zlfan

Interesting discussion, actually. I guess your point is more about elitism vs populism. One hundred years ago, 16p and 24p were determined by Hollywood powerful producers and dps single handed. The world followed. At the time, the technology is exclusive. Elitism in cinematography is true. Now, the technological barrier is almost none. It is just internet, democratize information. Nowadays, you can have a crop mood ml raw cam lower than $500, and have true lossless 14 bit raw, on par with arriraw. In the still photography world, such trend already happens. Anyone with an iphone or u43 cam, can snap at the right moment in the right place, some decisive moments. Some of these photos are no less than a pro's master piece, in all of the ways. In 10 to 20 years, such trend will come to the cinema world. Plus the AI, most of the time, you even don't need a pretty model anymore. Exciting time, but many old rules may not hold anymore, including the 24p thing.

if docs are not for journalism principles, then why name it as doc, maybe larger than life drama is a better name. so that viewers will not take it for granted that these are true stories?

anyone is willing to explain why eu uses 25p, states for 24p? why 23p is not chosen, not cinematic?not larger than life? 23p is further away from 60p than 24p, so it is more larger than life?

this goes "beyond" strict journalism. sorry for the typo.

this goes behind strict journalism. there is some category called true story trying to blend journalism and creative writing, but it is not widely accepted.

as long as cooke and arri and primo prime lenses and french zooms are mf, high end cinema is still mf based. especially the recent hype of going film, arri sr2 does not have ibis af etc.

I agree with you on your points. Cinematic is about everything in the workflow. 24p is not bad, I use ML raw so 24p all the time for the last ten years due to the fact that 24p presets generate best results in ml raw. Let's deduct a little bit more here. The recent 24p documentaries actually pose a dilemma for 24p. If 24p is larger than life, even subtly, then recent 24p documentaries dps are cheating viewers, because documentaries are supposed to be strictly journalism oriented. If 24p is not larger than life, 24p documentaries are real stories, which follow the journalism principles, but 24p is larger than life cannot hold.

For the last ten years, I watch TV no more than 10 hours per year. The so called 30p for news thing just fades away from my viewing experience. I watch streaming services or social network platforms 99% of my viewing time. When I watch recent documentaries, I never have feelings that these are larger than life, although I bet most of these documentaries, if not all, are shot with 24p. I doubt any DP is willing to choose 30p or 29.97p for his/her documentaries, when 24p is at hands, easily accessible. If a documentary DP gives me the feeling that his work is larger than life, I think this is a failure, instead of a success. I watch documentaries to learn real stories, in depth news analysis and reports, not some drama. The former is journalism, the latter is creative writing, very very different. I seriously doubt 24p gives a larger than life feeling, at least, I don't see such a thing in documentaries.

at the 16p soundless age, 24p was introduced because it represents the real world better, i.e., it was more WORLDLY and BETTER frame rate than 16p. then when 30p 60p come, 24p suddenly is a holy grail UNWORLDLY YET BETTER beauty. 24p wins all the time. lol.

also, a previous commentor says that 60p is not for real life, 120p is. if so, then come 60p is bad unworldly, 24p is the optimal for the unreal, all the way from 119p to 1p? any histogram or other kind of graphs to justify this optimal 24p unworldly thing? then how about 25p? closer to 120, so less unworldly? lol.

Nowadays, a lot of events are shot on 24p, and a lot of weddings. Hard to justify events for 24p, as viewers want larger than life events? Weddings, to some degree, understandable.

By the way, about the notion "more thongs mean more weight in talking", there are some opposite examples. Roger Deakins only owns some photography cameras, he does not own any high end cinema cameras, like Alexa he uses on site. Yet when he talks, people listen. He is a naked ass, yeh, a naked bad ass.

The notion of "24p is larger than life" is actually from later times to justify the importance of 24p when 30p and 60p are easier and easier to do. Let's look at the beginning of the movie industry, all of the earliest short movies shot in late 19th century were trying hard to record the real world as close as possible. Although the industry later developed and differentiated into different categories, the term cinema means movies including all of the subcategories. Let us investigate documentaries a little more to see if this "24p is larger than life" notion can hold. Using "CitizenFour" as an example, CitizenFour won the Oscar Award for best documentary, so it is something to be taken seriously. The DP who shot CitizenFour has some thongs in his belt. It was shot with an FS100, a S35 camera, which can do 1080p 24p, 30p, and 60p. I cannot find the frame rate of CitizenFour online, but I am sure that this is not 60p, very possibly not 30p neither, 24p to my opinion. OK. If 24p generates a larger-than-life story, i.e., a drama or un real story, yet 60p is for real time show, why did the DP of CitizenFour chose 24p, or at a very low possibility 30p, but not 60p? Did he want to dramatize the story and convey to the audience that this is not a real story, but just a fantasy? Or did he want the audience know that this is a real story? IMHO, I think that the DP wanted this to be as real as possible, and that is why this documentary is so impactful and won the Oscar, yet he very possibly used 24p. Many documentaries were shot at 24p, I am sure that these DPs want their documentaries to be as real stories as possible, and they have some pants and thongs, they are not naked asses for sure. LOL.

Which one is more fundamental to human eyes as cinematic, 24p or 25p? If 24p is more fundamental, EU people most of time watch 25p, and they are not watching cinema? Also, why does EU set to 25p, not set to 24p, if 24p is scientifically fundamental? Further, why does EU not set to 23p, 24p plus 1p is 25p, minus 1p is 23p. We all know scientifically, if 24p is the optimal peak, then 23p and 25p are equally as close to 24p. Come on, 24p believers, give me a larger than real world explanation please.

Sometimes it comes to me, maybe the thinking difference between EU and the States, comes from the 25p and 24p? One P to explain them all.

Interesting, 24p is even number, 25p is odd number. How come EU and US viewers have different eyes. Which side is more human? LOL.

It is interesting to see that people hold this notion that action in an action film is not action, yet action in sports is action. Is 24p blurred action really larger than life? LOL. I really want to see some scientific experiment with a double blinded experimental design to check this placebo effect. LOL.

Actually, your words and your case already defeat the logic that 60p is for sports, 24p for cinema, and 30p for news. If John Wick 4 is not action packed, I don't know which one is.

It actually exists. There are rigorous scientific experiments demonstrating this. There is a famous research center in Duke University focusing on this. This center has its own scientific journal.

Can't agree more. 24p will always be there, just like sepia, or like steam engine trains, etc. I like sepia very much, I used to shoot several sessions of photos on em5. But not for everything. The same with 24p.

Statistically, Hobbit is surely a success, due to its successful ticket box sales, about 5 times more than the cost of making the film. This means that 48p does not matter much to general audience. It may matter much to experienced DPs. However, if we consider 24p as a pollution using an extreme word or case here, then experienced DPs are the most polluted. Is 24p truly more aesthetically beautiful? Maybe or maybe not? Is bokeh truly more beautiful than deep focus? Maybe or maybe not, depends on what you want to achieve. In my experience, for events, you want deep focus, something like f4 or f5.6 on s35, instead of f1.2 or f1.4 on s35. It always depends. Claiming 24p is the holy grail of the cinema is just an overly simplified argument.

It is interesting to see that people always try to justify something established but not really scientifically proven. Critical thinking is so easily lost under the disguise of pursuing pure art. Is there any scientific evidence that 16p or 18p or 20p or 22p is less dream-like or less reality like, yet only 24p or 25p are the optimal frame rates for un reality? and how about 26p, 27p, 28p, 29p, or no 30p, because this is news frame rate? For example, give me scientific evidence that 22p or 26p is inferior to 24p or 25p. LOL.

Actually, human beings are very much like AIs. The so-called unconsciousness may come from pre life experience and after death experience. There are a lot going on in the paranormal physiology and psychology. Human beings may have true creativity out of nothing even not in their unconciousness, but even this exists, it may be far less than what we think.

If the logic that "60p is for sports and gaming (fast action based), 24p for cinematic dream like motion cadence" is rock solid, can anyone here explain to me why Top Gun Maverick, John Wick series, No time to die 007 latest episodes, etc, use 24p instead of 60p? Aren't F14, F18, or gen 5 stealthy fighters at least 10 times faster than national football team best players, fastest human 100 meters sprint athletes on earth, or world cup best players like Diego Maradona? When you watch Top Gun 2 etc fast action movies shot in 24p, do you REALLY enjoy the dream-like motion cadence of the dog fighting takes among multiple world best air-superiority aircraft fighters and interceptors? I know I don't. LOL. If the latter ones require 60p from Varicam or F55 or Amira, why should the former ones be shot on 24p? Isn't this a contradiction here? Isn't the abovementioned logic fatally flawed? LOL.

If there is no Edison like engineers, probably there is no photography camera or movie camera at all. Artists will have to paint on bark skin with dry and wet animal shits. LOL.