most beautiful cinematography loses its touch when you smooth it out.
There's a fine line here. I remember when consoles went from 30fps to 60fps and some people said things like "60fps is too smooth, motion sickness" and stuff like that. But I think the film argument is a bit different. This idea of separation from reality is really prevelant - in the medium of photography, we frame images and often put them through filters that obscure detail.
Sometimes I think less is more.
There are exceptions to this of course. I have no issue with films being released in HFR if that is what filmmakers wanted. Sometimes I make films at 30fps or 12fps. One film that really needed to be HFR was Hardcore Henry. It just comes down to the kind of aesthetic rulebook that the director wants to explore. It's much the same thing a director choosing B/W for creative reasons. A film made specifically with HFR in mind will benefit from HFR.
Things do get tricky though in the sense that films only have so much freedom. Not everything can be abstract and self-serving. In some sense, the film still needs a lot of 'sitting around talking'. That's where you loose the wow of HFR, the depth of 3D - and yet, B/W will bring mystery to these shallow scenes. How much of cinematics is hiding? Most.
In my courses we have covered this concept of "total cinema", this idea that the ultimate form of film is essentially all-encompassing VR. Is that then not just life? What then would be entertaining about it?
I guess this all brings me back the simple sentiment that this is not an issue of technology, but aesthetics.
Such a great comment. You hit a point that I think gets buried. It's all about intent... What is the intent of the Filmmaker?
The funny thing about Hardcore Henry was it was shot in 48fps. The Biting Elbows music video that it was based on was shown in 30... So somewhere they must have made the choice to go to 24.
This is really why I encourage HFR devotees to actually make films because I think the more you understand the process, The more you appreciate the aesthetics as you put it.
"The industry itself never rejected color"
Explain why Speed Racer bombed then. :(
They didn't reject color They just rejected Speed Racer :P
There's honestly something wonderful about that movie. Maybe not the broadest appeal tho.
They didn't reject color, if anything the rejected super saturated colors in favor of "normal" ones (whatever "normal" is).
mp3 is the best audio format, because I’ve always listened it. No other format sound like real music
You went there, and I loved it!
John... This is amazing. Thank you very much)
For a really interesting read check out the history of Technicolor. Apologies for no link, but it is quite fascinating, both historically and technically.
Man, who would have thought that the internet would get so worked up over 24 FPS?
Excellent presentation, thank you!
I'm with you John, especially after the Blazing Saddles reference.
Love the vid. Really fascinating vid.
Fantastic stuff. Thank you Sir.
Great video, very informative!
The most informative channel on UA-cam, I mean that sincerely.
I like what you said in the previous vid about 24fps and yu reiterated here. Paraphrasing "You wanna make movies in a higher frame rate then go make movies in a higher frame rate." I think here you said "be the change."
Great job, btw. This seemed like it was shorter than 42 and 1/2 minutes - a tribute to your teaching style. I can also relate to the switchover to HD. I worked at a TV station and they built brand new sets when they switched because the old ones looked old and dingy.
I have been shooting everything in 30 but after watching your videos, I am dropping to 24fps.
30 is fine for some stuff, it's all about intent :)
Bravíssiomo!. Awesome video. Great explanation.
TV sitcoms were not always 24fps. Originally all TV shows were done live (and thus natively at 60i or 50i), and any copies made for distribution or preservation were done using poor-quality kinescope equipment. "I Love Lucy" was the first to be shot directly on film, but it used 24fps for the convenience of TV stations being able to play it on their existing film chains, not for any aesthetic purpose. But in the '60s to '80s, almost all sitcoms were recorded using 60i (or 50i) video cameras and videotape, except for some opening sequences and outdoor scenes ("Monty Python" did a sketch joking about the switch from videotape indoors to film outdoors -- "we're surrounded by film!"). "Friends" was the first big sitcom to switch back to using film entirely, but was still transferred to 60i videotape for editing (which breaks the 3:2 pulldown cadence at scene/camera changes!). If you see sitcoms from this era entirely at 24fps today, that's a result of modern re-editing, just like the awful cropping from 4:3 down to 16:9.
I Love Lucy invented the TV sitcom. The shows that were done live were not necessarily sitcoms. Some sitcoms (lower budget) were shot to tape which have a 60i frame rate though it's not as ubiquitous as you make it out to be. Gilligan's Island, Brady Bunch, Mary Tyler Moore, Cheers, all shot on film. Yes they used 3:2 to up it to a broadcast 60i but they were shot at 24 fps.
Part of this was because video editing would not become sophisticated enough until the 80s.
You're my new hero.
88 miles per hour, 1.21 gigawatts, 24 frames per second.