James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps) • Hacker News Board

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#101

Post by Florin_Andrei » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 1:29 AM UTC

relix wrote: post #18

VMG wrote: post #2

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 is because a game's frame is rendered at one absolute time point, while a movie's frame is like a photograph taken with a shutter speed of 1/24th: it includes the motion data of that whole time interval, it contains motion blur, and it's smooth from one frame to the next. That's why a game at 24fps looks bad, but an (action) movie at 24fps looks good.

> That's why a game at 24fps looks bad, but an (action) movie at 24fps looks good.

"Looks good"? Maybe passable. And that's only because of a century of experimentation with camera techniques allowing to eschew the limitations of the format.

E.g. try giving an amateur a 24 fps camera and ask them to shoot a sequence that involves a lot of panning. The result is going to look like junk.

Even in the hands of a professional it still doesn't look good. But we've all trained our brains to shut up and accept it, because we've all watched so much 24 fps content. It's 100% pavlovian conditioning, nothing else.

To someone coming from a universe where all motion pictures are shot at 60 fps or above, our movies would look excruciatingly bad.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#102

Post by Florin_Andrei » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 1:36 AM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #100

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A postmodernist would reply that everything is purely conventional. Others may disagree. But that's an entirely different can of worms.

I don't see how it's any different, I suppose. The aesthetics of the 24-fps film are aesthetics, just like basically any other aspect of film, ranging from acting styles to types of cuts. I happen to like the aesthetics of 24-fps film for certain kinds of scenes, and actually prefer 14-fps and 18-fps even more, again for certain kinds of scenes. You seem to be arguing that I don't "really" like the aesthetics, but am…

Wow, that's a lot of sophistry.

There are objective differences. 24 fps contains less information than 60 fps. Its temporal resolution is 2.5x worse.

Believe me, I can clearly see my own cultural bias. It keeps telling me 24 fps somehow does look okay. But we are not complete automata, we can distinguish between instinctive reactions (acquired tastes) and reality.

And the reality is, the higher the frame rate, the more information is recorded. An intentionally crippled low-framerate movie may serve certain esthetic norms, but that's pretty much all it does.

As far as 24 fps cinema is concerned, thanks to a century of conditioning, we're all pavlovian dogs.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#103

Post by _delirium » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 1:38 AM UTC

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #102

_delirium wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how it's any different, I suppose. The aesthetics of the 24-fps film are aesthetics, just like basically any other aspect of film, ranging from acting styles to types of cuts. I happen to like the aesthetics of 24-fps film for certain kinds of scenes, and actually prefer 14-fps and 18-fps even more, again for certain kinds of scenes. You seem to be arguing that I don't "really" like the aesthetics, but am…

Wow, that's a lot of sophistry. There are objective differences. 24 fps contains less information than 60 fps. Its temporal resolution is 2.5x worse. Believe me, I can clearly see my own cultural bias. It keeps telling me 24 fps somehow does look okay. But we are not complete automata, we can distinguish between instinctive reactions (acquired tastes) and reality. And the reality is, the higher the frame rate, the mo…

I guess I'm missing how information recorded is even relevant. If recording footage of a scientific phenomenon for later study, sure. But art? What principle says that more temporal resolution equals better aesthetics? This seems like some sort of cultural bias, assuming higher fidelity = better aesthetics, which I don't think is true.

I tend to prefer more stylized films overall, not just in temporal resolution either. If you prefer more realistic ones that seem like you're really watching a scene that's happening, that's a legitimate preference, but it's not mine. I'm not sure the 24-fps (or better, 18-fps) effect is the most important or best anti-realism aesthetic effect in a film-maker's toolbox, but it's one of them. It's probably, as you say, an accident of history that it's as widely used as it is, but it's in my view a positive accident of history. Modern Hollywood is far too realistic in its shooting style imo, and this is one of the few fortunate areas where it hasn't gone all the way off that cliff.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#104

Post by grandalf » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 1:57 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #28

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #13

> The filmmaker said that when he begins shooting the "Avatar" sequel in about 18 months, he will be shooting at a higher frame rate, though he has yet to decide if that will be 48 fps or 60 fps. He said George Lucas was "gung-ho" to make the conversion, and also called Peter Jackson one of his allies. Jackson, he said, had at one point been heavily weighing shooting "The Hobbit" at 48 fps. Awesome! It's finally happ…

I'm not a cinematographer but having gone to USC I met and talked with some (both aspiring and those who came back to give guest lectures). There was a digital projection system back in the 80's which had 60fps video, the output was much more 'real' in the sense of looking at the screen seemed more like you were looking at real life, and it jarred folks. One of the directors who was giving a lecture on the future of…

Now we have higher framerate digital and post-production teal and orange effects.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#105

Post by electromagnetic » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 2:00 AM UTC

RVK wrote: post #78

electromagnetic wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the Hollywood "look" is having tens/hundreds of millions of dollars to dump. TV looks low-budget because it is low budget. But there's a big difference between real low budget TV and simply TV. Honestly, download an original British or Canadian drama show that doesn't get carried in the US and you'll see low budget. You'll see horrific, unwatchable direction. I'm sorry, but give Sam Raimi a video camera with any…

I can't speak for Canadian TV but primetime British dramas are generally technically excellent - for instance, this year's Oscar winner for Best Director, Tom Hooper, has directed episodes of Cold Feet, EastEnders and Byker Grove. Practically nothing that doesn't feature US accents and locations is picked up by the networks - sometimes period co-productions sneak in, as long as there's pretty frocks and no swearing.…

I'm not arguing against you, I'm from the UK and there are some great shows. Skins has been technically excellent since its onset, I even got my wife (Canadian) watching it. Shameless is another example. Even shows like Hollyoaks (if it's still on) are technically great, I actually thought their quality of shooting (the clearness of camera positioning, etc.) was better than shows like 24 were managing and it's a rolling-production with 1 week to film an episode and 3 episodes airing a week.

I'm talking, look at the first episode of Primeval. It was atrocious across the board from acting to directing and 3D graphics; especially for reaching an audience of ~6.8 million. Compare that to the outstanding production qualities of Stargate Universe that only got ~2.3 million in a 5x bigger market.

My example are shows like the Canadian Flashpoint, which despite a decent budget and getting 1 million viewers can just be awful. The stories often have little reasoning behind them (shit literally just happens), the direction can often be gaudy by trying to make grand shots and just utterly failing. It often feels cold, like they're not using close-ups right. I often find this in many British shows too, comedies and traditional dramas not so much, but especially a lot of the police shows can be awful.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#106

Post by _delirium » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 2:00 AM UTC

modeless wrote: post #7

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.

That's likely a big part of it, but there are also genuine aesthetic effects. In the arthouse-film world, Super 8 filmmakers can normally choose between 18 fps and 24 fps, and don't have the same baggage Hollywood does in which only one of those "looks right": both 18-fps and 24-fps films are accepted by audiences as legitimate. Yet some directors choose one, some choose the other, and some directors switch depending on the film, because 18-fps and 24-fps shooting produce different stylistic effects.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#107

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 2:10 AM UTC

brianpan wrote: post #83

tomerico wrote: post #48

A video comparing 24 fps to 60 fps (In video games, where the difference is higher) http://mckack.tumblr.com/post/3535190601/60fps-vs-24fps

I really must be "blind". I can see the difference side-by-side (especially the moving ball) but the difference is so slight. Even 15fps looked fine to me. If you showed them to me back-to-back, I don't think I could tell the difference. Which is frustrating to me, because I know the difference but I wish I could see the difference. I feel like my eyes are failing me. This is watching the downloaded avi.

[deleted]

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#108

Post by astrodust » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 2:38 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #28

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #13

> The filmmaker said that when he begins shooting the "Avatar" sequel in about 18 months, he will be shooting at a higher frame rate, though he has yet to decide if that will be 48 fps or 60 fps. He said George Lucas was "gung-ho" to make the conversion, and also called Peter Jackson one of his allies. Jackson, he said, had at one point been heavily weighing shooting "The Hobbit" at 48 fps. Awesome! It's finally happ…

I'm not a cinematographer but having gone to USC I met and talked with some (both aspiring and those who came back to give guest lectures). There was a digital projection system back in the 80's which had 60fps video, the output was much more 'real' in the sense of looking at the screen seemed more like you were looking at real life, and it jarred folks. One of the directors who was giving a lecture on the future of…

I think any picture Leonardo would have taken would be a significant cultural artifact, as would any telephone he built, or any computer he made.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#109

Post by bzbarsky » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 3:18 AM UTC

Geee wrote: post #95

VMG wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just hit pause on practically any movie when there is movement

It is really interesting how our brain compensates for the motion blur in films. I mean, you don't usually notice that things are really blurry until you pause the movie.

Our brain compensates for motion blur, period, because everything we see is effectively slightly blurred due to our eyes' response to light changes being non-instantaneous.

Specifically, cone response time seems to be on the order of 15-20ms if I read http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14990682 correctly. And that's just to go from initial stimulation to peak response; presumably the response also dies off in nonzero time, so the full width of the response in time is more than 20ms. Rods respond slower than cones according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell though I can't find numbers.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#110

Post by sp332 » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 3:33 AM UTC

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #102

_delirium wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how it's any different, I suppose. The aesthetics of the 24-fps film are aesthetics, just like basically any other aspect of film, ranging from acting styles to types of cuts. I happen to like the aesthetics of 24-fps film for certain kinds of scenes, and actually prefer 14-fps and 18-fps even more, again for certain kinds of scenes. You seem to be arguing that I don't "really" like the aesthetics, but am…

Wow, that's a lot of sophistry. There are objective differences. 24 fps contains less information than 60 fps. Its temporal resolution is 2.5x worse. Believe me, I can clearly see my own cultural bias. It keeps telling me 24 fps somehow does look okay. But we are not complete automata, we can distinguish between instinctive reactions (acquired tastes) and reality. And the reality is, the higher the frame rate, the mo…

I think you're missing GP's point. The look of black-and-white film creates a different feel than color film. Clearly, there's a lot of "information" missing from a black-and-white film. But filmmakers still use it when they want that feel. Same with the way CSI colors everything blue. Sure, it loses a lot of color info and distorts the gamut etc. but it has a particular feel because of that. So, sometimes (maybe even most of the time) you want a smoother picture with more motion information. But sometimes you want something that feels choppier. Example: http://revision3.com/filmriot/warfilm There's a short film at the beginning that demonstrates the techniques they're talking about, with commentary starting about 5:00 in. Specifically, in this film, they used a high shutter speed at 24 fps to create a choppier look. If they used 60 fps, motion would be smoothed out, so even with a high shutter speed the violent feel created by missing information wouldn't be the same.