A Defense of 24 FPS and Why It's Here to Stay for Cinema
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- Please consider supporting us by becoming a Patron on Patreon: / filmmakeriq
In this #IQBiTS video, John responds to 7 myths that are commonly brought up by folks on our Frame Rate Video who hate 24 FPS. He further give 2 concrete objective arguments on why 24 FPS is here to stay.
If you dig the music, check out our music library at Artlist.io using our affiliate link: artlist.io/art...
Also since some of you might not see the merch store below the video - here's a direct link to the shirt if you want to pick one up: teespring.com/...
#FrameRate
Please enjoy this news segment on the revolution of HFR from 1984:
ua-cam.com/video/XgYj5D7PnUk/v-deo.html
No need to explain interframe compression. That particular portion I was talking about interframe and I was sloppy with the words. That doesn't diminish the point though.
As you peruse the negative comments that I engage with (oh the therapy bills will be excessive this month), notice a good majority of them recycle Myth #2: Modern Advancements in Tech have made 24 Obsolete (3:04). No one recognizes that TV has been in the public eye for 70 years and streaming images at 60i.
Been getting a lot of comments confused about refresh rate and frames per second. Remind yourself that hertz is NOT quite the same as frames per second. Even film was flashed on the screen more times than the actual frame rate.
Folks saying they can see 144 fps are missing the point of my argument... but what's new?
Next I'll have to defend the use of shallow depth of field because games don't have depth of field!
One day I will expand on this 144 hz. Only three sentences in this one triggered a ton of people, it needs a whole video on its own to infuriate them even more.
Oh well... I've neglected my responsibilities in trying to answer as many comments as I can. I will still be around but at this point it really feels like I'm just repeating myself - plus, I kinda made a 22 minute video saying what I wanted to say and most of my responses are just rehashing what I said in the video. I'll be around... Keep debating, keep it civil!
I can tell from your intro that you're just stubborn and stuck in your ways. There's no way that anyone could convince you to get rid of 24fps, because you're not open to change. There is absolutely no reason to not use higher frame rates and they look better.
@@fellowcitizen you okay? Are you having a stroke? Do you need me to call an ambulance?
I love my 24 but I tend to use interpolation methods when watching 3D movies on my projector, with the LCD shutterglasses I use it induces less eyestrain for me and so makes the movie easier to watch - but I would rather watch a movie in the framerate it was shot in; so if it where shot and intended for 48-60 I would rather watch it in that if it where the filmmakers intent.
Video enumerates several practical objective reasons (More than triple costs for storage/Higher bandwidth equipment being particularly unimpeachable)
'There is absolutely no reason to not use higher frame rates and they look better.'
Oooh-kayyyy...
Perhaps my after midnight humour missed the mark :/ Enjoyed the video and how you anticipated/handled the comments :)
When I was a kid and found a Playboy magazine it produced a high physiological effect on me. I think the frame rate was around 1 page per 5 minutes
.2 FPM MASTER RACE!
@@mattwolf7698 FPM = Faps Per Minute
Pornography in 60fps produces lots higher physiological effects on you for sure.
Irony.
Studio portraits are normally done at 1/250th shutter speed with a high power flash... To Avoid Motion Blur.
@@budthecyborg4575 ...because they are *portraits*. Where's the irony, pray tell?
12:30 "24 fps is objectively less than 60 fps. Therefore it is cheaper in every way..."
That's true, but it's not really a complete argument. All of what you say here about needing increased storage, card data rates, bandwidth, editing hardware performance, and so on, apply equally to the introduction of 4K video, but 4K is happening because the industry and audiences think the extra investment is ultimately worth it. That's the part that is missing from the HFR argument.
Yes absolutely! Great point!
I don't think audiences think 4K is really worth it. For most people 1080p FullHD is just "good enough". You also need a huge TV to see any difference from 1080p.
@@OMA2k Yeah pretty much, but they're still pushing for it, since it's a way to make money
The Hobbit was filmed correctly, objectively speaking.
He also mentioned in the video how even though Black & Whit video was cheaper it was rendered obsolete because people thought the extra inventment for colors was worth it. The same thing applies to 1080p -> 4K. Maybe it'll even apply to 4K -> 8K (maybe).
I watched this vid on x2 speed to get rock solid 60 fps! jk
LOL!
Hahahaha
@@doctordothraki4378 good to know, thanks man.
I actually did watch most of it around 2.5x lol.
You mean 2.5x ha ha
im waiting for the 1024fps standard in 200 years
nVidia has already made the prototypes. 1kfps is obviously the future. But in near future, like 2 years, I don't think Netflix/Amazon Prime are gonna release anything less than 60fps.
More like 20 with the rate we're progressing
That amount of frames is completely unnecessary and will lower the performance of the device your using with no noticeable improvements
TRYHARD HUNTER but at some point our eyes won’t perceive any more frames, so what’s the point?
TRYHARD HUNTER yea, but after a certain point it’s not gonna matter. 1k refresh rate is just bonkers. People are still having arguments whether 144hz is noticeable to 60hz. I’d say once you get past 300 to 400hz, it’s not going to matter how much faster you go, you physically won’t be able to perceive the difference.
As a Gaffer, when it comes to the technical aspects, the first three questions I ask a DoP are: What camera are you shooting on? What standard / max ISO are you going for? What standard / max FPS do you want to use?
The reference setting used for digital film is usually 800 ISO @ 24fps.
So let's say we shoot on an Arri Alexa with 800 ISO but we want to do the whole movie in 48 or 50 fps.
Since double the frame rate means half the time the sensor has to expose a frame, we need twice as much light than with 24fps. So a 2,000W Tungsten lamp now has to be a 5,000W lamp, since there is no regular 4,000W Tungsten fixture. A 1,800W HMI now becomes a 4,000W HMI. Not only are the lamps itself more expensive than the low power ones, we'll need a high power supply and distribution.
At 100fps, our 2,000W Tungsten is now a 10,000W lamp. The HMI now has 9,000W instead of 1,800W. We'll need a even bigger power supply, different distribution and, the most expensive part, more people to do all the work.
That's the moment the producer likes to tell you that the budget is tight and the schedule even more so.
So the financial problems of higher frame rates is not so much storage or post-production workflow but the equipment and the personnel you need on set.
This is written from a european point of view (mains power 230V / 16A) so you may have different lamps with different power ratings available. The problems stay the same.
Pretty much the same lamp ratings on the American side of the Atlantic..
I had a play with the Alexa LF, impressive EI of 800 with a 4500x3100 detector, meant sharp, colorful imaging, silky smooth frame rates, no discernible noise and from the couple of DoPs that were also trying it, they agreed it gave them many more choices. I work in optics; mainly industrial imaging, where 1000fps is quite common and a xenon arc lamp provides the illumination, we did laugh at the amount of light required for the 150fps mode of the LF, one of the DoPs recounted his mentor whose father worked on Disney's Wizard of Oz - they had trouble getting the balance between enough light and torching the set/poaching the actors. Another brought up Stanley Kubrick's demand for MUCH MORE LIGHT for The Shining, so much light, that it burnt the set and studio, to the ground. The ARRI chap wasn't seeing the funny side :P
Tell me if this is dumb, but...
If you're wanting to shoot 48fps, but you don't want the hassle of adding extra lights, can't you just increase your shutter angle from 180 degrees, to 360 degrees?
There will be just as much motion blur as there was before, but there will still be extra frames and it will still look smoother. Eh? EEEEhhhh??
You can increase the shutter when shooting 24 to 360 and also get a smoother motion... It's got more blur but it will retain the 24 cadence and be smoother.
Hobbit was shot with 360 shutter and it didn't help...
@@davidhunt240 Alexa is always a pleasure. Makes work way easier. And safer! :)
Not sure if this has been covered elsewhere, but you are a little off on the compression side. Video compression uses spatial and temporal compression. Temporal compression is compressing the differences in time between frames. Thus, as the frame rate increases, the changes per frame are less. This means the compression becomes more efficient. So, 60fps is not going to be 2.5X more than 24 unless you have ridiculously fast motion. This does not change the conclusion, it will still be more bits, just not that much more. Great video.
I was going to bring this up, just because it's the same reason that interlacing is dead, which he brought up earlier. The RAW is still going to be more, but spacetime-compensated compressed footage (which Netflix uses) is not going to be much bigger at all, if the keyframe interval gets increased proportionally. Of course, that could be slightly less motion resolution in certain situations, but Netflix doesn't care about that anyway with the small bitrates.
@@kaitlyn__L Compression only matters at the release stage of a film though. The final product that goes to the movie theaters to be projected can be compressed, fine. But no movie production would want to work from a compressed video instead of the raw data. It's like professional photographers take digital pictures using raw images rather than Jpeg compressed ones. So for most of the production cycle and post production cycle, compression is useless.
@@trulahn Yes, that's what I said, when I brought up not being relevant for the raw files. Of course production uses the highest quality source files, just like in audio they'll use 24bit integer or 32bit float even though 16bit integer is more than adequate for release formats.
Sorry this is long, thank-you for reading in advance.
Now I don't know anything about movie making beyond basic screen recording, basic video editing and turning a slideshow into a video but at the same time, he mentioned that the camera equipment was cheaper while earlier he said something about it taking a long time for 24fps cameras to become available.
Further, I would say that a movie company may well use 60 FPS in their raw files even if they transmit it at 24 just in case they wanted to do something else with their film.
While I am bemoaning this I will point out that showing people a film at 24 FPS *IS* a control group when you are comparing it to 60 FPS. I don't know much about film production but I have read multiple books on medical research and am friends with people with PhDs in biology.
Also, his recording options seem bizarre, I can't think of what 8-bit is referring to unless it's the Color depth in which case he's making a retro video game. Additionally you appear recording in 4k which research has indicated is less important than 60 FPS in video games, increase your RAW file sizes by 4 times, isn't widely supported (unlike 60fps I might add), and if you just increase the frame size without increasing the frame rate you reach a point where you just get high res images of blur so if you really want to reduce the size of your RAW file I'd start there.
That said, I don't believe either 4k or 60 FPS makes a big difference and I am inclined to agree that 24 vs 60 is a matter of opinion. Though I'll add that I've watched UA-cam videos in 60 FPS and didn't suffer a panic attack or have my internet grind to a halt. On the contrary, I quite enjoyed it.
PS if you're willing to count the 'TV movies' then they are in 60i as is much of the digitally generated footage uploaded to UA-cam. However, I completely agree that virtually all movies are 24 fps.
Personally, I find 60p better conveys the reality of what is shot. The problem is, most movies are not supposed to convey that reality. Fantasy is you are onboard the Star Trek Enterprise, wizzing through space with your vulcan science officer. Reality is you are on a cheap plywood set with an actor wearing plastic ears. The Hobbit, shot in both 24p and 48p, clearly demostrated that effect to me.
The Hobbit was actually only shot at 48 fps, and just removed half the frames (with some motion blur processing of course) for the 24 fps version. If I remember right they used a non-standard shutter angle as a compromise so that would be possible so it wasn't an ideal setup.
So, you watch Start Trek constantly thinking they're on a plywood set, with zero suspension of disbelief. I could not watch a fantasy movie without the illusion of it being real.
The worst damaged movies from this attitude would be horror movies: what's the point in watching them if you'll never get scared?
24 FPS looks great as a presentation frame rate. However, I think they should shoot everything with fast shutter-speeds and fast frame rates (as high as possible while retaining quality), to capture as much of reality as possible. It would also give film editors the option of making cuts at a more precise/exact moment. Then afterward, it's quite easy to convert to 24 FPS and even create a natural motion blur, blending the in-between frames as needed.
Shooting higher frame rate for motion capture is done a lot actually. For that use case it makes sense. But for editors to have a more precise point to cut is absurdly overkill and then you're tacking on more rendering time in the backend. So very minimal gain for lots and lots more overhead... Not a good idea.
@@doctordothraki4378 If I remember correctly they split the difference with a 270 degree shutter for The Hobbit so that it would look decent at both 48 fps and 24 fps. I don't recall anything looking abnormal at 24 fps but never got to see the high framerate version, unfortunately.
As someone who plays countless hours of high framerate games I'd be lying if I said I don't prefer 60 on anything I watch, but this video was super helpful in understanding the purpose and appeal of 24 fps for most video. I don't feel like a lower framerate does much for me in terms of aesthetic, but it's completely understandable as a cost cutting measure.
The cost cutting measure isn't the real reason but it sure is a nice bonus.
@@FilmmakerIQ Yeah, I get that. I guess it's just the part of it I can appreciate the most on a personal basis lol
60fps just looks hyper-realistic, it falls into uncanny valley. I love games too, but I want films and TV shows to be 24FPS. Leave HFR to videogames, they are the one artistic medium that actually needs high frame-rates because you need the controls to be as instantaneously responsive as possible.
@@matheus5230 There is no such thing as hyper realistic when it comes to frame rate you could have a frame rate of infinite and you would notice as much as you were going to notice if you had a frame rate of 500. That is not true though if you go in the other direction and you do notice a difference when you go from 60 to 24 frame per second. Is real life hyper realistic you could say it has infinite frames per second and it doesn't look hyperrealistic to you it looks like real life because frame rate doesn't matter matter when talking about looking hyperrealistic.
@@cablefeed3738 My point is that cinema does not need more than 24FPS. Have you watched Lawrence of Arabia? One of the most epic, grandest experiences in cinema history. Look for the video The Beauty Of Lawrence Of Arabia.
Knowing it's a film doesn't ruin the immersion. Great films immerse you like books do too. The problem with HFR is that it actually reveals that what you are watching is fake, not a true film, but the cold reality. You realize you are just seeing sets with unnatural lighting and colors, and actors reciting lines. You realize you are just seeing images flashed in a screen, it's deeply uncomfortable for most people. It's truly an uncanny valley effect (in fact, I don’t like HFR even in live TV, it looks almost smoother than real life). HFR would severely limit the range of cinema: acting would either have to be extremely realistic and naturalistic, or blatantly over-the-top and stylized. There is simply no reason to switch to another frame rate in cinema, no one actually demands it or wants it. There is no outcry for HFR like it happened with sound. You can count on one hand the amount of HFR films ever made in cinema history! And any serious TV drama uses 24FPS too, specially in our modern days when shows want to be more cinematic than ever!
There is nothing wrong with motion blur, you just gotta know how and when to move the camera, how fast your shutter speed should be, and so on. The old Golden Age Hollywood films are beautifully shot and smooth. Modern action films are plagued by badly shot fights and action scenes, with incomprehensible coreography, and you can't follow anything. HFR wouldn't suddenly fix that, it would actually make those fights look even worse and more dizzying to watch! Even good action scenes can look worse because the loss of motion blur removes some of the sense of speed.
Also, we see motion blur in real life, there is nothing wrong with films having motion blur (same thing for why films often leave the background out of focus, to not distract and not overload your mind with unnecessary motion, our brain does this too). To illustrate all I'm saying: I'm a huge fan of animation, and one of the biggest developments in the history of the medium was exactly how to emulate some type of motion blur, like the use of smear frames. Why? Because animators realized that the characters' movements without motion blur looked really unnatural and unsettling, because that's not how we perceive motion in real life (try shaking your hand, it becomes a complete blur). Unrealistic types of motion blur are often used to enhance scenes, look at the amazing racing scenes in Akira, or the comedic fast drinking in The Dover Boys. Of course, there are artistic choices the other way too. It's not rare in stop-motion animation, for example, to ignore motion blur altogether for the purposes of horror, of a creepy mood. Stop-motion aesthetic often actively seeks to be choppy.
Animation is my favorite artform, and it's certainly less realistic than live-action, but that's not a demerit. Art shouldn't simply pursue vulgar realism. Even in the most realistic aesthetics, you have to look for the beauty there. Like the films of Yasujiro Ozu.
He is the director that comes the closest to fit the idea of "every frame is a painting". He rarely moved the camera, his shots are meticulously symetric and beautiful visual compositions with every object in its place (hence why he avoided pans, to not ruin the beautiful painting-like and photography-like nature of his visual compositions, and also why he avoided putting anything out of focus, his shots are always layered and fully focused on everything in the frame), the acting is very restrained, subtle and naturalistic. His films are slices-of-life in the average japanese middle-class family in the 50s, they are beautiful and poignant, and they explore the beauty in the mundane things in life, and the melancholy at the loss of these beautiful simple things that we take for granted.
ua-cam.com/video/0Ra0xEQ8yaU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/2G7oeyOsfSg/v-deo.html
6:39 "MYTH 3: But... Motion Blur..."
Just to expand on what John said, the motion blur that you see when you pause a video is not strictly-speaking due to the frame rate. It's due to the shutter speed (i.e., the length of time each frame is exposed). Film shot at 24 fps is generally shot with a shutter speed of 1/48 of a second (the 180 degree shutter rule) because that has just the right amount of motion blur to make the motion look fluid. If you expose each frame for a shorter period than this, each individual frame will look less blurry, but in motion, the film starts to look choppy. This can be a desired effect if you want the disorientation that goes along with it, which is why Spielberg shot the beach landing scene of Saving Private Ryan with a higher shutter speed, but in general, motion blur is a feature not a bug because it adheres each frame to the next.
It is still desirable to have some motion blur even in HFR video, but each frame will necessarily have less of it because the maximum length of time that each frame can be exposed will be shorter. Among other things, this means that a film shot at 60 fps will have the wrong amount of motion blur when played back at lower frame rates like 24, 25, or 30 fps, giving it a choppy feel.
cavalrycome With digital it's perfectly easy to have a standard 1/48 shutter speed if you desire it, not that I think such a strict shutter speed is necessary for fluid looking motion.
DysnomiaFilms
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but you can't shoot with a shutter speed of 1/48 of a second when your frame rate is higher than 48 fps.
I'm also not claiming that there is something special about 1/48 of a second. The standard convention in the industry is to shoot using a shutter speed that is one over double the shooting frame rate, so if shooting at 30 fps, the camera would be set to a shutter speed of 1/60 of a second. If shooting at 60 fps, the camera would be set to 1/120 of a second, and so on. The same applies to slow motion. The convention is to use a shutter speed that is one over double the _shooting_ frame rate, even if it will be played back at a lower frame rate to slow it down. 1/48 of a second is just the shutter speed that gives the conventionally favored amount of blur when shooting at 24 fps.
cavalrycome What I meant to say is 60fps is one thing, but you can shoot at 48fps and still get 1/48 shutter speed so you could get the same result but without issues like the "choppiness" of many 24fps pans. And the other thing I was saying is that I don't feel that, say, 1/60 or even 1/100 shutter speed looks nearly as unnatural as many suggest.I feel like the 180 degree shutter requirement is a little arbitrary. I dunno, Ive shot music videos in 50fps with 180 shutter for slow motion, then played back mostly at full speed 25fps and it doesnt feel choppy to me.
DysnomiaFilms
"Ive shot music videos in 50fps with 180 shutter for slow motion, then played back mostly at full speed 25fps and it doesnt feel choppy to me."
According to the convention, that's exactly how you should shoot it so that it doesn't feel choppy, that is, using the 180 shutter rule. The idea is just to expose each frame for half the time it represents (50 fps so each is exposed for 1/100 of a second). Whether you then play it back at the original speed of 50 fps or slow it down to 25 fps is irrelevant.
However, if you wanted to play it back at the original speed but skip every second frame to conform to 25 fps, then it will look choppier because now the length of the exposure for each frame will only represent a quarter of the time between frames (25 fps with each exposed for 1/100 of a second).
cavalrycome Your latter description IS what I was saying I did
Agree, disagree, or don’t care, THIS was a well-articulated and rational explanation of an argument. Honestly one of the best I’ve seen in this medium.
definitely! but what about the part where he says "you can't see 144hz" I don't think he fully believes that. He seems to be fairly well informed and very intelligent, and through. so maybe you can notice the lack of input lag, if you can't see the difference between 120fps and 144... but I would think that over 80% of high end PC gamers (which I am not. even though I own the hardware) can spot the difference. (I run at 120hz, because I use a 55" curved TV for a monitor)
now I'm off to watch Dune at 24fps and see if it doesn't suck.
Have you ever heard of black frame insertion? That's basic proof that even gamers don't see 144 FRAMES per second. Sure any one can tell the difference between 144hz and 60hz by dragging a mouse around. But the point is you don't see in frame rate.
It's proof that you don't actually see extremely high frame rates. All these people saying you can see 144frames a second are making egregious errors. You can black out every other frame and it makes the image BETTER. That's proof you don't see 144 frames a second.
The reason bfi doesn't exist on a CRT is because the scan effectively does the same thing
Just going to address the first of your comment just looks pointlessly combative... There are literally dozens of comments on this video chiding me and claiming that yes you do see each frame of 144hz. (In this very comment that itself)
I'm not going to address anything else you wrote because I'm probably more in agreement with you than you think.
But BFI is proof you don't actually SEE 144 frames per second.
I agree on all points. One slight correction: The part about compression (15:10 onwards) is a bit incorrect. Modern compression (like h264 and h265) do not scale linearly with higher framerates. If the motion is sampled at a higher rate, the P- and B-Frames get smaller, so you can save storage space. Simple example: A video where the whole screen is just one color and the color changes every second. With 24 frames you just store every 24th frame and 23 "change nothing" frames behind it, while at 60 fps you store every 60th frame with 59 "change nothing" frames behind it. These "change nothing" frames are a lot smaller when compressed and therefore the 60fps video is not 2.5 times larger. Obviously, real video is not that simple, but the same principle applies. Otherwise great video though!
Good point.
@@briantw Storage and computational capability is relatively cheap today. It won't break the bank to get proper equipment that can handle high frame rate video.
jangxx: That's not how compression works. The P and B frames DO NOT get smaller at higher frame rates. You should read up on how "difference" is actually stored during compression. It has nothing to do with the length of time between frames.
I think, what he wanted to say is, that usually, because of the higher frame rate, between each picture the changes are smaller, so they can be more compressed. Like that the compression without a loss of information can be higher on 60fps than on 24fps which in the end will result in a better rate than 2.5. So the logic, whatever you do at 60fps will also improve the same on 24fps is not correct in all cases.
Willem Lampe: I'm aware. That's an incorrect assumption. To simplify greatly it's the percentage of features in the image that change that affects the bitrate needed. So 1/120 vs. 1/48 of a second exposures might mean an object doesn't move as far across the screen, but in the vast majority of frames the percentage of features in the image isn't much different. Again, people asserting there is a bitrate savings per frame don't understand how compression actually works.
I'm so used to seeing movies at 24 FPS that anything higher just looks off-putting to me. A movie at 60 FPS looks too realistic to me, like a live sporting event or reality show. There's just something about the look of movies at 24 FPS that gives them a "cinematic" feel.
Yeah, it's called stuttering.
24fps snob detected
I emember watching Hobbit 1 in the cinema.
The IMAX experience was incredible, and I think 48 FPS actually helped with that.
But on a TV, it does look kind of uncanny - too real.
'Dreamy quality' ? This sentiment reminds me of the late Leslie Halliwell, a well known film critic of his time, who expressed similar sentiment about black and white cinema and the use of the 'Academy Ratio'. He was rather negative by contrast about colour cinema and the wider screen ratios used in cinema from the late 50's onward. Basically he felt these 'modern' additions and changes to movie making, colour and widescreen, robbed the cinematic experience of much of its quality. In one or more of his essays in his regular film guide books, from memory he did say words to the effect that colour added too much realism to a medium that didn't need it (so in effect much like the 'more fps adds too much realism' argument.) Still holding that view up until he died in the late 80's..
The argument that expense is one of the primary reasons against adoption of higher frame rates, of course, is an argument that could have been used against the adoption of colour film stock, way more expensive than BW stock.
Add to this the difference between watching 24fps at a cinema, versus watching 24fps on a home cinema and this is where 24fps does began to have real drawbacks. Cinema projectors effectively doubled up on the frame rate, with the 24fps content actually having a black frame between each exposed frame because of how the shutter works. Home cinema doesn't have this, so we get the naked 24fps and as such motion judder is markedly worse, even on progressive scan. Panned shots at 24fps on home cinema look far worse and the bigger the screen gets, the worse it gets...
Waiting for his reply to this...
And wasn't he right?
I mean, color sucked at the beginning. Of course it got better over time. But why rush into new areas, when the technology isn't yet capable to deliver?
Remember SEGA Virtua Fighter, the Beat 'em Up Game where each character was rendered with very few triangles? I thought even at the time, it looked shitty, much more so than other games that were released YEARS before that. But those were in 2D, not 3D. What good is that when technology can't deliver what's needed for your "dream product"?
Anyway, I digressed...
Black and White definitely has its own special charm (technically it's greyscale because there are more than just two luminance values, but whatever), which is why it's still used for certain movies/movie scenes.
"Schindler's List", "Sin City", "Nebraska", "Memento", "Pi", "Pleasantville", or even the CGI movie "Frankenweenie" are a few examples.
Early colour stock yes, uneven and dodgy from can to can. Problem with Halliwell was though that his negative view of colour cinema pretty much persisted for cinema from the mid 60's onward to the 80's. Again, he simply felt colour film 'aped reality' in a way that went against his preferred dreamy soft nature of 'classic' black and white cinema. Fun reading his reviews and his film guides were always good to have on the bookshelf but yes, certainly a man set in the past..
I'll have to look up his reviews. I read he was a scheduler of movies for the BBC. He sounds interesting... But my opinion about 24 is significantly different then just it's what they use in the past. My opinion of 24 is backed by the fact that in the last 14 years I seen a huge movement towards 24 not away from it. Technology has enabled small producers like myself the ability to shoot 24 and now it's more ubiquitous than ever (even on UA-cam... Check what frame rate Casey Neistat shoots at). Plus it has been 6 years since The Hobbit debacle where article after article promised that filmmakers were moving away from 24. And in those 6 years you can only to find one Non-Hobbit HFR movie in the roughly 3500 movies released by Hollywood... and Billy Flynn in 120fps was a disaster. In those same six years we've seen 4K acquisition mature and now we're moving on to 8K and high dynamic range so it's not like technology just totally stagnated there.
And yet there's a segment of the internet that thinks that high frame rate is inevitable. Why? What evidence is there that it's inevitable when everything is pointing the opposite direction? It's not about being stuck in the past, it's about looking at the reality and history and seeing the momentum.
Some critics seem to hold mimetic art and verisimilitude as some sort of master values whereas others think of them as vulgar pursuits. That's kind of an apples and oranges debate, but since you opened the door don't you think that just like noone can really say that one aspect ratio is better than another or more advanced than another why should the frame rate question be any different? Cinema is all about making an impact on the audience and there isn't any automatic cause and effect that any one technique is guaranteed to have so why insist on the necessity of some new hierarchies?
I think Kurosawa's earlier academy ratio works have a greater vitality to them and the later scope films made for more dour heavy set experiences. I don't want Tarantino or Zhang Yimou to start shooting in full frame, but I refuse to consider scope automatically the best. What about telephoto or wide angle lenses which of them is progress and which of them is what reactionaries favor? Wide angle certainly brings that 'dream quality,' but why are we repeating these words 'dream quality' as if it's some sort of a decission point rather than just one facet of the situation? I want freedom to shoot in whatever colors, aspect ratios, lenses or frame rates and the industries will pick the cheapest, most profitable and most common as their standards. The rest is our personal preferences.
As to your point about the switch to color: Decades ago the more expensive color film could be invested in if the color photography could be marketed as a special event in such a way as to make it profitable. Do you seriously think that the higher frame rate is at all analogous to that early marketing coup? With Peter Jackson, look at how the more classical Lord of The Rings fared with the audiences versus the more experimental Hobbit films. You seem to lose money with the modern gimmicks thus far whereas the last thing Wyler's Ben Hur remake or another epic like The Robe did was paint themselves into a financial corner with their colors. Profit is fleeing cinema and higher frame rates won't check that trend so the extra expenses make little sense as some sort of a "latest evolution" that picks us up where we belong. They talked of the anti-3D crowd as a bunch of grumpy old men who want silent films when Avatar was released, can all of you at least own that that was all novelty masquarading as progress?
A personal observation: I watched the first Hobbit movie in HFR and 24P in the theater and 24P creates a buffer that distances the viewer from reality and make what the audience is watching seem like it's existing in its own reality. When I saw the same movie with the high frame rate, what previously was a Hobbit and Dwarves in Middle Earth became actors in makeup on a set. That hyper-reality erases that buffer and makes everything on the screen seem to exist in our own reality. I once saw this with a friend's television set where the movie she was watching on Turner Classic Movies lose its depth and look like something shot on video.
Off of HFR for a moment but an odd similar reaction to another projection method, I saw The Wizard of Oz converted to 3D and surprisingly, all the prosthetic makeup on the actors became more noticeable. The poorly blended latex seams were noticeable on the witch's nose and chin and the munchkins' hairline bald caps. I don't know why but it did.
The first time I saw 60 was an x man movie and it looked like Hugh Jackman pretending to be Wolverine on a movie set. Very, very creepy and I struggle to understand the pro 60 argument.
Strange analogy alert. Many years ago I went to a Maynard Ferguson concert. During the sound check the drummer came out and played a bit. His drums sounded horrible. Thin. No sustain. No pitch. As if he was hitting cardboard boxes. Just terrible. I thought "this concert is going to be disaster". Right at that moment the sound man turned on the drum mics and suddenly the drums sounded just absolutely magnificent. Like a high quality recording. Beautiful, deep and perfect. The point is this. Real isn't necessarily better. Acoustic drums frankly, for the most part, do not sound good. In fact, if you heard the real sound of your favorite band's drummer you'd say, "what is this $%#@". Yes, it would be real and it would suck.
Over here in the Balkans, Fox Movies shows this odd version of original Total Recall with boosted frame rate. It makes the sets looks so unbelievably cheap. It's like being on the set watching the movie being filmed - completely takes you out.
Gladiator has the same problem during the fight scenes. Great for stills but It gives you a headache to watch it on video.
Yep. I've noticed a higher frame rate on cable TV sitcoms and films as well. The first time I saw it, I immediately felt like something was off. It looks like someone is out there shooting these things with just a phone camera or something. It REALLY takes you out of the immersion.
I think something people have to keep in mind is that videgames often use artificial motion blur. The human eye tends to gravitate towards hastily sketched shapes as opposed to meticulously "drawn" ones. I think the question at the core of the debate is often "have we simply been trained by movie history to prefer a lower frame rate?" And for me the answer is a pretty confident no. The lack of "information" between frames is what provides an overall cohesive "image", even if that image is technically in motion. If there's too much visual information I find myself frequently diverted to individual elements within a given frame, regardless of whether that's the intended point of focus.
So, I don't think it's necessarily the technology itself, but the resulting effect of one versus another.
But then again, I've watched a fair share of movies with other people who didn't even notice or care that the flatscreen had the motion smoothing setting on. I'll mention it and maybe get a mild "oh, yeah, that's kinda weird"... so, who knows.
I disagree.. We have absolutely been trained. Perhaps the first question most young filmmakers shooting 6l30 or 60 video ask is why their videos don't look cinematic... Because part of the cinematic look involves 24 fps.
I personally perfer 24 FPS for a majority of media I watch, mainly because of the “soap opera effect”, and it creates a more natural buttery smooth motion. There’s also this thing in all forms of art called obscurity, not every detail has to be there, and art is generally more captivating if there’s some gaps left for your imagination to work. But when it comes to high movement or action scenes, 60fps looks more pleasing, and can help convey the mood of action to the viewer, making them excited or nervous. When it comes to the production team’s perspective, I perfer 24 FPS a majority of the time again for a stack of very minor reasons. When you’re on a budget and dealing with cheaper equipment, it’s 1.5 stops more exposure to work with. When dealing with an average computer and storage budget, 24 is a lower bitrate and file size, making production faster and storage cheaper. Lastly, you don’t have to be nearly as perfect with 24, because of that obscurity. All very minor advantages that you wouldn’t care about individually, but they all add up to one major advantage in most senerios.
Only thing I dislike about 24 FPS in movies is that panning shots are often pretty nauseating. Lord of the Rings has a lot of beautiful panning shots but to me it always feels like the camera is teleporting between frames instead of moving smoothly.
Panning shots look way worse in digital than in film, I've wondered why. Is it because of the resolution? Is 4K going to solve it?
Exactly!
rolling shutter maybe?
Panning shots look worse if the content was animated at only 24 fps.
You don't get any natural motion blur in animation, so artificial motionblur has to be calculated which doesn't come close to natural motion blur.
It is that artificial motion blur that looks bad to you.
There are two ways to solve this:
1. Produce and show these animated scenes at higher framerates.
2. Produce all animations in a higher framerate (in a multiple of 24 fps) and use these extra frames to create artificial motion blur that looks much more natural.
Film and video pans at lower frame rates look different because the pixels in a video camera are always in the same place so there is none of the very subtle randomness that film grain adds to motion. It's a subtle but important effect.
I think it is completely aesthetic : if you want it to look like a sports game or a computer game, shoot in 60. If you want it to look mainstream, shoot in 24. If you want it to look ancient, shoot in 18 or 11 or something. Temporal resolution is no longer technologically restrained
The fast people who love 60p really don't love movies. Even James Cameron is walking back his statements about higher frame rate being needed only in certain occasions.
I think you hit the nail right on the head dude. People who have never watched cheap soap operas won't make that connection and will like 60 fps more than someone used to seeing quality movies in 24 and cheap crap in 60. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I quite like 60 but I totally understand why some people don't.
It's like when you get a new sound system, it's still the same music you always listen to but it's not quite right something just seems a bit off, it's just not what you are used to :)
@@RevRaptor898 , it's just because they watch soap operas
Yup
You're exactly right! As long as there's a justification for it, I'm all for it! Watch "Into the Spider-verse" if you haven't already seen it, where they mix frame rates for artistic reasons and it looks great. I would happily watch a film that jumped around between low and high frame rates for artistic reasons.
Looking like... LIFE.
Every time I see another of this channel's videos, I respect much more, the work you all do here!. Specially because of what john said at min 20:31 segs,...Yes,..it takes A F**K LOAD OF PASSION to make a movie in this industry!. Keep it up guys!. This is a F***ING AWESOME channel!
11:36 What do you mean "the more _dreamlike_ cadence of 24"? I'm being pedantic but you're talking about it in terms of objective and subjective. You allowed that 60 is objectively smoother, but then said there is a subjective value judgement as far as which is best between 'smoother 60' and 'more dreamlike 24'. 24 isn't objectively more dreamlike, though others may agree with that description. It looks nothing like _my_ dreams! It looks like 24. Just seems strange to use a subjective description of 24 against an objective description of 60 in a rant about objectivity/subjectivity.
Anyway, I too prefer 24 for cinema, except in shots with big, fast camera moves where everything strobes and looks very ugly (which has been an increasing problem with the fad for handheld action). In general it looks "classier" and more "cinematic" to me, but I couldn't tell you whether that's because I've been conditioned to associate it with a higher class of art or if it's something intrinsic to the form. My feeling is the former, and I imagine that if I had been raised seeing cinema in 60 I'd prefer it like that and would find 24 strange and choppy, as we now see older movies at 18fps or whatever.
Finally, there have been tons of hugely popular TV shows at 60fps featuring star ship commanders on ply wood sets! No one complained back in the day that they weren't dreamlike enough. They transported million of people to a fantasy future very successfully.
I think one of the more objective arguments that could be used to justify the continuous use of 24FPS would be that all HFR movies that have been shown in Cinemas to date have met with overwhelming disapproval at the box office. So if you look at movies as an industry, nobody is going to make HFR movies if they already know that the vast majority of their target audience doesn't seem to want it.
Exactly. It's not just about the cost structure. That's only half of the equation in Hollywood. It's ultimately all about the return on investment (ROI). You ONLY do something that is more expensive IF you can get a resulting boost in revenue and RETURN on the investment. If you can't, then you have no (justifiable) reason to do it.
I wonder, if the Uncanny Valley effect applies here. Where 24 fps sits at that blip where the effect isn't quite real, but is very attractive to human perception. Then, when you go past that, the attractiveness dips as it closer approximates (but don't quite achieve) "reality".
Yes it sort of does apply ;)
6:39 - If motion blur bothers them so much, then they should watch a film shot using a fast shutter speed/angle,
like Saving Private Ryan or Crank. Movies like those were shot in 24 fps but have little to no motion blur.
Ha, you assume those critics of 24 actually watch movies...
the reason why is global shutter stability. only ultra high end cine cameras like Arris have true global shutter stability, most others say 24fps but it actually goes up and down at random in an unstable manner even dipping to under 17fps in some cases leading to motion blur and shutter clipping loss of smoothness. true stable arri cine 24fps is butter smooth.
very much enjoyed this video,,, I stumbled across it while searching videos that have been upscaled to 60 frames from 24 and was very much informed from an aspect I did not have before. I do still prefer 60 frames but I completely understand why that's not the standard, now anyways lol. My biggest gripe as of late is that I'm a sucker for clickbait on informative videos or education based meaning " Nasa's brand new discovery" and then it's a video about something in 2013 or "scientists are terrified of"... So I compliment you on being very specific with your contacts and avoiding the pitfalls that is the UA-cam comments
at 19:30 the "dreamy" 24 - I remember how watching the Hobbit at 48, that dream was broken because I was now watching actors; it was like watching a live play.
I also saw the Hobbit in theaters at HFR. Hated it
Vishnu Kalluri You want a cookie?
I don't think 24 fps will ever go away and it's pretty ridiculous that anyone would argue otherwise, but I think the pursuit of making a narrative HFR film is worthy simply because I think experimentation in art is always a worthy cause. It's hard to see how it would work just because there's never been a real need for it, but there's no harm in the pursuit.
I will say that it's entirely possible that it'll never happen because we might have perfected narrative cinema with 24 fps, but I don't think there's been enough attempts to be absolutely sure.
The experiments have already happened as tons of filmmakers have shot on video for years prior to the advent of digital cameras capable of shooting 24.
@@FilmmakerIQ Fair enough.
At 12:15, one point that could be important regarding frame rates of a given camera is when one needs the exact value as a source for calculations.
Also shooting in slow motion makes lower frame rate playback even more viable.
For example, if you record a video in 240fps and you replay it at 60fps it will be 4 times slower. But if you replay it at 24fps it will be 10 times slower. That makes the scene much more dramatic without the need of very expensive gear.
Then just replay it at 30 fps and interpolate the frames between for that shot. Unless you're capturing something like an artillery shell, the 240fps footage will be so crisp that nothing is lost in interpolation (provided you use a proper motion-tracking algorithm).
leftaroundabout i will return to the argument said in the video several times. The same can also be done in 24fps.
Sure, for slow slow-mo 24p is perfectly fine. The problem is that 24p _forces_ you to make such choices as super slow-mo, or else losing all the motion detail. With 60p you can use super slow-mo just as well if you want that extra drama, but you _can_ also opt for only slight slow-mo, or no slow-mo at all. It becomes an artistic choice: if a scene benefits from more realism then you can make it faster, or you can choose not to, but the medium doesn't restrict you anymore to either choice like 24p does.
The only thing I dislike about 24fps is pan stutter - whenever the camera pans it seems like the entire screen is shaking uncontrollably. Beyond that I don’t care
me too
This can be fixed by changing things like shutter speed on a camera, so the shutter speed matches the frame rate better. Digital cameras at 24fps dont do this as much as the shutter and framerate are much more accurate.
Neb6 When I pan my camera, I use 60 fps and is ok. watch this ua-cam.com/video/SjuqiR52PYU/v-deo.html
Your shutter speed needs to be double the frame rate and it will be smooth. Shoot at 24fps and your shutter speed will need to be 50.
Simon since when 50 is the double of 24?
Sorry buddy, Alan Smithie shot all his films at 27 1/2 fps, and his filmography is mind-boggling. Blew your whole theory out of the water.
Damnit Alan Smithee, he foiled my plans once again!
Alan Smithee doesn’t exist, but 24FPS does.
Well, DaVinci produced his content at 1 frame.
You are quite perceptive.
Depends on how fast you flip the pages. More of an early animation format, really. And his framing was vertical, which of course we no longer use.
Im pretty sure that every argument except the fact that you can't see past 60 fps was different ways to say the exact same thing that isn't even an actual argument. "It's better" isn't an argument, "I would like to be more immersed in the movie and be able to see what is going on more clearly" Is an actual argument that you didn't come close to actually responding to.
I'm also very confused at why you spent over a minute complaining about how it would be harder to do... its a multi billion dollar industry, they can get it done, and having a version at 24 and a version at 60 on Netflix it couldn't hurt. If most most movie producers didn't already have versions of their movies at 60 I would be shocked because for the sake of more freedoms in editing it makes much more sense to shoot at 60, then to downscale to 24 at the very end of production.
@@simeonshaffar982 only disagree with u that it will be harder.. it won't. But will be more expensive and they don't care to spend more for the viewers benefits. If they all agree to do 24fps then we as viewers don't have a choice when watching big films.
If it actually looked better then Hollywood producers would actually spend money on it. What you guys failed to realize is it doesn't actually look better, it looks worse, and is LESS immersive.
@@FilmmakerIQ Maybe for you. Not for me. This is something we like to call motion blur plebery in gaming. See, higher framerate means more information, less motion blur is necessary. Instead fast motion naturally creates motion blur, as it is supposed to, as it happens in real life. Higher framerates make movies look more like real life. Is the only real reason that you don't like high framerates, that you associate them with crap tv? Because I don't. It's subjective and not an argument. About the "You can't see 144hz"... In a way you are right, you do not see in 144hz, but you will notice significant differences between 60hz and 144hz. In fact, in gaming we are currently on a path to 360hz monitors with many people already having 144hz/165hz and 240hz monitors. It is smoother and it allows you to react quicker, simply because you have more information available to you.
I'd love to have more life-like and extra smooth movies.
That's why you're not a Filmmaker ;)
I 100% agree with you. I just want to clarify something.
Frame rates in gaming work differently than in tv/movies, as it is a interactive medium, a two way street, hand eye coordination. A gamer performs an action and expects a reaction.
Gaming with a keyboard/mouse at 30 fps after getting used to 60fps is painful, literally physically. The same is not true for video.
That's where 120hz comes in play, for "competitive" gaming all else being equal a higher hz screen is an advantage, for the average player perhaps not so much. Linus tech tips has an unfortunately badly produced/edited video on the topic.
I agree 100% with the idea that gaming needs higher frame rate. So does VR, live sports...
Do you think that gamers who tell me that movies need to be shot at a higher frame rate would understand my frustration if I in turn told them they need to game at 24fps?
@@FilmmakerIQ IMO, speedrunners tend to enjoy games with lower framerates, because that makes frame-perfect tricks easier to perform; also, there are many tricks that involve making the game slow down, introducing "lag frames".
Yes, I'm sure that weird caveat is exactly how all the CS:GO players feel about high frame rate...
@@FilmmakerIQ I just have an unusual perspective: Of course competitive online gaming benefits from high frame-rates.
I'm looking for the 60 FPS option for this video, but I can't find it :(
I'm a traditional animator, and I'm just sitting here like, "You want me to draw 24 frames per second?! Richard Williams tried that and had The Thief and the Cobbler taken away from him after decades of work! I'll stick with animating on twos, thank you! ...Wait, 60?!"
To be fair, how many drawings you make for each frame often does fluctuate. You see this in traditionally animated Disney movies, there are parts that are drawn on one's, two's, or three's. It's all about the animation principle of timing.
But yeah, 60fps for animation is ridiculous.
The anime One Piece has been "traditionally" animated at 30 FPS for a few years - though clearly on the threes or fours - so the character animation looks like any other anime but the pans and camera movements are unusually smooth; unfortunately most releases outside of the DVD/BDs convert it to 24p and it looks juddery as hell.
What would they even call 60 fps animation? 12 fps is animating on "twos," and 60 ÷ 12 = 5, so would 60 fps be animating on "two fifths"? (24 ÷ 1 {ones} = 24; 24 ÷ 2 {twos} = 12; 24 ÷ 0.4 {two fifths} = 60)
Richard Williams had Thief and The Cobbler taken away from him after decades of work because he signed a contract with the last people willing to give him money to finish it that said he'd meet the deadline and stay on budget, then proceeded to do neither. The reason he spent 30 years on it was because he wouldn't stick to any sort of script, so the whole thing was basically made up as he went along, which is hard enough for 90 minutes of animation, but he also wanted it to be technically perfect in the most literal sense, so he was obsessing over details for a project which had basically no foundation.
Personally, I thought Thief was the most aimless and agonizingly-paced film I've ever sat through. It's a glorified tech demo with a wafer-thin plot, disposable characters and multiple scenes that feel like they go on for hours because Williams would NOT. STOP. ADDING. UNNECESSARY. SHIT. The polo match felt like forever. The Thief pole-vaulting felt like forever. I FELL ASLEEP during the war machine scene! Personally, I think Williams would've been better off making a handful of shorts out of some of the better scenes, like the MC Escher-inspired scene, because there's brilliant work in it, but its buried under too much spectacle and ego. Williams is an exceptionally talented artist who gave a lot of my favorite animators their first jobs and worked them harder than they'd ever been worked, but I feel no sympathy for him with regards to Thief.
Glen Keane's short "Duet" was animated at 60 fps. Personally I think that's how long I can look at 2D animation *that* fluid.
It's also why I like Keane's work better than Williams': I get lost in the beauty of Keane's characters and acting, as well as his stellar draftsmanship. Williams' animation just looks like grueling work (which it is, but it shouldn't feel like it).
The moment he said you can't see 144hz I disliked, I have a dual monitors, one 60hz, one 144, when ever anyone says you can't tell the difference, it's just because they've just never seen a 144hz panel. It's laughable to me, because I simply know it's false.
I also have dual monitors one 60 and 144. My point was only you do not see the frames. You can tell the difference. But that doesnt mean the eye sees in frame rate.
@@FilmmakerIQ ok, but whether I can see each individual frame or not, is irrelevant, my 144hz monitor certainly gives me a better viewing experience, which is what matters.
Smooth Video Project, basically an interpolation tool, is THE THING that allows me to not throw up when watching low framerate movies. 144 or 120Hz are way more pleasant to watch. Personally I am not a fan of 144Hz and would rather have 120 Hz be the norm as it can easily play 30FPS and 60FPS content aswell as 24FPS without uneven frame doubling.
@@m.streicher8286 It gives you a DIFFERENT viewing experience. One that you prefer. Not everyone is you. That's probably a good thing.
@@wclark3196 your saying some people like there movies to not feel real, I'm not saying movies should be in 144 hz but it is objectively better.
It's all down to us being used 24 fps / 180° shutter at cinema for all or our life. 24 fps has been set ages ago as a balance between acceptable motion reproduction and technical or economical considerations. And as you say, it turned into an industry standard, so it just won't go away. Said restrictions don't really exist anymore, so we're stuck with the "cinematic look" (= not used to anything else) argument. I don't say it's any different for me personally. HFR feels strange to be me as well. But at the same time I just can't pretend to be fine with the stroboscopic mess 24 fps causes more often then not, which gets far worse with larger screens.
BTW most 4K projectors and TV sets on sale today have turned on frame rate interpolation by default (personally I'd rather turn it off because it's too inconsistent for me). But you can bet this will have a huge impact on what the general audience demands footage to look like. And it won't be your beloved 24 fps.
"I just can't pretend to be fine with the stroboscopic mess 24 fps causes more often then not" and that's why 30 fps should be considered as pretty close to cinematic 24 fps, but looks much much better than 24 fps strobin mess.
Pull of the bandaid and go to 120. I would much rather have more frames than marginally better looking frames; stop wasting computing power and it won’t cost so much.
+On Wheels No, we are used to it, we are used to 60fps in video games, documentaries, some tv shows, sports, youtube videos, there are many things that use 60fps in this day and age, so it's not that "we are not used to it" that's a horrible argument, many people have tried making movies in higher framerate to no avail, like the hobbit film, it just won't catch on, because most people don't prefer it when it comes to movies, simple as that
I am strictly talking about movies. And a huge chunk of them are watched on frame rate interpolating TV sets these days.
This is kind of messed up bizarre logic... If people don't care enough to turn off the motion interpolation, and they probably don't care much about frame rate in the first place. It's unlikely that they'll demand anything.
I can objectively say that I found this video very entertaining and informative. Thank you!
It's not just motion blur when you freeze the frame though, it's everywhere. And I get that you want some for a cinematic effect and you still do get some motion blur with 60p, but it's not the gross smear that is in 24p films. It probably just boils down to personal preference. I've not been disappointed with a single high fps film I've seen in terms of visuals and I often find myself wondering why movies aren't made that way more often when watching them. They just look so much better to me. But then again for the past couple of years I've spent my time watching 60fps UA-cam videos and playing video games at high refresh rates, not watching TV and going to the movies a ton.
I'm a fan of higher than 24 fps video. People complain about "the soap opera effect" but i think much of the kickback has more to do with poor lighting, poor color grading and limited out of focus blur on the typical "soap operas" than it does the frame rate. Prime time video that is shot at 4K 60p and/or 60i can look spectacular - when lit and graded correctly.. For example, I love the look of some of the best shot FBI and NCIS type shows.
I have no objection to 24 fps when the display can actually display 24 fps but I enjoy 30 and 60 fps footage too, ...
I'm excited to see what new techniques future experimental filmmakers will use when we do eventually move beyondd 24fps. I'm optimistic directors, cinematography and such will evolve with the tech.
There's no need to move beyond because the tech isn't what's limiting us. It literally never has. 24 isn't going anywhere.
"Didn't you even watch the show?"
6:44 In animation it's artificial motion blur which lends verisimilitude to the sequence. Try this experiment - use a digital camera to make a stop-motion animation sequence making sure to keep every shot in perfect focus (you can use Flash or any other amination app). Now play it back. It's jerky, right? It won't matter how high the frame rate you use the presentation of perfect focus in every frame to the eye makes the animation less realistic, not more realistic. One thing that Ray Harryhausen learned early in his career as an animator was the contribution of motion blur to realism. Since all of his work involved what were essentially pose-able sculptures he needed some means to introduce motion blur to a scene without actual motion. In "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" Harryhausen used a fine black thread to move his Rhedosaurus figure slightly while the camera shutter was open, making a slight blur. Get a digital copy of the film and watch the animation sequences frame by frame. You'll see Harryhausen's artificial motion blur, a technique he didn't reveal during his lifetime.
Much later Disney released a movie called "Dragonslayer" which featured one of the best stop-motion monsters every filmed, Vermithrax Perjorative. This creation used a post-production digital technique called Go-Motion to introduce motion blur.
Great comment. Everyone bitching to me about motion blur ruining film doesn't realize that it's the glue that holds the illusion together.
at super-high frame rates like 240 fps on decent gaming monitors and hardware performing real-time transformations of geometry, biological persistence of vision creates that blur. so once you get to frame rates that update fast enough to cause persistence of vision to overlap frames, you can no longer see individual frames. so the argument really becomes invalid. also your brain fills in much of what you 'think' you are seeing. its like having discreet TOXIC software running constantly in your brain. There are people alive who experience the world as 7 temporal blurs per second. that would be too mad! you are 100% spot on for adding fake temporal blur to motion graphics at 60hz or less though. definately :)
Yeah but you've got to get really high for persistence of vision to kick in and then it's not really motion blur (nothing is moving).
But the individual frame limit is down about 12 fps - it's choppy but after 12 you can't pick out one frame for another.
its called exposure. The blur come from the infinite motion capture during the exposure time.
at 24fps each frame capture the totality of the light exposed on the film/receptor for 1/24 of a second.
stop motion / video game capture,render at 1/infinity of the light exposure. Both need trick to emulate the correct exposure for the frame rate at the target playback speed. Modern tricks involve motion vector estimation ...
back on topic. 24fps is to long of an exposure to capture action / motion correctly. The result is a blurry mess.
Indeed, motion blur has to be *built in* to the actual frames. That's how it works.
Visual persistence.
Each frame imprints an image on your retina, and based on how bright that image is, it will persist for some time.
These 'burned in' images fade in about 1/20th of a second...hey, that's real close to Cinema frames rates!
You know Cinema, right? The act of watching movies in a relatively dark room where our eyes at at peak sensitivity?
These frame rates were no accident.
You are a debating Beast Sir. I loved this video, and that shirt is fire, got gotta get one to rock at my next shoot. Keep'em coming and I'll stay tuned.🤙
24 fps omits enough information from your brain so that the absurd fantasy can look believable, 60fps gives your brain enough info that you can easily tell it's bullshit and that isn't good for movies.
The 24fps preference reminds me of anamorphic and why 2x scope lenses are still highly desired today.
If thinking seriously with sensor crop, contrast loss and resolution loss from unsqueeze, anamorphic is a terrible idea for using on digital, but even big budget digital films still use them.
Anamorphic was actually called poor mans 65mm and top movies in 50s and 60s were large format. 65mm fell out of favor in the 70s, and panavision had a monopoly patent on prisms so their lenses were much clearer than other CinemaScope lenses.
For decades they had those exclusive lenses which in the blockbuster era they made artificially scarce and could be only rented. Of several hundred productions per year, only handful of top blockbusters and Oscar baits helmed by a single digit tier of filmmakers got to have the gold standard "filmed in panavision" logo on their credits.
So people still use them because its subliminally cinematic. Ameteurs deliberately put blue streaks on their videos thinking people see that as "class".
It's probably true. Both films I know were shot in 65mm. Looking at the technical specs on IMDb, it says they both used a Mitchell FC 65. I'd say there's a good chance they were given the same camera. It's not uncommon, the Death Star attack in "Star Wars" (1977) was shot with the same VistaVision camera that was used to shoot the parting of the Red Sea in
"The Ten Commandments" (1956), twenty years earlier.
Objectively, your arguments are better. :-p
Seriously, I love your videos. You do make a lot of sense and explain your point of views in a very clear manner. Personally, I hate interlace video. Frame rate conversion (which are difficult to avoid) are a nightmare with interlace, on top of which de-interlacing often means you loose half your resolution. When I started shooting video, I quickly realized 24 fps was much easier to work with. It allowed me to use longer expositions if I wanted/needed to, which gave me better control over depth of field, without increasing the noise level. Plus, using similar bitrates (bps) as I would use for 30fps, I was gaining a significant amout of bits per frame, which reduced compression artifacts.One point you missed (or maybe you did point it out while my wife was running the blender in the kitchen?) is that during post production, VFX often means having people manually rotoscope every frame in a sequence in order to layer elements. Not only does higher frame rates means longuer computer VFX processing times, but more human work too! This consumes both TIME and MONEY. To me, more than double the work is not worth it, and does not bring any relevant value to the production.Cheers!
I just touched VFX and rotoscoping it but absolutely a valid point!
Peter Jackson tried to experiment with 48fps with the Hobbit and it failed. looks like a soap opera.
I never noticed a difference. Those movies had a ton of filler which annoyed me though.
LOL yeah, it did look smoother, but my god was it padded out, it could have done with 24 of those 48 fps taking out. I was getting annoyed and uncomfortable and wanting to do something else about an hour into the first Hobbit film, it dawned on me that I had 109 minutes to go... Recently I was given the trilogy on Bluray, I had to bite my hand when I read the sleeve notes... Peter Jackson managed to stretch out another 15 minutes onto each, already wafer thin, films :o At least with home cinema, I can stop/pause and do something else when I get bored and even try and pin my eyes open aka A Clockwork Orange and try and sit through it :P
Yep, and we heard the same argument over 4K, and see where we are now. Yes, there is a difference, and yes, people will notice. But I think everybody agrees that it was not just the picture quality that made it look like a soap opera. Actually, I just saw an old B/W movie with Charly Chaplin that was really fun to watch. Now you can argue a lot, but lets just agree that the horrible technology at the time was at least worse than the 48 FPS of the Hobbit, right?
It was shit movies. Not due to the frame-rate though, they were bad at any frame rate. The pans looks a lot better though.
7:12 Who came up with number 4? It's the dumbest myth on this list.
I've seen it in UA-cam comments
@@FilmmakerIQ It was a rhetorical question
Raise your hand if you insist friends and family turn off the 120fps motion settings in order to watch a movie.
I also fix their widescreen stretch ;)
The 120 fps motion setting is horrible because the tv invents those inter frame and sucks at it. It would probably gives a different results if all those 120 fps were real captured ones. Sadly, the cinema industry is cheap so we'll wait a long time before we see that :(
Raise your hand if you like 3:2 pulldown artifacts.
I don't ask, I just do it on any TV I notice that garbage turned on for. I consider it public service.
Some good arguments, I think that it is likely that as the costs involved go down, we're going to see more content being produced in 60 FPS and beyond. Many UA-cam videos are being released at 60 FPS, so that indicates to me that people are getting over the "weirdness" in appearance (soap-opera effect) and might be quicker to embrace it in the future. I can definitely see it being used in certain artistic applications, for instance it might make a scene more realistic appearing and it might be necessary to use in, perhaps, a war scene. If the directors intent is to make the scene *less* dreamlike and make the impact of the death of a character in the scene more engrossing or disturbing in some way, it might make sense for them to opt for 60 FPS.
I also think that directors might be using both in movies, something that should be possible already in various digital codecs. If they can choose to use 60 FPS for a particular scene and 24 for the others, they could, in theory, optimize the framerate of the movie while keeping costs low.
Im guessing that makes me a 12 frames per second kinda guy because I pretty much only watch animated movies.
Although Akira was animated in 24 frames per second and that shit was so fuckin beautiful it made me cry.
Id love to see the absolute mad lads who would try and make a 2d animated film in 60 frames per second though.
There are people out there who run that run that algorithm that turns anime into 60fps..
Then UA-cam commenters say they can't see a difference when most of the scenes are actually just static shots lol
Each media works well in their own way. Like, most gamers hate motion blur in games, because it not only decrease performance, but decrease sharpness also, but they keep adding it to make games look like movies, even using lens effects, which is not necessary. Now gamers think movies are the ones that should conform to the standards of games.
This is an amazing video... I bet it was shot at 23.976
The video was certainly mastered around 24fps according to the Stats for Nerds tab
. "motion blur" is a feature of shutter speed more than FPS, it is just more apparent in 24 because 60 inherently has less motion blur. For those who don't like blur in their motion... don't put it in your film. Having that smooth silky cinematic feeling is a matter of style and artistic effect. We don't have to use it if WE the artists don't want too. Given the choice I choose 24 FPS for my videos because I like the smoothness and I really don't like 60, because it feels cheap.
I don't think you know what "smooth" means if you think 24 FPS is smoother than 60 FPS...
On the other hand, not every production in cinema. As the video suggests, a cinematic ballgame would be technically ill-suited.
60fps only inherently has less motion blur because the shutter speed is necessarily shorter. You can shoot at 24fps with the same shutter speed as you did at 60fps, you’ll have the same amount of motion blur.
If you choose a 1/1000 shutter speed and shoot at 24fps your action will look somewhat choppier that a 1/1000 shutter speed at 60fps. It’s a stylistic choice what shutter speed you pick whether you want motion blur or the choppier look, but that limits you, because pan at 24fps at 1/1000 (without motion blur) and ooo boy that’s gonna look bad.
@@cjeam9199 the shutter speed should equal your frame rater to capture the right information of the scene.
If you use a shorter exposure you are not capturing all the scene light, you are not recording the entirety of the motion.
You want silky smooth action / pan ? match you exposure to your frame rate.
And you want clear, sharp visuals ? use a higher frame rate then 24fps
@@sschaem With film you needed some time to move the film between frames, so the shutter speed has to be higher than the frame rate. The shutter needs to be closed during that movement to avoid exposing the film, and that was being done with a physical shutter that also needs time to open and close.
But at the same time, you want to capture as much light as possible. That was even more important in the early days of filmmaking when the film was much less light sensitive than modern film. Color film was even worse, and there was also the original three strip Technicolor with its inefficient beam splitter.
All of that adds up to a 1/48 shutter becoming the usual thing for film. Most film cameras don't even give you a choice. Originally that was the best they could do to maximize light capture while also filling the need to avoid exposing the film while moving it. As technology improved it might have been possible to up that to exposing the film for a little more time (say, 3/4 of the time instead of 1/2), but that's too small an improvement to really be worth the trouble so the 1/48 shutter was here to stay.
The shift to digital cameras changes things. (It's not universal; a significant number of movies are still being shot on film because some filmmakers prefer the look of it.) There is no need to move the digital sensor, and using an electronic shutter makes it easy to change the shutter speed if that is desired. (You do need a bit of time to empty the data from the digital sensor and reset for the next frame so you can't quite get to capturing light 100% of the time but 90% or more is feasible.) And yet most productions stick with the 1/48 shutter because that's the look that people are accustomed to. If lots of light is available the filmmaker might switch to a faster shutter speed; that makes the individual frames less blurry and changes the look of the film.
I'm down with this. I've always thought 24fps used in cinema comes across more "realistic" than 60fps or even more. 60fps and up come across as very artificial IMO. As said, fine and preferred for video games, VR, and possibly various sporting events, but for movies/TV shows I'd still generally prefer 24fps.
Hi John
I did wonder where you were heading with this video.
Pretty much nailed it, with all spec aspects that most 'I wanna's' have no clue about to start with.
Just the facts of needing additional light will dent the argument in the cinematic world.
Good job on this one.
This also gave me a flashback to about 20 years ago when the first digital projections were taking place (pushed by George Lucas) and you had prominent folks like Roger Ebert making some of the same arguments you were making about how impractical digital projection would be because films needed to be "trucked in" on "stacks of hard drives' and it would be a tremendous cost to switch over. Ebert I guess didn't realize that 1) a stack of hard drives for a film even in 1999 was a fraction of the weight of the film cannisters 3) Digital transmission 3) Moore's Law . If you're main argument is 60FPS takes 2.5 the processing power and memory- wait a year. Problem solved. BTW, when Ebert proclaimed digital would never fly he also predicted "I have seen the future of film and it is Maxivsion!" You know what Maxivision was? 48FPS film hack. Look it up!
This argument comes up over and over again but it's so ridiculously easy to counter: If I wait a year for processing power to catch up with 60 FPS, then the gains made in that year will apply just as much to 24 FPS. Technology will scale for both of them - and 24 will ALWAYS be smaller than 60 at every level. And to counter Moore's Law, there is something called Blinn's Law which states regardless of the gains in processing power, render times remain the same. The faster our processors, the more we ask of them to do.
Such will keep 24 fps always ahead of 60 fps.
As for Ebert... I've disagreed with Ebert on a ton of stuff, the technical stuff was never Ebert's forte.
Um, Moore's "law" is just an observation he made decades ago and is no longer true. Or did u not notice micro processor and GPU dies getting substantially bigger in the last 20 years, and not surpassing the 4 GHz clock rate?
Um did you not notice Nvidia presentation today? While CPU's clockspeeds haven't changed much, GPUs have completely smashed Moore's Law by about a factor of ten. Moore's Law says that for the same money, processing power (and storage) doubles every eighteen months. It doesn't say "clockspeed". We've been getting more cores, more operations per second, etc. for the same money. And in the case of GPUs, they've exceeded Moore's Law (which is more of an observation). And everyone keeps saying "We're almost at the end of Moore's Law. They can't keep increasing processing power at this rate" The problem is I've heard that for over 20 years.
Ah but you could apply your same exact argument to ANY aspect of film production. Heck, in 1992 were you picketing SMPTE saying "HD won't fly! It takes up NINE TIMES the space. SD is here to stay because it will ALWAYS be cheaper"? Or in 2002, were you shouting "Hey, Chris Nolan! You can't shoot large format movies! Don't you know you will QUADRUPLE your production costs! Besides, 2002 Chris Nolan, none of your favorite films were shot in Imax! It will NEVER catch on". Given it took DECADES before the number of color films produced (hey, those take THREE TIMES the storage!) to overtake black and white, why write off HFR after less than ten years since the first real experiments? Seems incredibly short-sighted. And again, what is so magical about 24FPS that it and it alone is set in stone? Why can we progress to color (black-and-white is "magical" too), sound, stereo sound, 5.1 sound, Dolby Atmos sound, large format films, but 24FPS can never change? Why go from 35mm to 70mm (4x increase in SPATIAL resolution) but TEMPORAL resolution can never change? Why is 48 or 72 or 120 FPS too big change for you to accept but you don't object to Imax? Shouldn't that be just as "foreign"? Shouldn't it be "too detailed" when you can't see the "warmth' of film grain?
10 years of experiments? Try 70+ years of differentiating between film cadence and television.
In every step of the evolution of film/television there has to have been a justification of extra costs. Those that have added will stick around. Those that haven't have gone by the wayside.
Simply put, HFR has shown nothing to add to the experience of film watching to justify it's additional costs. It's a dead end and your technological fetishising of it won't bring it to reality when it has failed over and over again.
Whoah! Haven't seen one of your videos in years John! They are the best film history and theory I've seen. That's an easy subscribe right there.
I was very late to the film making business. I literally got my first camera 10 years ago and it had to be a large sensor and 24p. I was late because I couldn’t shoot 24p film, neither technically or financially and I hated that 50i (Europe) everything in focus video look. I now do vfx and I hate anything higher than 24p because it’s more laborious and it doesn’t really add value.
Matte work at 120fps is nigh on suicidal, a 20 second scene would take around 4 days to complete at 24fps, but over a month at 120fps :o it doesn't feel as if I've achieved anything after a day. The same problem comes with all the post production and even before the DoP has appeared, the gaffer is wringing his hands looking at what digital camera is in the flight case - it is a 1kW of lighting or 1MW? :P
Well then get ready to 24 losing value, soon.
It looks stuttery on OLED panels due to their responsiveness and theyre surelly becomming the norm for new TVs and Phones, not so much PCs tho.
Anyway if ur content looks laggy. There will be less people interested in watching it. Take a hint, boy
I will never use lossy compression. I will always use lossless compression no matter which video codec I use.
PLEASE READ ACCURATE:
14:11 So this is just about being lazy right? Fewer frames to render, but but juddery unwatchable content? (unwatchable on EVERY SINGLE MODERN MONITOR which runs AT a 60Hz refreshrate?) Why not go with 30p? Its only 6 more frames to render, but consistent, enjoyable pans, zomms etc... ? You are picking the extreme (60p), in order to convince everyone, which is totally fine, everybody does that! But you should still showcase other relieable options, like 30fps. 17:00 This just accentuates the fact that you don't WANT TO get used to 60fp! (10:10) Just because something was one way all the time, why shouldn't it be able to be changed to the other way?? 19:10 Now, I don't wanna hurt anyone's FEELINGS, but I personally think the framerate disscousion shouldn't be about spiritual adoration, or what somebodies belief is, I think that I can clearly see that THAT IS NOT A SMOOTH PAN. I am simply not interested in what you can "read between the frames", I just see the fact that modern displays use a refrehrate of 60Hz, and that 24 is not a multiple of that. I don't know about cinema projectors, but for UA-cam I totally prefer to shoot in 30fps. Any thoughts?
... and you forgot to mention 10:45. The simple math behind the judder effect, caused by that 3:2 pulldown (that is inevitable in case of 24 fps content being displayed on a regular 60 Hz display), IS OBJECTIVE! It's just math! Nothing can be more objective than math and physics.
3:2 pulldown on a 60hz _progressive_ display is not noticeable - on a 60i, it is because you have half frames causing frame blends. The difference of 3:2 on a 60hz progressive display is one extra cycle per frame...
+Filmmaker IQ IT IS noticable!!! Just search for "JUDDER RTINGS" and do this test by yourself. Or just try to watch some sort of "cinematic" drone footage filmed at 24 fps at a normal speed and at 1.25x speed afterwards!!! Is there a difference? Yet, it is!
@@FilmmakerIQ Now, I'll be nice and do it for you: ua-cam.com/video/2Al7lFUzAk4/v-deo.html So you would consider this UNNOTICABLE?? Are you Shure?? And if you don't reply, i guess its a yes??
That's not judders from 3:2 pulldown - that's the natural cadence of 24fps. You watch that footage on a movie screen with a projector showing 48hz that has no judders (2:2 pull down - no difference between frames) and you'll see the exact same cadence.
BTW, what RED calls judders is not quite the way the industry uses it. (edit... how people on UA-cam treat how RED uses the word Judder - Red actually uses it okay but I would call it strobing)
I handle 24 fps every day - you're not showing me anything new.
To all the gamers out there: resolution and frame rate play a very different role in gaming than in cinema.
Real cameras get spacial AND temporal anti-aliasing (AA) x 1 Gazillion for free. Computers don't.
Most gamers know spacial AA as just anti-aliasing or AA. To make things more confusing, a popular spacial AA technique is called "temporal anti-aliasing". There are plenty of explainations on line about how spacial AA works and simulates a real camera. Temporal AA, on the other hand, is typically called "motion blur" but the principal is still the same: smooth out the jagged or choppy nature of discretely sampled time and space to look more like a real camera.
Computers generate images with an effectively infinite shutter speed. That's why it's very easy to notice the difference between 60 hz and 144 hz by simply wiggling the cursor on your screen. It's actually very hard to correctly simulate the motion blur caused by a finite shutter speed in real-time. And no: your brain doesn't simulate motion blur. It's manifestation in human vision is complicated, but since a computer cursor doesn't actually move between frames, you will not see any blur. You will simply see the persistence of vision of several cursor locations. At very high frame rates, those locations are closer together and look more like a smooth blur.
Stop-motion animation suffers the same lack of motion blur and effectively infinite shutter speed as computer generated images, which is why the introduction of motion blur in the stop-motion animations in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back was so ground breaking. It created smoother looking animation. This smoothness has nothing to do with frame rate.
In gaming, increasing resolution and frame rate has a much more pronounced effect than in cinema. If you upscaled a DVD (720x480) to 4k and compared it the same video mastered at 4k, the difference would not be nearly as profound as upscaling a video game rendered at 720x480 to 4k and comparing that to the same game rendered at 4k. The same goes for increasing temporal resolution.
The snarky comments comparing Filmmaker IQ's argument to an argument for lower spacial resolution cinema are about as misguided as saying we should increase the AA on footage from real cameras.
Edit: Go-motion was introduced in "The Empire Strikes Back", not "A New Hope".
Why not using motion blur and more fps?
@@Jako1987 because high FPS film loses its dreamy "cinematic" feel. There are several other reasons, but I'm pretty sure that's by far the largest factor.
The thesis of this video is about what *motivates* the *choice* of 24 FPS. It's a rebuttal to the uninformed opinion that high FPS is inherently more desirable and its absence in modern cinema can only be explained by blaming the money men or whatever. This is an industry insider telling you, "No. More FPS is not more better. Adherence to 24 FPS is a deliberate choice by film makers themselves."
Go check out a video on Adam Savage's Tested channel about kit bashing (entitled "Adam Savage's One Day Builds: Kit-Bashing and Scratch-Building!"). Listen to how he describes working with styrene. How much he loves the medium because "it hides a ton of crimes" and "there's lots of forgiveness within the process". It's kind-of the same with film. Higher FPS tends to look cheap and is less forgiving. The medium starts to work against you instead of with you. It's harder to pull off tricks like the pho-long-shot church fight in Kingsman: The Secret Service or Birdman.
In-fact, it's much more common for directors to reach for LOWER frame rates for expressive, stylistic effect than higher frame rates. The Lego Movie and Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse were deliberately rendered "on twos" (as in 12 FPS) to give them a "crisp" feeling that mimics classic animation and old home-made "brick movies".
More detail doesn't equate to better story telling. Just look at how Lovecraft describes cosmic horrors in a vague way to invite your mind to fill in the gaps with your own worst fears. Look at how Schindler's List omits color except for key moments or how Erik Satie uses the space between notes to convey emotion. Often story telling is more about what you don't show or don't tell or don't flesh out than what you do.
Imagine thinking it was always better to have everything in the shot in focus, well lit, and brightly colored. None of this Taxi Driver B.S. Get out of here with your depth of field and bokeh effect! Throw a spot light on that monster lurking in the shadows! Why does it have murky brownish-green skin?! We need NEON green, people! I want him to POP!
@TRYHARD HUNTER tldr: things aren't as simple as you seem to think.
No one is trying to argue that 24fps is smoother than 120fps, if you know that 120 is a bigger number than 24 then you will also know that 120fps is inherrently smoother than 24fps, same goes for 60 and 24. In fact I highly doubt you would be able to find anyone who honestly thinks that 24fps looks 'nicer' than 60fps or 120fps.
But film and games are two very, VERY, different art forms. I know this as someone who both is a gamer, and is serious about becoming a professional filmmaker.
In games you want the frame rate to be as high as possible so that you're getting the information you need to make split second decisions and to make the controls as smooth as possible so the game doesn't feel slugish and slow.
In film, things aren't so simple. A higher frame rate looks more realistic it looks almost like a docmentary, and you may think that level of realism would be good right? Wrong. This actually just makes it more obvious that what you're watching is nothing more than grown adults wearing costumes and playing pretend. It's not just a docmentary it looks like, it's a fake documentary, a mockumentary, a comedy, a comedy about people who have no idea what they're doing, making a film.
And as for the original commenter's argument, they were simply pointing out some of the differences between high frame rate in films and high frame rate in games (they also mentioned the differences in resolution but that's not what you said you were arguing against).
I’m so happy I found FilmmakerIQ. Rarely do you come across an expert who is so well-verses in the art and science of a given subject. The writing is perfect. None of the hackneyed attempts at comedy that are so common on UA-cam educational channels
I agreed with everything until you said "you can't see 144fps" ... well shit, I can literally tell in the first second if my monitor is in 60hz or 144hz mode whenever I move the mouse or a window across the screen. 60fps is way more stuttery compared to 144fps and whenever I'm on 60hz screen it feels like everything is lagging. I can't even do my office job at 60fps without feeling discomfort. Even most modern smarphones nowadays have 120hz refresh screens. I can't even use a 60hz screen on a smartphone anymore either. But I agree, movies should be at 24fps. Everything else 60+
You don't actually see 144fps. Your eye actually sees closer to 10fps... but it doesn't actually see a frame rate. ua-cam.com/video/quWecp4vU2g/v-deo.html
Libido is the first thing to go. But luckily, as you said, we don't remember it.
Libido is irrelevant. However, the hormones that initiate it have significant physical and psychological advantages.
Once I watched TV at my grandma´s, and wondered, why it looked so weird. Couldn´t tell, what it was, but I didn´t like it, it looked cheap and dizzy. After I learned about framerate Interpolation, I turned it off, next time I visited her. The experience was immediately much better.
If you want to talk about something that seriously needs to go, it's that. Frame interpolation MUST DIE!
I can't understand the dislikes, the argument you put out was fantastic and I can't agree with you more.
Don't ventures further into the comments if you want to maintain your sanity ;)
You mentioned divisible by 2, 3, and 4. If you extend that and make it divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 5, you get 120fps. If you filmed at this you could release versions both 24fps and 120fps, and even make smooth 30 or 60fps variants of the same movie. You can make a format to please pretty much everybody from a 120fps raw footage. Of course, 120fps is the best way to view 24fps video on a modern screen because it won't have the judder that 30/60fps screens do with 24fps sources. I think the thing to push for would be moving TVs and TV interface standards up to 120fps so that 24 works better on them. I think this is probably the thing that annoys the 30/60fps fans most about 24fps, is that they look absolutely terrible on sub-120hz above-30hz screens.
If you shot 120 FPS you could not make smooth 30 60 or 24 unless you artificially added motion blur. Artificially adding something that exists already when you shoot another frame rate is entirely pointless. Besides 24 30 and 60 all have different motion characteristics.
Long story short it's pointless to shoot 120 fps unless your goal is to make slow motion
@@FilmmakerIQ the main point was that we need to standardize on 120hz TVs though. I think the vast majority of people complaining about 24fps are because they only ever see them on 60hz screens, which means that frames are doubled in very obvious ways that make it significantly less smooth to watch. On a 120hz screen, you show every frame for the exact same amount of time (5 frames) instead of most frames being 2, and some being more than that.
I disagree with that. People have been watching 3:2 pulldown for multiple years without any problems. Sure 120 hertz is nice and it does alleviate some issues that might affect some people that's not enough to justify standardization of.
@@FilmmakerIQ I think the fact that there are so many people complaining about 24fps would constitute a problem, giving 24fps the benefit of the doubt it's likely to be 3:2 causing those adverse reactions to it. The TV industry is always casting about trying to find the next technology that they can push that will allow them to sell more expensive TVs for a few more years. Now that 4k and Smart TVs are dropping down to the basement in price, 120hz TVs and 120hz HDMI to properly view 24fps movies could be the next thing that they sell at a premium for awhile. Of course, right now instead of doing this, they're doing motion smoothing of slower stuff, which my wife found objectionable when she watched rosemary's baby (for probably the 100th time) on her new TV. I had to turn it off before she told me to take it back. I personally get yoinked out of the experience when I watch a 24fps movie on a 30/60hz screen and there's a high contrast panning scene. The stuttery movements of the objects across the screen just rips me right out of it every time.
I'm with you 100%! I tried watching one of the hobbit films at a faster frame rate and it looked like a TV soap opera. Give me 24fps for film anytime. I was actually at a screening of Doug Trumbull's Showscan back in the mid 80's. And while phenomenal in resolution, everyone agreed it's primary use would be to fool the audience into thinking they are seeing reality and not a movie.
You probably would get used to it if you used it a bit more, try watching it a few more times. If you still don't like it then I guess you can't like it.
As I have heard, this is sort of the same point people tried to make when they wanted to go from black and white to colors. It is safe to say that the majority of people today prefer color movies, and I am pretty sure people will get used to and favour higher fps if it was used more.
not really...
This is subjective, I feel that you people watch too much soap operas, you know why to me 60fps doesn't look like a soap opera? Because I don't watch soap operas!
@@kaisersoymilk6912 we dont watch soap operas, we can just immediately recognize that 60 fps looks like a soap opera and NOT a movie.
I feel sorry for the people capturing their old home videos with software that automatically converts it down from 50/60 fps (look) to 25/30 fps. They don't even realise the 'feeling of the time' they've lost.
So you're saying that for home videos is best to shoot at 60fps? I've been doing that, but I want to hear everyone's opinions.
1. They picked 24 because they needed something that could be shown at a projector rate (e.g. refresh rate or Hz) of atleast 46 frames per second to avoid flickering. 16 FPS silent films would show the same frame 3 times (48 frames per second) to achieve this. 24 is the same 48 frames per second when shown it 2 times. They didn't want to go above that because it would waste more film, which was expensive.
3. Convient to claim people are only seeing motion blur when you pause. You can see motion blur without freezing frames, you admit that when you talk about its "dreamlike" and "not real but real enough" quality. And yeah, you see motion blur in real life, but real life does force MORE motion blur on top of what your eyes already experience from tracking motion.
4. A strange claim I never seen, definately far out there. But you admit does have health benefits in VR right? At any rate it counters the arguement that it INDUCES sickness.
5. Yes people don't see in frames, but they can perceive differences well above 144 FPS. It depends on the individual but in general Motion is perceived around 10-12 FPS, flickering stops depending on the technology, but between 46-100 FPS. Stutter on sample-and-hold displays is around 100 FPS. Induced motion blur around 1000 fps. Stroboscopic effects around 10,000 fps.
6. Yes its true you like it because your a familar with it. No people who prefer HFR are not unfamiliar with 24 FPS or more familiar with HFR, that's rediculous given the vast differences in availability.
7. It is objectively smoother. Smoother motion is generally considered more desirable, in most contexts, by most people, which could be considered a reasonable usage of the word "better" in a subjective argument. Thats why consumer electronics manufacturers continues to improve refresh rates, frame rates, etc. If you subjectively prefer less smooth motion, that's fine.
1. Yes it is technically cheaper, but don't think that really matters. 240p is cheaper, but you still uploaded this at 1080p. Resolution has doubled, and doubled, and so on from SD to HD, FHD, QHD and now UHD or 4k being pretty common. Each time taking up more storage and processing time. But I wouldn't argue to someone "Hay, 1080p is wasting twice as much storage and causing you to do twice as much rendering, just put it out in 720p". People like better, and often its the film makers themselves that choose to provide even better than what majority of people expect. And it's not like the gap in cost is dramatic, and will not continue to shrink. Doubling storage and processing requirements does not equate to doubling costs. Economies of scale is a thing
2. So because it was always done that way, it should continue to be done that way? Every commute you loved was by horse, why would you ride in a car? Yeah maybe you really love riding that horse, and yeah you should continue to if it makes you happy, but it doesn't mean you wont like driving that car.
"Be the change yourself": If you want it, go out and get tens of millions in funding and spend years likely unsuccessfully making 1 HFR film yourself. Why ask the industry to produce something you like, or even just mention you like something if you aren't willing to completely uproute your entire life to likely not succeed at doing it.
A bunch of nonsense...
You don't need millions to make a movie. Start making shorts on UA-cam.
The issue is most people that are in love with high frame rate never actually made a movie. If you just try to make movies you'll quickly learn how important 24 FPS becomes.
another of the arguments for cost would be effects. CG at 60fps would cost a ton more more frames = more time and more money. people no longer understand that a movie that looks like it was all shot in camera has thousands of little digital tweaks sometimes edited manually on each frame, just plain and simple more work.
Computers can easily interpolate the extra frames that are needed. My TV can even do that as it plays a Blu-ray movie. The additional cost would be minimal. Just some extra computer processing time.
i was talking about frame by frame re touches they can take hours/days per frame depending on complexity.
last thing we need are fake frames
Oh My God I hate that
But if we are talking about CG (which is what the first comment is about) than all the frames are fake. True 48 fps, means shooting with the camera set at that frame rate. The added CGI is all fake whether made individually or interpolated. Much of digital animation is in fact interpolated between frames already. The animator draws on his/her computer a couple of frames, and the in between ones are drawn by the computer.
no artist worth the term would use interpolation in animation. and the original comment was about manual retouches not interpolation done by computer I uses the term CG as a blanket term for generated on a computer not cells/paper not generated by a computer.
you are so right. I once bought a bluRay with an old John Wayne western movie which promised that it was re-coded and "brought up to speed" (so to say). I was completely pulled out of the movie when all scenes shot in a studio immediately looked like a daily soap set. I compared it with an old recording of the same movie and I didn't get that impression from that. I want my motion blur! As an animator using a consumer product called "iClone" i am furious that I can't change the framerate of 30 fps to 25 (PAL in Germany) or even 24 fps. Rendering fewer images could only mean that I spare lots of hours rendering time.
As far as I'm aware there's never been a Blu Ray with motion interpolation applied to it?
what? blu rays are natively 24p
The motion blur is a product of the camera used to record the footage. A digital remaster wouldn't and couldn't remove that blur.
When I watched Desolation of Smaug in 48FPS, it felt so weird; like time was speed up. The characters spoke normally, but I had the sensation the film was in fast forward. Somehow everyone looked glossier to, like a video game character, but too real looking to be one - some uncanny valley hoodoo going on. Strangely I don't get that sensation from video game cut-sceens, either because they're digital characters, and maybe a higher FR makes the difference.
Silent movies feel a little weird too, but not in a way I couldn't accept the first time I saw it. I doubt I could get used to 48, and it seems unlikely to me that a higher FR would be any easier.
TL;DR
(1) 24 FPS is significantly less expensive than 60 FPS at the current state of technology 12:30
(2) 24 FPS has "That Look" of almost all successful films up till now 17:00
(3) 24 FPS is a sweet spot between real and not real 19:10
The technology argument will become less and less significant sooner than most people think.* Also, the future of cinema is going to be something quite similar to VR - just like black and white films made way for colour films, 2D films will make way for 3D/VR films.
Sure, 24 FPS film will always remain - just like theater and opera will always remain.
*There was a similar discussion in the 90s about computer animation versus traditional animation - look into it. The arguments made in favour of traditional animation were strikingly similar to the arguments being made here in favour of 24 FPS - but computer animation now dominates, despite being more expensive to produce.
I don't think the technology argument ever goes away. There's a thing called Blinn's law which states that regardless how much technology advances, render time remains constant. As computers get more powerful, we make them do more things, since 24 is fewer frames than 60, it will ALWAYS be easier to create. And this also is not counting the physical limitations when it comes to real world photography.
Your wording is wrong in the second point. It's not "almost all" successful films.... It's literally ALL successful films (and ALL unsuccessful ones for that matter as well). It practically defines the medium and the way we approach it. It's also not going away, it's literally in every scripted show and even down to most UA-cam ads.
The animation analogy doesn't really fly because the CG animation are still 24 fps. 24fps has transcended stylistic changes from widespread adoption of color and from cel to CGI animation. At any point in time you could have elected to up the frame rate, the first serious person started an attempt 40 years ago. And yet here we still are.
Lastly I wouldn't consider VR to be the future of cinema because VR experiences are NOT cinema. They employ none of the devices or language of cinema... I've been involved slightly and a witness to some of the storytelling exercises conducted at UA-cam, you can't think of them as cinema just like you can't think of MMO or open world gaming as cinema. A new medium will find it's own technological specifications.
24 in cinema is an artifact that we're stuck with and I celebrate it.
@@FilmmakerIQ Thanks for the reply. I said "almost all" because of films like Peter Jackson's The Hobbit trilogy, which was certainly successful. The future of film is definitely going to be more immersive - it is not going to remain 2D - any reputable futurologist would say so. I have nothing against 24 FPS, but my intuition tells me it is not going to remain mainstream as the century progresses. It is bound to fade away like traditional animation. People used to laugh at computer animation when it was still developing in the late 80s and early 90s, but not anymore. As soon the world saw Toy Story, people were hooked. Likewise, as soon as the world gets introduced to the new generation of immersive film (which will happen this century), people will want more.
Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies were also screened in 24 fps. Peter Jackson himself had abandoned high frame rate in his subsequent films he produced and directed. Jackson's "They Shall Not Grow Old" documentary would have actually been a practical use of high frame rate, was produced and screened in 24.
As for "reputable futurologist" - that sounds like an oxymoron. I can point you to trends and history, 3D cinema has three distinct eras that have all resulted in a fizzling out. I don't see it replacing 2D in the slightest... I mean do you remember the 3D phone screen? It didn't last long.
VR will be a new medium for sure, but it's not replacing 2D. Immersive "films", which I've seen and worked on, are not going to replace cinema by any stretch of the imagination.
@@FilmmakerIQ I think if history teaches us anything, it is to keep an open mind about technology. There are probably many ways film and storytelling will evolve within the next decade or two. Take into perspective developments like smartglasses, which futurists like Ray Kurzweil are saying will replace smartphones. Of course, 2D film in 24 FPS will remain, but it will not be mainstream anymore (because it will not be state of the art anymore, which is inevitable).
As someone that's seen a couple cycles of technology with major shifts in my industry (and the ungodly amount of marketing thrown around), I look at it different. I don't think of technology as a linear progression with a goal in mind - if you follow that logic as they did in the 1950s, we'd expect 2020 to have flying cars with everything meal being freeze dried and pill form.
I see technology more as coming in when there's a problem to be solved - and then only when solving the problem is cost effective.
Thing is 24 fps - _is not a problem._ It's the feature of cinema and what makes it feel like cinema. The problem might be fixing how some of these TVs and monitors play it back but 24 is here to stay.
PS. Kurzweil's smartglasses prediction sure turned out well after Google dropped support for Google glass at the end of 2019. So much for reputable futurologist
Should have uploaded this in 60fps
Yeah! I thought the same!
I'm wondering why there is no arguement for 30fps here, I feel its probably the best choice in terms of compromise. The compatibility with modern technology is much better, its easier on animators works in twos, and rending it in progressive scan is easier for older equipment with modification. Wouldn't this be a much better standard?
Totally agreed. Actually, there is a tonn arguments in comments for 30 fps as a perfect compromise, but not in the video for some reason.
I would prefer 30p over 60p... 30p is what TV shot on film was. 30p is used a lot in multicam sitcoms. But I reject the idea that there needs to be compromise.
24 go into 60 progressive frames is not really a big deal. People confuse the 3:2 pulldown of interlace with the 3:2 down in Progressive. And interlace it can lead to some messed-up stuff, in Progressive it's absolutely fine. And it goes away and higher refresh rate screens. All you have to do is go up to 72 Hertz to have even multiples for 24. 144hz screens will handle 24 perfectly but if you're hung up on pull down it will break 30p footage... The ultimate truth is the pull-down is not bad at all.
It's just as easy to make screens that work with both 60fps and 24fps input.
Filmmaker IQ, hmm, I wonder if some day we'll have a tech that can do variable frame rate, ie. use a higher frame rate for fast action or panning shots, but keep the lower rate the rest of the time for the proper "film" look. Certainly not easy to do, but who knows, some day perhaps.
I want more HFR for my movies & series, it's personal preference, and I will actively support any HFR content. So far only the adults films industry seems to have adopted 60FPS for a small portion of their content.😂
Great video.
Recently I got my new TV that had motion interpolation turned on by default. When I started watching my first movie I was like: "Oh God, whats is wrong with this TV?",
Then I found the option to turn off the motion interpolation, and never turned it back on.
Oh thank you, I can now watch my TV without it looking wrong!
I didn't know it was a thing, it looked too smooth
Motion interpolation in TVs is bad, they don't have the power and complexity to produce a good real time frame.
I noticed the soap opera effect long before I knew about frame rate, especially in British television. I understand where 60fps people are coming from, but my eyes still aren't used to seeing that in movies, it's almost unsettling
you will get used to it.
@@conmagnew5542 which means what; He will forget all about how a movie was intended to look? How the creator intended his creation to be presented to the viewer? This is the saddest thing of all. People buy new TVs that have by default enabled in the settings the " smooth motion". For a couple of hours, if they watch a movie they feel something is wrong but after that they get used to it. It doesn't mean that they get used to a new way of viewing a film, they just loose the chance to have the real experience of a movie. Everything looks like soap operas. People do not have the knowledge to know what's until they are carried away to the soap experience, and go with that.
@Vishnu Kalluri to me it looks like crap when we are talking about movies and series, and I'll never get used to it, nor I want to.
I spent years making broadcast television at 60i. I'm used to look of 60 fps. I'm also used to the look of 24 FPS. They don't look alike... so the argument that you'll get used to it is stupid. Why get used to something that's wrong and not what the filmmakers intended?
24 FPS is all I shoot unless if want slow motion I will shoot higher but bring it back down to 24 FPS in post
My opinion is this is a cart/horse issue. People can't legitimately argue higher framerate is better until such time as movies or tv shows are made which look better in higher framerate than 24fps. The difficulty there is that filmmakers, even the youngest, all grew up consuming 24fps and their artistic eye is forever affected by that. Early movies looked like stage plays because early filmmakers only knew theater, so they made movies in that style. It wasn't until people started experimenting with non stage based techniques that movies became what they are now. I think high framerate is in that same spot. Right now there are no high framerate artists attempting to see what NEW things high framerate allows. All anyone is doing now is the same old thing, just at a higher framerate.
Exactly.
Except I wouldn't say it's the same old thing. Because frame rate is not a tool for story telling, it's the medium of which to tell a story. Inside that medium there is an infinite number of stories to tell and we've just brushed the surface.
@@FilmmakerIQ By same old thing in this case I meant the same type of visuals. What I mean is, if The Godfather is an influential film to a new filmmaker and this filmmaker wanted to work with 60fps, this filmmaker would probably attempt to do the same kind of visual style just at a higher framerate. That would be a mistake. What filmmakers need to do is throw out everything they know from 24fps visually and start fresh. Figure out what 60fps allows that 24fps doesn't and then use that in their films.
@@flibber123 Well if you throw everything out -it's not cinema anymore. It's whatever weird thing you create - video art or something.
It's a platitude to say "throw everything out" but that doesn't simply doesn't work in the artform. And furthermore I think it basically ignores the true purpose of the artform - to tell stories that connect to the viewer.
How many times do you hear people complain about too much cgi and not a good enough story. This focus on high frame rates is just like zeroing in on CGI. Frame rates do not help the viewer make a connection to the characters on the screen
@@FilmmakerIQ The issue w/ 24p is the lack of displays that can actually show it. Most screens found in homes cannot actually display 24p and it's up-converted to a faster frame rate. That causes various issues of which frames are duplicated. Most of the argument against 24p is because they're not actually viewing it at 24p and something is playing with the true frame rate.
Doesn't matter if you upscale it it is still 24fps
Was googling the "soap opera effect" and came across this video (and your channel) for the first time. Really top-notch stuff - from the writing to the overall presentation, you had my attention the entire time.
Glad to have found you, mate. Subscribed!
20:29 that bleeped out word in the Closed Captions 😂
When your voice goes up, I can't help but hear Wallace Shawn.
TL;DW
-I like 24 fps because I prefer it
-60 fps costs more
-If you don't like it go make movies yourself
Your listening comprehension must suck if that's all you got. Sad really
I find the only time when I have a problem with 24fps at the cinema is when the camera pans left or right. That's bad for the eyes and wish for better frame rate because of those occasions. When storage and distrubution costs become insignificant, then we'll get 60p.
You mean the same frame rate that we have in television for 70 years?
Pans look good in the cinema to me.
@@FilmmakerIQ maybe my eyes are too finely tuned!
Or maybe they're defective? But more likely you have a memory bias
@@FilmmakerIQ I have similar arguments from people extolling the sound quality of mp3's. I don't agree with them or yourself but I don't expect you to get what I'm saying because you're obviously different , yeah I wear glasses but that doesn't affect left right panning in a cinema, and I have a plasma TV for the same reason, they are better for motion unlike LCD TVs that make it look worse. If my experience doesn't mean anything then maybe you shouldn't ask for comments. Maybe you suffer from your own channel bias......yeah a pointless comment thrown in.
You're the one claiming you have better eyes... I'm offering an alternative explaination. I didn't ask for your comments but if you can't handle a comment back maybe you shouldn't make comments...
No, what I think is you saw one bad pan and think all pans are bad ignoring the literally millions of pans where you never noticed.
Excellent comparison/contrast. As a science buff, thank you for making clear the difference between subjective and objective.
I don’t necessarily understand why people want 60fps in movies. Video games, of course you want 60fps, but video games and movie are two completely different mediums. Film just doesn’t look right at 60fps, and even if it is “simulated” to look like 24fps it just doesn’t look as normal or cinematic as natively shooting at 24 (and why bother trying to make 60 look like 24 in the first place? Just use 24). Now, if someone make an excellent 60fps film that uses the high frame rate in a creative way that helps the story, I’m not gonna object to that movie because of the high frame rate, but I still am gonna keep shooting in 24 frames per second and I’m still gonna keep arguing for 24 frames per second. And I really don’t see 60 frames per second taking over for cinema any time soon.
60 fps would almost certainly capture the subtleties of someone's acting better, the question is at what cost. The fast movements of liquids like water (any fast jiggle, really) can probably not be captured at 24 fps either, not that those things HAVE to be in the film, but still...
@@itswrongtokillanimalsifyou2837 As to your first point, evidence seems to point to the contrary. Gemini Man (2019) was shown in both 60/120fps and 24fps versions, and a lot of people noted that the actor's performances seemed to be more wooden in the HFR versions. Why is this? I'm not completely certain, but I'd say that it has to do with the psycological instinct tying high frame rates to cheap video (the soap opera effect). As for your second point... um, I mean, plenty of films show water jiggling? And those were shot in 24fps. It's not like your eye can see the perfect fluid motion of water even at HFR unless that HFR is slowed down so that you can see it said fluid motion... which entails slowing the 120fps (or higher) footage to something like 24fps. That's what slow-motion is, and I don't think anyone's aruging that footage that is inteded to be used for slo-mo should be shot at 24fps. It just will be slowed down to 24fps to achieve that slo-mo. Also, I like how you say "probably not be captured," as if you don't actually know and are just making things up.
@@martyjackson4166"evidence seems to point to the contrary"
Sounds like anecdotal "evidence". Where's it from and where can I find it? And does "a lot" mean most? How many said wooden (or similar), rather than just worse?
"...um, I mean, plenty of films show water jiggling?"
Obviously, but water moves at different frequencies, and the faster movements logically don't get captured by a 24 fps framerate, and you don't need to see "perfect fluid motion" to discern a meaningful difference. But good for you if you don't.
"...as if you don't actually know and are just making things up."
Feel better now?
@@itswrongtokillanimalsifyou2837 Do a google search on the topic, I can’t provide links in a comment because UA-cam has a tendency to mark such comments as potential spam. But the information is easily out there. I tried looking into your claim that HFR makes the actors’ performances somehow “better” because you can see more of their performance, and there is absolutely nothing that indicates that. Yes, you could make the argument that the evidence is somewhat “anecdotal” considering that there have only been a limited number of films released in HFR theatrically, but that kinda just helps prove that point. From the few times we’ve tried to theatrically exhibit HFR, the response has always been negative or, at best, indifferent. If people liked it, if it could make money, you’d think Hollywood would have tried it more. The Soap Opera Effect, however, is not at all anecdotal. It is a well-documented and researched phenomenon that the human brain associates HFR with cheapness and poor production quality, this is a topic that has been researched and discussed often for over half a century. So, between this verified scientific phenomenon and the somewhat-anecdotal testimonies of people who have watched HFR in theaters, I’d say this beats your pure speculation that has nothing backing it up by a mile.
As for the water thing: of course 24 frames per second doesn’t capture all of the movement of water. But guess what: neither does 60fps. Or 120fps. Or any frame rate, for that matter. That’s how motion pictures work. Even at 1,000,000 frames per second, you will still miss water movement. But here’s the thing: for our eyes and brains, 24 FPS is ENOUGH to see the water movement clearly. At 60fps, our brains are not going to be able to register any more water movement. You can try this yourself: film water jiggling at 24fps and 60fps. Yes, the 60fps will look smoother, but you aren’t going to be registering any more detail in the movement of the water. Even at fast jiggles, 24fps can still capture the fact that the water is jiggling. Yes, for scientists who need to study water jiggling and need to get as much detail to study the movement frame-by-frame, HFR might be required. But guess what? We’re not talking about scientific purposes. We’re talking about narrative film. And by your own admission, you said that you can’t think of a reason why we’d need to see water jiggling in a movie where 2fps would not be sufficient. And if we do need to slow it down, like I said, so we can see it more clearly, then you shoot it at HFR and slow it down to 24fps. Like I said, we’ve done that for decades. Over a century even. There’s nothing high-tech about HFR. It’s existed for just as long as “low” frame rates. And yet, we’ve always decided for narrative film to use low frame rates. I wonder why, in over 120 years of filmmaking, we haven’t switched to HFR if it is supposedly better. I really wonder.
6:43 I have my take on this also. Motion blur is sometimes ADDED separately (specially on video games). When the movement lacks motion blur it looks into your eyes extremely fake/unreal.
When the movement lacks motion blur it looks into your eyes extremely fake/unreal. -> only when the frame-rate is low (24, 30). At 60+ FPS devs don't have to add motion blurr.
Also, it's a subjective effect. I find the added motion blur in games annoying and generally turn it off.
I think I came here a few years ago being mentally stupid but I realise a few things. You have good points in this video, but one reason I'd prefer 60FPS is because I want to see the stuff on the screen, not a bunch of smudgy blur, especially in a quick action movie.
That's not what the people making the movies want. A smudgy blur was done ON PURPOSE. It coveys speed and action.
If they wanted you to see it clearly, you would.
It's all a magic act.
@@FilmmakerIQ I can see what you mean but speed and action can also be conveyed with a smooth framerate.
But 24 _IS_ a smooth frame rate... especially if you incorporate traditional motion blur.
The great irony is that higher frame rates make fast action look smaller. The swing of a sword looks more epic when it's a smudgey blur - because it feels like it must be moving fast if we can't clearly see it.
Bruce Lee's fists travel from his body to contact in the time of a single frame. You up the frame rate, now we see Bruce Lee's fists travel over several frames. Even though the timing of the punch is the same, the surprise of the hit is lost, you can track it... that's simply not as cool.
I've cut a lot of very hard hitting "extreme sports" type things in the past year - it's amazing how much punchier and sharp an edge you can pull with 24 that just wouldn't land as hard if you up the frame rate.
I'm kind of surprised you didn't go over the shortcomings with the Hobbit at 48hz.
Special effects fall apart at high framerates. It's like the Mickey Mouse at Disneyland taking his head off in front of a bunch of kids. You break the magic.
I watched the Hobbit trilogy in HFR and I'd say you have it backwards. Smaug and Gollum looked amazingly real because the "soap opera effect" reminds us of what things really are. Unfortunately it also exposed the fantasy costumes, sets, and makeup for what they were - fake. Sometimes it was more like watching a play with amazing, lifelike special effects.
Which is why Jurassic World movies should be HFR. The setting will look real because it is. The dinosaurs will look like they're in the real world and will be more scary because of it.
High budget sci-fi like Avatar should be and will be HFR because it has the budget for stunning settings, and because it's the future, we can't compare it as easily to the contemporary.
24 fps film proved deadly to nazis at a theater in Paris ....
=P
In my opinion:
Older people tend to like 24 fps because it is what they are used to watching.
Younger people tend to not watch as much tv and more youtube or other things. They are normally 30fps to 60fps.
If your eye is used to something, you will enjoy it more. Its just logical. So this whole debate pretty dumb. If younger people like 60fps, then its the future. - Also the way you portray yourself in the video makes you seem like a man that is mad to see things he loved diminish.
Young people watch Logan Paul. Logan Paul shoots 24.
Are you saying Young People don't watch movies and scripted TV shows because they are all 24 fps.
24 fps hasn't diminshed. It's stronger than ever and people are blind to that fact.
@@FilmmakerIQ My man, you can't think Logan Paul is the only thing kids watch.
Also, Logan Paul taints everything he uses or does. Logan Paul using 24fps is not an argument FOR that.
@@Alias_Anybody The argument is that because kids watch things at 60fps, the future will eventually be 60fps. But, that argument is inherently flawed. Just because you (the other guy) watches more UA-cam than tv doesn't mean everyone does. And that also doesn't mean people prefer the frame rate of 60 over the frame rate of 24. People who watch a ton of 60 fps tv still loved 24fps movies. If they didn't, 24fps movies would have been phased out a long time ago.
Logan Paul was a bad example for him to pick.
@@templariclegion2826
Just because you can tolerate something doesn't mean it's better. I can live with a 16k connection, but if I could switch it to 200k without any effort I'd do it in a heartbeat. If every movie had a 60fps slider (somehow) I'd turn it on per default.
Okay so I have an honest question: In part the reason we like 24fps is it does have a "traditional look" which harkens back to what we are used to. However, in a lot of ways modern movies look different even at 24fps, because a traditional film proctor producs a strobe effect because there is a blanking period between frames, when the shutter closed for the frame to advance. LCD does not have this same shutter effect and neither does DLP. CRT displays do have a blanking period but it is much shorter and not at all the same as the strobe effect of movies.
Do you think there is a case to be made for presenting movies with "Black frames" added so that it is more similar to what we would have seen in a theater?
For example, you could do 48fps in which half the frames are picture and half are black. And yes, you would need a much brighter screen, but it would be a more faithful recreation of the film look.
Yes there can be a case for adding flicker for some traditionalist approaches to movie watching. But we have be careful about how we think about this as display technology is a bit counterintuitive.
Black Frame insertion is already a feature but it's use really is about improving clarity and reducing eye tracking motion blur. As such it's used in high frame rate gaming and VR to improve the clarity without resorting to exen higher frame rates. It works with standard frame rate 24fps movies but the mechanism is a bit hidden.
First, old LCD DID have flicker in the form of Fluorescent backlights. It's only the modern LED powered LCD that don't have flicker.
But flicker is not a panacea. The problem with modern display technology (such as OLED) and 24fps is the transitions between frames is TOO fast. In the industry this is called Gray to Gray (GTG). If it's too fast ( or instaneous as with OLED) you end up seeing the "edges between frames" this exacerbating stutter of 24 fps .
Counter to how it's described online, all modern displays build up an image by scanning line by line from top to bottom just like a CRT but unlike a CRT the image holds until the next image is scanned (sample and hold).
To improve the look of 24 what we need to do is slow down this GTG transition. Using Black Frame Insertion in certain settings can accomplish this but it does so at the sake of brightness as you noted. Instead what needs to happen is the display needs to take longer to scan the image. That's why TVs that can vary their refresh rate down to 48hz or even 24hz will display motion better than watching 24 fps on a 240hz monitor. Counterintuitive!
Now the other approach... Up the refresh capability of the screen to say 1000hz. Now you can use software to fake a slow GTG or even add traditional 48 or 72hz flicker for old purists. With that high a refresh there's all kinds of trickery you can do in software and get all types of media from movies to video games to look good!
It all depends on what audience you're talking to. This channel is meant mainly for cinema fans, or people working in this field. Being interested in cinema and both gaming, FPS make all the difference. A movie like Hardcore Henry was absolute garbage to see in 24FPS. Even newer youtube videos blow older ones away at 60 FPS. It is just nicer to look at overall.
Please bear in mind that this is only an opinion, the same as this video.
I have a feeling Hardcore Henry would be garbage in 48 or 60 fps... Action doesn't survive well in higher frame rates - punches look pulled, everything just looks more real and therefor obviously faked. 24 fps has done a good job masking that.
In my opinion the 60 FPS videos on UA-cam should only be used for showing gaming footage. Anything else just looks unnatural to my eyes. Every movement in the frame at 60 FPS is lacking motion blur that I experience in real life. Thus I wholeheartedly agree with John that 24 FPS definitely the best for cinematic and other video.
I'd say it would be a great if production could up their game to make the acting match the 60 fps. Obviously this likely won't happen since the people this appeals too are far and view between but especially in the otaku sphere niche projects get funded by an audience blowing cash on a product. So while I would like 60 fps to be thing and I could see how certain forms of artistic expression could be elevated I also see why it's unlikely to be put into practice any time soon.
Tldr; further exploration of the possibilities of the medium of motion picture is a good thing. Won't happen any time soon because of how difficult it is to pull off and because it's hard to get people to pay for it.
Well it's been years now and we haven't seen a good HFR movie yet. So you are right 24 fps is here to stay. And for the kids that disagree: Start making movies now and prove to us that HFR movies are good.
Even worse, people play shows on HFR TVs and they look horrible!
24fps is vital to (traditional) animators because of its easy divisibility. Animators develop a sense of how fast a number of frames feels, like a run cycle at 8 frames per step, or a jaunty 12 frame per beat song (equivalent to 120 beats per minute). Change that, and that solid foundation crumbles.
Also 60fps footage that's more compressed (like you see on UA-cam) looks dreadful, and The Hobbit movies looked naff.
60 is more divisible than 24 (24 is divisible by 2 3 4 6 8 12, 60 is just that times 2.5, for divisibility by 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 etc). As an animator, just multiply any division by 2.5. 8 frames per step becomes 12, and your 12 frames per beat becomes 18. If you're animating digitally, no problem at all. If you're animating with hand drawn art, then obviously publish in whatever's convenient.
Higher numbers of course have more factors! ;) The point of 24 isn't that it has the most factors, it just has a lot more than it's neighboring numbers :P
@@FilmmakerIQ I was responding to his comment about animating under high framerates being somehow more restrictive. That's simply not true.
60 drawings is a lot, 30 is still faster and more work than 24, but 20 looks choppy. And even with 3DCG keyframe animation, 60fps means more work has to be put into the inbetweens, whether CG rigs or 2D.
Animating on "threes" or "fours" to divide it back down to ~24 would just be a waste of data, and the convenient previous understanding of how long 8 frames at 24fps feels or dividing beats to music goes down the plughole.
My vote is for high frame rates. Natural human eye vision don't have any "frame rate", we see flow of time around and not just 24 steps per second. This means that the higher frame rate the closer we to natural realistic motion. It's like pixels on monitors. Years before we had only 640x480 screens, but now we have up to 8K monitors, and it's much more realistic, we don't see pixels on screens. So movie frames is a "pixels" too.
But I agree that frame rate could be artistic effect. If you don't want to copy the reality but want to transform it to your artistic point of view then it's ok, it's your artistic vision.
I only just want to repeat that 24 is not "magic or natural". It's traditional, and artistic. But natural vision don't have any "pixels" of time and higher frame rates coming closer this vision.
I know you find it hard to believe this but this is something that I've discovered over countless trials... If it's not 24 it doesn't LOOK like a movie. Yes it's partly tradition but it's partly something to do with the feeling of otherworldliness that lower frame rate gives us that's so needed to create the magic of cinema. Doesn't really matter what your vote in the matter is until you've created some movies of your own you may not understand how powerful that frame rate is
Totally agree.
Infinite resolution and fps can make the senses work naturally, without effort.
And restricted standards (like any technology requires) are still usable for artistic results.