PannySVHS

i guess that my point is that "don't kill the messenger, pay attention to the message". but if the attitude is "there is no message? you need to be killed for peaceful mind." then life goes on. no need to fight to death, "it is just a game", or it is just a frame rate thing. lol. 

Maybe you should lead with that instead of making troll-baiting posts with a title of “24p is outdated”.
You can’t even tell when watching the difference between 24P and HFR.
It’s an objectively wrong statement. End of story. 
 

You, perhaps deliberately, miss the point. Just because something is “outdated” doesn’t diminish its desirability. Just because there are a lot of arguments in favour of 60 fps doesn’t diminish the fact that a lot of people prefer 24. There is no objectively correct fps!

OK
 
You just screwed your own argument.  Titanic was photographed at good old 24 FPS.  You can’t even tell.  
Maybe just turn the fluid motion feature on your TV on and be happy.
Avatar is a 3D cartoon.  Perfect for hyper realism.  Great use of HFR for that specific story telling example.
Hobbit was a disaster.  So much that they CHANGED the approach back for subsequent films.
You’re alone in this opinion.

I just got home from the Porsche garage without the 911 I ordered. Someone on the bus there told me that petrol engines were outdated… 

r1mx hfr 120p 2k is not good. r1mx is not for hfr. r1mx 24p 4.5k ws redcode 42 is the best it can have. 

Ah, you mean the faddish "orange and teal" look? I find that weird. To me, it adds nothing to a movie. I hope that trend goes away soon, and it takes shaky hand-held footage, and artificial grain with it to the rubbish heap of history.
Movies, IMO, are about plot, dialog, and, secondarily, action (when appropriate). I couldn't care less about what some production designer thinks is high art. Asteroid City was an extreme example.
I guess I'm just different than most people on this forum. While others prefer movies to be art above all, even if it deviates from reality, I prefer technical accuracy.

I agree, 24fps is more abstract, less in-the-face, and this means it is a tool to deploy with a logic behind using it. At this sweet spot frame rate it lets the audience's mind wonder, they will have more capacity for the emotional impact of the story rather than sitting there like hypnotised chickens or a droog in A Clockwork Orange with matchsticks in his eyes.
It is more melecony, more wistful and poetic, can you imagine converting a Tarkovsky film and all that visual poetry and symbolism to an in-your-face documentary/reality style at 60fps, it just wouldn't suit it.
A quiet scene of dialogue and suspense is not supposed to be a visceral hypnotic rollercoaster either, and the camera is there simply to observe and not supposed to snap you out of the story, cinema is supposed to immerse you in it and 24p does that very well.
On the other hand if I want to feel like I am watching reality through a window, then 8K 60p would do the job perfectly but the higher the resolution, visual fidelity and frame rate, the more the emphasis in your brain changes towards the visual stimuli and your mind has less capacity remaining for everything else, such as feeling emotional impact of the story and so on.
This is why the Hobbit was such a bad fit for 3D 48p, it became hypnotic as if you were standing on a film set looking at props, rather than escaping into a fairytale fantasy. Nobody laughed, nobody engaged emotionally in the screenings I went to of it. Although that was partly the fault of it being a bit rubbish, the format didn't help at all.

I found with my own YouTube stuff that 24p and vintage lenses don't suit the content!
It is better to film it as reality, with a clear view on the studio and myself.
So this is why blanket statements don't work... It all depends on what you're filming.

Right. But realism is not absence of representation.
The problem here is people come to discuss things they don't have clue about : )
With the due respect, it's not because someone is a skilled film professional in one or another technical aspect of this craft, I will discuss film aesthetics from some other departments of this same craft with.
To each their own. And opinion doesn't convert a fact either.
There is who understands it and who doesn't and never will.
- EAG :- )

Maybe. Or perhaps 46fps would have flopped eventually, and it was naturally to drift to 24fps (or similar, such as 23fps or 25fps) as the framerate of choice 

A VERY strong contender for me and could have been an outright winner for me, except for one thing, and that is I am taking the MarkusPix 'one and done' approach and including a lens.
There isn't a single lens in the L Mount line up that swings it for me. If I had to pick just one, it would be the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 to pair it with, but then at 24mp, too short for my needs.
But purely as a camera body, for stills and video, I'd choose it over anything and everything else.

My Blackmagic pocket 4k. Everything I need (in preference to my 6k).
If I had an Arri or Venice then with the cr*p I produce I’d just end up looking like an entitled idiot. 
So perhaps, therefore, a Komodo would suit! 

F3 would be my second choice. I have only used it for one test and internal Slog 420 look pretty awesome. Best internal 8bit 420 colors I have ever seen. But thing is cumbersome and heavy enough to not to get picked for a walk.
I would take all three of my cameras I mentioned above. After all entry cinematography tools are my passion.
I could widen the question, what would be your theoretical dream camera. That does not necessarily mean it has to be maxed out in all specs.

I think he's referring to the s16 sensor 4K camera being developed by Octopus Camera and CinePi. There isn't much info they've put out besides some test footage, specs, and a rendering of the camera body.

I can't seem to see any news about a new camera module?? Not sure what OP is referring to. 
There is no CinePi 3. 
Even if a 1" CinePi 3 comes out, I reckon a person would be still better of with a secondhand P4K if they value their own time at anything above minimum wage.  
As the out of pocket differences between a possible future CinePi 3 and a secondhand P4K (the fact it is "secondhand" is irrelevant, it would still be more reliable than a brand new "CinePi 3"!) would only be a few hundred dollars, which would be completely swallowed up when you consider the many hours you'd have to put into getting the CinePi3 up and running from scratch 

Is there a new camera module?  The current camera module used by cinepi is imx477.  It doesn't matter how fancy the raspberry pi is that you connect it to, it's still only a 12 megapixel sensor.  If Sony have a 45 megapixel 1" sensor that can read out at 12 bits, it could be cool to see that in a Raspberry Pi camera.

Until then, you'd be a lot better off buying a used BMPCC4K - it costs a bit more, but it's a lot more usable as a camera... and I say that as a person who doesn't like any "pocket" cinema camera except for the very first one from like 10 years ago.
(Or for just. little bit more, a Sigma FP)

I think this is going to be even more disrupting as the new raspberry pi 5 is just announced. 
I figure that cinepi 3 based on pi 5 may do 8k raw on a s16/1-inch sensor, at about $500.  

This is a great point - if you don't need the portability then a Mac Mini would be spectacular value.  They're not powerful enough for the serious colourists, but I think those not as far into their careers use them, and I've heard that large post-houses often use them for background / batch tasks like preparing footage, rendering projects etc.
The Mac Studios with the Ultra processors are apparently stunning performers, but more expensive obviously.

Equivalent in Windows-land?  It doesn't really exist.  12th/13th generation Intel has much better performance per watt than 11th generation, but the built-in GPU isn't anywhere near the performance of M1 so you'd need something with a dedicated GPU which won't be low power.  If I'm guessing I'd say that an i7-12700 or i7-13700 with the laptop version of an RTX 4060 should be about similar to the performance of an M1 Max while plugged into the wall, but with the caveat that the Windows laptop will pull more power and be noisier (fans to remove the heat from using so much power).

However, the second you unplug the laptop from the wall, the performance and battery life of the Windows system will be substantially worse than the M1 Max.

You can find Windows laptops with more raw power than even the highest-end M3 Max - and desktops even more so, but the cost is that the power usage will be a lot higher.  I'm too lazy to go look now, but I'd bet that an RTX 4090 all by itself uses more power at full load than an entire M3 Max laptop, including the screen.  😃

The display format and venue also matter. Oppenheimer doesn't look dated in the IMAX theatre in 24p. Looks incredible, to old and new generations alike. So to say 24p is outdated is just a blanket statement really. And equally, to say 60p isn't cinematic is also a blanket statement. It can be.... All depends on a lot else, other than just frame rate.

Every movie that I really enjoy and watch over and over has elements that are purposely unrealistic, whether in the image, the staging, or characterization. I'm not talking about technical story unrealism, like elves or warp speeds.

^ Here, it's not the image quality, considering the time it was shot. However, the staging of the actors is unrealistic. The way they pose, the dialog--no one actually does that or speaks that way. One of my top 5 films, and perhaps my favorite opening scene ever.
 

^ Have you ever seen a toy shop organized like that, with those colors and lights? I picked Hugo because, seeing it in 3D, I was blown away by how they changed the interpupillary distance for different scenes to get different moods, using unrealism as part of the craft. And it's an easy segue into the highly creative movie it revolves around. Even in 1902, they could have made the moon more realistic!

 
Specifically on the topic of framerate, Spiderverse did a fantastic job using different frame rates to convey different moods. Some of it is explained here:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN5sqSEXxm4
^ This is another favorite movie (and it's recent--they could have shot digital or HFR if they'd wanted). Everything works because of unrealism, from the costumes, to the sets, to dialog, sound, delivery.
 
I would argue that purposely making films look or act realistic results in boring content.
 
I don't necessarily disagree. Good movies transport me to that world with perfect clarity, but the world may not be realistic. When I watch the Third Man, I'm there, in black and white, with the grain, and the film noir corny dialog, and Orson Welles' overacting. That's the world I'm in.

If I am allowed to chim in, I would love a powersaving solution like the m1 tech in a windows laptop.
What would be an equivalent to a M1 Max Macbook, with lowish powerdraw and same performance in Resolve for editing, grading and rendering?

Can't wait to have the pleasure to watch it! : ) You know you're one of the most skillful shooters over here I invite everyone to find BTW :- )

I would rather see a Super 16mm Digital Bolex CCD type camera than Super 8mm film bodies, but yes it should be kept alive. Kodak will do a good job of killing it with products like this though.