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

Post by jeremyswank » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 11:12 AM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #111

jeremyswank wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a grain effect added to a digital photo is a kind of affectation, an artifice that is not intimately connected to the process of making the image, included as a stylistic decision; possibly an afterthought. it seems dishonest (not necessarly wrong) but it is part of a panoply of effects that can be applied that constitute what's possible with digital. there's no need to 'lament' since each medium has its own panoply…

...interlace vs. progressive... Please, no. Interlacing doesn't have the same nostalgic effect as a 24fps frame rate, and only serves to lower video bandwidth for devices that can't handle a progressive image at the desired frame rate. It's a tradeoff between vertical and temporal resolution that works well for limited technology because it preserves the sharpness of still images. Basically everything except broadcas…

Post by jeremyswank » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 11:31 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…

Post by Raphael » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 3:31 PM UTC

jeremyswank wrote: post #121

nitrogen wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...interlace vs. progressive... Please, no. Interlacing doesn't have the same nostalgic effect as a 24fps frame rate, and only serves to lower video bandwidth for devices that can't handle a progressive image at the desired frame rate. It's a tradeoff between vertical and temporal resolution that works well for limited technology because it preserves the sharpness of still images. Basically everything except broadcas…

generally speaking, i'm no fan of interlace either, but my argument still stands that it could be used expressively -- in other words, to enhance the experience of the content for appropriate material. as an example, it might be a good choice if you were making a program and you wanted to exploit the impression that the viewer was watching a tv broadcast from a few decades ago.

Post by Raphael » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 3:45 PM UTC

peng wrote: post #124

encoderer wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just a layperson when it comes to film but I want to respectfully disagree with the assertion that it's all about lighting. A friend recently picked-up an LED "3D" tv. Now, I always thought the 3D is a BS gimmick, and I still do, though I will conceed that it does work far better than I ever thought it would. Which is, not at all. But the TV -- a samsung -- had a feature that reminds me a bit of up-converting, ho…

This is a straw man. Interpolated tweening frames are not the same as actual frames with new content. It may look like trash, but--then again--so do upscaled images.

Post by RVK » Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 5:58 PM UTC

electromagnetic wrote: post #105

RVK wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 roll…