11–20 of 141 posts
People are used to 24fps for movies now, however. In my opinion, higher framerates just end up making everything look like a sitcom.
We're at a local maxima. It will look better after it looks worse.
I suppose I am just wary of change simply for the sake of change. I would like to be able to see the same 24fps and 60fps scene side by side and evaluate the advantages myself.
It'd be awesome, but it's a long, long way away.
As Jim says, this is low-hanging fruit. Easily done with most everything that's on the shelf today.
Awesome!
It's finally happening. The 24 fps speed is a relic from the stone age of cinema, back when technology simply could not cope with higher frame rates. So all they could do was shoot at 24.
Then something odd happened. Everyone was shooting at 24, including the grand masters of the art. All the procedures, techniques, all the clever things they devised, took that frame rate as a given. They were not simply shooting AT 24 fps, they were shooting FOR 24 fps.
Thus the "film look", which is the way a motion picture looks if it's shot at 24 fps using the standard cinema techniques. From a technical limitation, it became a cultural given. Because Bunuel and Eisenstein and Bergman all shot at 24 fps, everyone simply assumed this is how cinema is supposed to look like. Higher speed video ended up being seen as "cheaper looking, made for TV".
But it's exclusively a habit, a purely conventional thing, imposed by culture.
I remember thinking a while ago that, what it would take to break the mold is a few big names in cinema to start purposefully shoot at higher frame rates, and at the same time try and figure out new ways to express the same things at the new speed. Some geniuses need to reinvent the art to break free from the old stereotype.
Cameron filming at 48 or even (please, please, please) at 60 fps cannot do the same things that Cecil DeMille did at 24. Or, rather, is free to not do the same things, because the lower frame rate is limiting in many ways.
And now finally it happens. This is great. I hope 24 fps finds its true place - in the history books. It's time to move on.
My idea of great film tech? 8K, 60fps, and true 3-D (not the hokey 2-level thing) It'd be awesome, but it's a long, long way away. As Jim says, this is low-hanging fruit. Easily done with most everything that's on the shelf today.
Douglas Trumbull's 'Showscan' fprmat shot and projected 70mm film at 60 fps. The huge cost kept it from succeeding, though the visual impact was supposed to be amazing. Cameron's proposal will introduce similar perceptual problems to HD video - fake stuff will look more fake, every tiny detail of a performer's face will be apparent, and scenes that play a certain way at 24fps might fall flat at 60. One study showed t…
Wasn't Showscan also projected with more lumens? A quick search didn't reveal this, but I am sure I remember that Showscan was much brighter.
Google for 'samsung soap opera effect'.
My idea of great film tech? 8K, 60fps, and true 3-D (not the hokey 2-level thing) It'd be awesome, but it's a long, long way away. As Jim says, this is low-hanging fruit. Easily done with most everything that's on the shelf today.
"120 fps ought to be enough for everyone."
This is more exciting for me than 3d. I remember thinking this when I first noticed that counterstrike didn't feel right at <60fps while watching action films with 24fps
That's why a game at 24fps looks bad, but an (action) movie at 24fps looks good.
The problem is that 24 FPS is now part of the Hollywood "look". 24 FPS is associated with high quality high budget productions in people's minds; 60 FPS looks like a home movie or low-budget TV sitcom. It may take a while to change people's perceptions.
I assume that higher fps = higher digital payload = higher bandwidth load for ISP's, considering services like Netflix Since this will place a bigger burden on ISP's, they will use it as added ammunition when lobbying Washington re Net Neutrality, and the whole thing will become a political clusterf*ck. Ain't life in the US grand? But other than that, it sounds like a good idea.
Doubling the framerate will not double the bitrate. (Though it will increase it somewhat, probably not as much as you'd expect) Modern video codecs are getting pretty smart.