24p is outdated

[newfoundmass]

59 minutes ago, zlfan said:

not sure about the universal hate thing. lor and hobbit series are  regarded as one of best series, not just by me, but by most of the viewers. peter jackson is not a fool himself. 

Yeah and most people watched them in 24 fps 🤣

[BabsDoProd]

With "Avatar 2" I made a post on REDUser about it complaining about the unique aspect of the film jumping back and forth between 24fps and 48fps when action scenes came up and declaring that it was jarring. There was a bit of discussion about it but based on other reviews and articles it was clear that it was a widespread problem. Had the whole film been HFR then that would be one thing but not switching back and forth.

You also have to remember that with HFR, just as people can have when looking at old school video camera stuff in 60i, there are people that are so sensitive to the video motion that they get motion sickness. Those complaints have happened every time they've tried to do a HFR project. 24P has also been chosen as our main cinematic frame rate because most people can tolerate it for long periods of time unless someone goes back to doing wild shaky cam like in they did in the early 2000s. There is also a bit of a sensory overload the higher in frame rates we go and, in my opinion, many times the footage loses sharpness and that "magical" cinematic feel just goes away as motion blur gets compromised and the smoothness of the HFR takes over everything and becomes too apparent. I admit, it does look cool to crank things up and film in 120p, even on my RED One MX in 2K mode, but I can't see a reason to film that way for every project or to turn on the TV and see mostly 120p content, it's just not right for everything.

[fuzzynormal]

20 minutes ago, zlfan said:

watched hobbit series in theatre, although i knew they were shot on 48p, but hey, my eyes did not care less. 

Ultimately, it's not a big deal.  

It's like people that are fussy about the type of wine they drink.  They can understand and appreciate the nuances and subtleties -- and get incredibly particular about the flavours and details of it all.  

Other people simply don't care, they just like the buzz.  

As a filmmaker, you pour the wine you want to drink.

[zlfan]

23 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

Yeah and most people watched them in 24 fps 🤣

this correlates to my previous comment that displaying technology is democratizing 60p. giving another one or two decades, people will get used to watch 60p and shoot 60p using their phones.

i remember when 5d2 and 7d just came out, about 2008-2009, i told someone who thought he was better than me in photography and videography that 5d2 and 7d would disrupt the ex1/ex3 and 2/3 pro eng cams, he laughed that such a stupid idea would even existed. years later, i saw him bring his rebel t5i doing hybrid shooting on street fairs. lol. 

[zlfan]

16 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Ultimately, it's not a big deal.  

It's like people that are fussy about the type of wine they drink.  They can understand and appreciate the nuances and subtleties -- and get incredibly particular about the flavours and details of it all.  

Other people simply don't care, they just like the buzz.  

As a filmmaker, you pour the wine you want to drink.

I consider myself power viewer, above 95% common viewers in theatre or watching tv. if power viewers like me don't give a dime about 48 p vs 24p, typically those 95% viewers don't neither. it is just like red fans brag about 8k and bm fans brag about 12k, at the end of the day, typical users are satisfied with high quality good color 720p, at most 1080p. you can say they are uneducated, unsophisticated, stupid, but they are the customers buying the tickets. 

[zlfan]

27 minutes ago, BabsDoProd said:

With "Avatar 2" I made a post on REDUser about it complaining about the unique aspect of the film jumping back and forth between 24fps and 48fps when action scenes came up and declaring that it was jarring. There was a bit of discussion about it but based on other reviews and articles it was clear that it was a widespread problem. Had the whole film been HFR then that would be one thing but not switching back and forth.

You also have to remember that with HFR, just as people can have when looking at old school video camera stuff in 60i, there are people that are so sensitive to the video motion that they get motion sickness. Those complaints have happened every time they've tried to do a HFR project. 24P has also been chosen as our main cinematic frame rate because most people can tolerate it for long periods of time unless someone goes back to doing wild shaky cam like in they did in the early 2000s. There is also a bit of a sensory overload the higher in frame rates we go and, in my opinion, many times the footage loses sharpness and that "magical" cinematic feel just goes away as motion blur gets compromised and the smoothness of the HFR takes over everything and becomes too apparent. I admit, it does look cool to crank things up and film in 120p, even on my RED One MX in 2K mode, but I can't see a reason to film that way for every project or to turn on the TV and see mostly 120p content, it's just not right for everything.

i agree that 60p or 120p is not for everything, but they are getting more and more popular, with the help of youtube. 

yeh, hfr really infuses too much info into the eyes and brain, the same as the 8k and 12k. i think 120p is kind of extreme, also the shutter speed of 1/240 s requires a lot of lighting, kind of unnecessary. but 60p or 48p will very possibly popularize in the next several decades. also for the same reason, i really doubt that 8k or 12k will kick off, but 4k will stay long.  

[newfoundmass]

1 hour ago, zlfan said:

this correlates to my previous comment that displaying technology is democratizing 60p. giving another one or two decades, people will get used to watch 60p and shoot 60p using their phones.

Again, the issue wasn't the displays. The 48 fps version was limited to only 450 theaters because it wasn't well received.

And, again, people will differentiate cinema from the video they watch on their phones, just as people always did with 30 fps on television.

[Emanuel]

For sure... They're all tools, nothing more. 12K/8K/4K can look all the same. People will still use 8K or 12K cameras. Once again, horses for courses!

[newfoundmass]

I'm sure in the future there will be films released in HFR as a stylized choice, but I can't see it becoming the standard. I don't think it's what the industry or the public really wants. 

If the way people consumed all other media had an impact on cinema it'd have switched over to 4:3 30 fps when broadcast, cable and satellite television changed the entertainment industry forever. After all, people watched more television than films and their fancy camcorders all used that aspect ratio and frame rate! 

[zlfan]

14 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

I'm sure in the future there will be films released in HFR as a stylized choice, but I can't see it becoming the standard. I don't think it's what the industry or the public really wants. 

If the way people consumed all other media had an impact on cinema it'd have switched over to 4:3 30 fps when broadcast, cable and satellite television changed the entertainment industry forever. After all, people watched more television than films and their fancy camcorders all used that aspect ratio and frame rate! 

actually 4:3 is in fashion again, in the new name of open gate anamorphic, thanks to alexa. lol. 

[Jedi Master]

I went with four friends to see The Hobbit in a theater that showed it at 48 FPS. I knew it was at 48 FPS, but my friends didn’t. I asked them after the movie if they noticed anything different and none of them did.

I liken this nostalgic liking of 24 FPS with hipster’s liking of vinyl LPs over CDs. Technically, CDs are much better in every measurable way than LPs, but these people somehow prefer LP sound despite the snap, crackle, and pops and the obvious distortion and wow and flutter. I suppose that’s because that’s what they’re used to or because they’re lemmings following the latest fad.

[Eric Calabros]

Making houses with wood was also based on limitations in other construction materials at the time, as they were either hard to supply or supplied expensively. Today there is almost no limitations and concrete is cheap, but wood is still prefered because its environment friendly. Just because something is old, it doesn't mean it will be replaced with the new. 24p became a standard because it was the cheapest way to do motion picture. But it also replicates dreaming. I don't know about you by my dreams look like anything other than what I see on ESPN.

[zlfan]

yoga masters or qigong masters may have espn 60p crystal clear dreams or imagination or out of body experience. when i was young, my dreams were clear and colorful, not now anymore, just some close to bw unclear dreams. but i never count frame rates in my dreams, i was either enjoy pursuing pretty girls, or afraid of being pursued by someone who wants to detain me or kill me for some reasons.  

[Django]

4 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

I went with four friends to see The Hobbit in a theater that showed it at 48 FPS. I knew it was at 48 FPS, but my friends didn’t. I asked them after the movie if they noticed anything different and none of them did.

I liken this nostalgic liking of 24 FPS with hipster’s liking of vinyl LPs over CDs. Technically, CDs are much better in every measurable way than LPs, but these people somehow prefer LP sound despite the snap, crackle, and pops and the obvious distortion and wow and flutter. I suppose that’s because that’s what they’re used to or because they’re lemmings following the latest fad.

Actually if you wanna get technical, a properly mastered high-quality vinyl LP has much more DR than CD or even lossless codec file. That's why audiophiles respect vinyl so much. Take a look at these numbers from the DR database for Daft Punk's RAM album (the reference for mastering):

 

and FYI, if you take care of vinyl, dust it off before playing and use a high-end player and cartridge, you will have zero crackle, pop, wow, flutter. Its like saying that analog film is all noisy and dusty. Vinyl is like IMAX 70mm.. with a proper scan it will be superior to your 2K/4K/8K digital footage. Analog is still very popular in audio production (much more so than in photo/film industry) and for good reason. And while its true that some hipsters buy into analog only for the retro/cool factor, its just as ignorant to claim analog inferior to digital. If you know what you're doing it most certainly is not. 

[Emanuel]

They are different stuff for sure and ignore it trying to believe there's a new standard coming because it is fancy and more appealing to new audiences is a bit like to think a new tendence on global acceptance of LGBTQ on the rise will make heterossexuals like me guess we are so old-fashioned, so close to animal extinction, if we don't change!... LOL

- EAG :- )

[kye]

23 hours ago, zlfan said:

24p is hailed as cinematic. it was just a frugal approach at the time of film days. 

5k 60p of gp 12 is so smooth. seeing is believing. 

Computer displays are a long way from being superior to human vision, so it's all about compromises and the various aesthetics of each choice.

I would encourage you to learn more about how human vision works, it can be very helpful when developing an aesthetic.

A few things that might be of interest:

• Here's a research paper outlining that the human eye can perceive flicker at 500Hz:
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25644611/
• Here's a research paper saying that people could see and interpret an image from a frame shown for 13ms, which is one frame in 77fps video:
  https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/107157/13414_2013_605_ReferencePDF.pdf;jsessionid=6850F7A807AB7EEEFA83FFEEE3ACCAEF?sequence=1
• The human eye sees continually without "frames" and has continual motion-blur, normal video also has these with the motion blur represented as a proportion of the frame rate (where 360 degrees is 100%) but the human eye has a much faster frame rate than motion blur, so we might (for example) have a "shutter-angle" of dozens or hundreds of frames

Video is an area where technology is improving rapidly and a lot of the time the newer things are better, but that's not always the case.

The other thing to keep in mind is that there are different goals - some people want to create something that looks lifelike but other people want to create things that don't look real.  Much of the tools and techniques in cinema and high-end TV production are to deliberately make things not look real, but to look surreal or 'larger than life' etc.

6 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

I went with four friends to see The Hobbit in a theater that showed it at 48 FPS. I knew it was at 48 FPS, but my friends didn’t. I asked them after the movie if they noticed anything different and none of them did.

I've been doing video and high-end audio for quite some time and have put many folks in front of high-end systems or shown people controlled tests of things back-to-back, and often people do notice differences but don't talk about them because they don't know what you're asking, or don't have the language to describe what they're seeing or hearing and don't want to sound dumb, or simply don't care and don't want to get into some long discussion.

Asking people who have just seen a movie for the first time if they noticed "anything different" is a very strange approach - if they hadn't seen the film then everything about the film would have been different.  Literally thousands of things - the costumes, the lighting, the seats, how loud it was, how this cinema smelled compared to the last one, etc.

Better would be to sit people in front of a controlled test and show them two images with as few variables changed as possible.  Even then it can be challenging.  When I first started out I couldn't tell the difference between 24p and 60p, now I hate the way 60p looks and quite dislike 30p as well.  Lots of people also knew what the 'soap opera effect' is, without being camera nerds..

[Emanuel]

On a not less serious note, the only advantage I see to shoot on 50p/60p or even 100fps/120fps is either going after the slowmo chance route on a 24p/25p timeline later on or stereoscope applications without the need for capture devices with the genlock feature all included in the bill to pay for the tool straight to the BTL (Below the Line) costs usually fixed and with a full impact directly within your budget for acquisition.

But as someone already wrote here, if you want to respect the 360º look, don't forget you'll also either need for more light or a much more capable piece of technology, hence why I praise every single release to couple HFR feature on bright side of a good IQ balance and low light performance as has recently happened even from small sensor size introductions on light setup side of the world ; )

That.

Not silly attempts on reinventing the wheel ;- )

I don't give a damn if their names are Peter Jackson or the free diver James Cameron : ) With the due respect, those names are no more than a mention in a single page of the history of this medium.

In a word, hype.

In a line, film aesthetics is much more than mere hype just for trying a larger entry into this book...

- EAG :- )

[hojomo]

21 hours ago, EduPortas said:

No.

60p = sports

30p = TV

24 = cinema

Sorry Tony, some things will never change. 

The futurists are certainly free to have their preferences & do whatever they want in this age - but this properly matches the aesthetics to the general subjects. In this case -- the traditional approach is the superior one 😞 .

HFR Lotr was dreadful and a total disaster. Most viewers (in US at least) only saw it projected at 24P.

The reality that these days a bunch of people can't tell the difference between any of this is meaningless to me when it comes to what I choose to make. How many people are falling off heights to their deaths taking selfies every year?

All of the disposable content, trends and mindless bs that western social media encourages & runs on doesn't automatically fall under the category of 'progress' -- sorry.

[Jedi Master]

9 hours ago, Django said:

Actually if you wanna get technical, a properly mastered high-quality vinyl LP has much more DR than CD

Yes, I want to get technical. 😉

That’s factually incorrect. An LP has a dynamic range of, at best 70 dB, with most lower than that. A CD has a dynamic range of 90 dB, which is significantly more than LP since the dB scale is logarithmic.

What I said above applies to the baseline capabilities of the two formats. However, lots of rock and pop music gets the living hell compressed out of it to increase the overall loudness level. Wikipedia has a good article on this so-called “loudness war”. The CD format, with its inherent better dynamic range, makes it possible to push this to extremes. You can’t do this to such an extent on vinyl because the stylus would skip out of the groove. So yes, some recordings on LPs have more dynamic range than the same recording on CD, but that’s the fault of idiot producers who demand that the audio engineers crank up the overall volume to ridiculous levels, not any inherent limitation of the CD format.

9 hours ago, Django said:

and FYI, if you take care of vinyl, dust it off before playing and use a high-end player and cartridge, you will have zero crackle, pop, wow, flutter. Its like saying that analog film is all noisy and dusty. Vinyl is like IMAX 70mm.. with a proper scan it will be superior to your 2K/4K/8K digital footage. Analog is still very popular in audio production (much more so than in photo/film industry) and for good reason. And while its true that some hipsters buy into analog only for the retro/cool factor, its just as ignorant to claim analog inferior to digital. If you know what you're doing it most certainly is not. 

Cleaning an LP is tedious and has to be done before every playing, and even then it’s difficult to get rid of all sources of clicks and pops. Every play of an LP results in wear that results in degraded sound that cannot be fixed and only gets worse the more the LP is played. If an LP pressing is not perfectly flat and the hole not perfectly centered, this will also affect the sound. With mass production, such imperfections are inevitable.

Inner tracks on an LP sound worse than outer tracks because the LP format uses a constant angular velocity and inner tracks have to fit the same amount of information into a shorter length of track.

I’ll stand by my position that vinyl LPs, from purely a technical perspective, are inferior to CDs in every measurable aspect of audio performance. To claim otherwise is audiophoolery.

Lots of people like LPs for various reasons, including nostalgia, the larger album art, the physical act of playing an LP, and the “warmer” sound that’s the result of the peculiar distortions of the format, but they’re only fooling themselves if they think LPs are superior technically.

[Jedi Master]

7 hours ago, kye said:

Asking people who have just seen a movie for the first time if they noticed "anything different" is a very strange approach - if they hadn't seen the film then everything about the film would have been different.

My four friends who saw the movie with me were all engineers and they knew I wasn’t asking costumes or anything like that. After they said they didn’t notice anything different, I told them the movie was shot and projected at 48 FPS, and they still said they didn’t notice that—they all said it seemed just like another movie in that regard.

Yes, this wasn’t a scientific test by any means, but it did indicate to me that 48 FPS didn’t stick out like a sore thumb to my very technically-minded friends. The gold standard in audio testing is double-blind testing with accurately matched levels, etc. Something similar could probably be arranged with projection video or film. One difference would be that people participating in a test like this would be looking for differences and probably more attuned to them, whereas my friends were not.