|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cmjohnson wrote: | | I don't disagree with any of this except to note that a lot of hardcore gamers want more than 60 FPS out of their games. |
Correct. 60 fps is the minimum. No game or video card/hardware gives you consistent frame rates. It's all about keep the minimum above 60 (if possible).
| Quote: | Some people want to see different things out of a movie. Myself, I want to see it as if I was there watching events unfold with my own eyes. Because of that, things I find objectionable in movies are motion that doesn't look realistic (too much or not enough motion blur), messing with the color palette, and stupid camera angles and a shaky image from a hand-held camera.
Even when I was six years old the original Batman TV series drove me nuts with its wacky camera angles and comic book BAM! POW! graphics splattered across the screen every time somebody got punched or a chair got busted over his head. |
To each their own I suppose.
To me a movie is like a piece of art, to be viewed as the artist intended as the way it's presented is as much a part of the story as the characters in the movie.
I would never reframe a piece of art of change the colours used by the artist because I prefer something different. Just seems wrong.
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I wouldn't have the movies reshot to suit my tastes, either. But some visual choices I just find kind of irritating.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kal wrote: | So it's some sort of illegal remastering or similar using some sort of motion interpolation similar to the Clear Motion Drive option that JVC has on their projectors?
Those are not 'real' movies shot at 60 fps. They are modified/hacked versions. I don't have any interest. They're changing the director's original intent. No different than colourization or pan and scan (though I'd argue that those two are more severe changes).
I was just curious how that could even be possible given that the original movies were not shot at higher frame rate.
A quick Google shows that are indeed tons of popular movies that have been illegally "remastered" to 60 fps. Some discussions:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/415afg/any_60fps_movie_torrents/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/2w4cnf/60_fps_movies/
Keep in mind that these are not real 60 fps movies. They're interpolated. There's still only 24 fps of actual content. So they'd never look as good or smooth as a real 60 fps movie.
|
I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above.
I also don't see the appeal of increasing the frame-rate of movies, but for those who want to do it, what is so hard? I can just push a button on my Teranex and change 24p into 29.97, 30, 59.94, or 60p dynamically, in real time (or 25/50p, for that matter). It does so flawlessly, but I don't understand why anyone would do it.
I haven't been keeping track of the Lumagens for years now, but can't they do something like this too? Perhaps not, because it's something no one cares about (outside of special situations where standards-conversions are required, like occasions where I've converted from PAL to NTSC).
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cmjohnson wrote: | | Plus, thanks to the wonders of automated animation and editing software and their ability to generate most of the imagery without human input, using keyframes as the reference points, the labor to deal with these extra 25 percent of frames (or more) is far less than the labor to hand animate and edit individual frames. |
Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. 
| Quote: | | If 30 or 60 FPS moviemaking isn't yet a standard, I predict it will be before long. |
I predict that your credibility will take a nosedive my friend, if you continue to make predictions like that.  I'm sure we'll see a few more films done in 48p, but I doubt we'll be seeing any at either rate you are so enamored of. With one major reason being that most folks seeing HFR films simply don't like them!.
It's also a bit mystifying to me why you would frame things in that way? "If" it isn't yet a standard? There's nothing iffy about it.  It's totally not. Or perhaps you are not yet convinced of that reality.
| Quote: | | But that won't help any of us viewing the existing catalog of 24FPS movies... |
Luckily, we don't need to be "helped".  You make it sound like a defect, that needs to be cured, when it's not.
| Quote: | | ...that are unlikely to be remade at 30 or 60FPS. |
Unlikely, eh?  That's putting it mildly. Movies can never be "remade" in that sense, because you couldn't replicate them, even if the actors were still alive, to re-film them at 60 fps. But if you meant "converted to", anyone can do that right now, without waiting for the studios to do it. Many digital PJs already have various FI (frame-interpolation) capabilities. And for the most part, most people keep them shut off (for films), and use them only for video content, sports, etc.
If that's not quite good enough (e.g., you prefer to stick with the unique PQ that only CRT provides), just pick up a Teranex, and hit the 60p button. They're way cheaper now than they used to be in the old days. (MSRP on a 2D Standards Converter is down to $2k.) And enjoy your own personal nirvana, on every movie ever filmed in that 'antiquated' 24 fps. 
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The trend toward higher bandwidth in EVERY data transmission format as availability of higher bandwidth pipelines expands is unmistakable and really can not be argued with.
When you consider that the age of film based moviemaking is drawing to a close, 4K now being "entry level" for any
semi-professional and even hobbyist filmmaker, and there being very little chance of digitally recorded movies ever being
transcribed to film at ANY frame rate, there's really no doubt at all that frame rates of digitally recorded movies are on the
increase and will continue to increase as processing power, bandwidth, and storage become larger and cheaper.
I cite the current lineup of the popular professisional grade RED cameras as simple evidence of this FACT:
RED Scarlet: 5K resolution up to 48 FPS
RED Epic: 6K resolution up to 100 FPS
RED Raven: 4.5K resolution up to 120 FPS
RED Scarlet-W: 5K resolution up to 60 FPS
RED Weapon: 8K resolution up to 75 FPS, 6K resolution up to 100 FPS.
In actual fact there isn't a single professional grade HD or 4K movie camera in current production that isn't capable of substantially more than 24 FPS.
There's no way that Red, or any other camera company, would be investing money in high frame rate cameras if there wasn't a demand for high frame rates.
You saying that film will never be accepted past 24 FPS is every bit of as much of a dinosaur's attitude as saying that the CRT
projector will always be the best way to watch a movie.
Next you'll be saying you prefer your house to be lit with reliable gas lighting rather than those newfangled, unnatural looking incandescent light bulbs.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VideoGrabber wrote: | | Many digital PJs already have various FI (frame-interpolation) capabilities. And for the most part, most people keep them shut off (for films), and use them only for video content, sports, etc. |
Exactly. My JVC has "clean motion drive" with 3 levels of adjustment that do exactly like Tim said and what CM seems to like: Takes 24 fps looking film and makes it look like butter-smooth 60fps. I use it sometimes when watching BBC nature documentaries where I want to "feel" like I'm actually there in person, but for everything else I leave it off as I don't like it with 'regular' movies.
If you really like this 60 fps 'feel' CM, pick up a JVC or a Teranex like Tim suggests. Most people don't.
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Last edited by kal on Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cmjohnson wrote: | | The trend toward higher bandwidth in EVERY data transmission format as availability of higher bandwidth pipelines expands is unmistakable and really can not be argued with. |
Correct. But completely irrelevant. They're filming at higher and high resolutions but for the most part directors are not filming at higher frame rates BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT.
| Quote: | | ... there's really no doubt at all that frame rates of digitally recorded movies are on the increase and will continue to increase as processing power, bandwidth, and storage become larger and cheaper. |
Sorry, but you're showing your complete lack of understanding of the filming industry if you think that. High FPS isn't a new thing. It's been available for years. People (including most directors and cinematographers) simply do not want it. You seem to think it's because the technology until recently wasn't there and that simply isn't true.
| Quote: | I cite the current lineup of the popular professisional grade RED cameras as simple evidence of this FACT:
RED Scarlet: 5K resolution up to 48 FPS
RED Epic: 6K resolution up to 100 FPS
RED Raven: 4.5K resolution up to 120 FPS
RED Scarlet-W: 5K resolution up to 60 FPS
RED Weapon: 8K resolution up to 75 FPS, 6K resolution up to 100 FPS. |
So what?
There is a place for filming high FPS. Major motion pictures is not one of them. Because, as we've been saying, for the most part directors, cinematographers, and the audience do not like it.
| Quote: | | In actual fact there isn't a single professional grade HD or 4K movie camera in current production that isn't capable of substantially more than 24 FPS. |
Again, so what?
Actually I'll flip the argument around here: Yes, equipment for shoot higher than 24 FPS has existed for years, but there's only 1 major motion picture in existence today that is shown at higher than 24fps (The Hobbit). Why is that? It's because directors, cinematographers, and the audience do not like it.
| Quote: | | There's no way that Red, or any other camera company, would be investing money in high frame rate cameras if there wasn't a demand for high frame rates. |
For certain use, yes, for major motion pictures, no. They're not making cameras only for major motion pictures! Surely you realize this!
| Quote: | You saying that film will never be accepted past 24 FPS is every bit of as much of a dinosaur's attitude as saying that the CRT projector will always be the best way to watch a movie.
Next you'll be saying you prefer your house to be lit with reliable gas lighting rather than those newfangled, unnatural looking incandescent light bulbs. |
These are not valid comparisons at all. These examples you cite are all advances in technology. Going from 24fps to 60fps (or other higher frame rates) is not an advancement in technology. It's simply different. The ability to shoot at higher fps has been around a long time. Again, 24fps versus 60fps or other higher frame rate is a different 'feel'. Going to 60fps isn't a technical improvement or more convenient like the examples you cite.
There were changes in film technology over the years too, film with lower grain, better colours, and so forth. But that didn't mean that everyone automatically switched to these newer technologies. The director/cinematographer would choose a specific film stock based on the look and feel they wanted and that wasn't necessarily the 'newest' technology.
Higher than 24fps is just another item that director/cinematographer has available to them in their tool box. It's been around for a while, but most choose to not use it.
Tell me, the only high frame rate major motion picture ever released (The Hobbit, shot at 48 fps) was filmed in 2011. Since then there have been ZERO movies shot at higher frame rate. Why is that? I'll give you a hint: It has nothing to do with technology.
From Wikipedia:
| Quote: | | 48p is a progressive format and is currently being trialled in the film industry. At twice the traditional rate of 24p, this frame rate attempts to reduce motion blur and flicker found in films. Director James Cameron stated his intention to film the two sequels to his film Avatar higher than 24 frames per second to add a heightened sense of reality.[12] The first film to be filmed at 48 FPS was The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, a decision made by its director Peter Jackson.[13] At a preview screening at CinemaCon, the audience's reaction was mixed after being shown some of the film's footage at 48p, with some arguing that the feel of the footage was too lifelike (thus breaking the suspension of disbelief).[14] |
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd suggest that people don't always welcome what is new with open arms. People thought the horseless carriage would never replace the trusty low maintenance, self-repairing, self-replicating horse.
People thought electricity was a novelty, not a revolution.
People thought computers would always be massive things occupying whole buildings and programmed with punched cards and would use a big row of lights as its display.
But after they get used to new things, they start to like them. So the movie going audience isn't exactly experienced with a lot of
high frame rate movies, but give them some time and more high frame rate movies to watch and I guarantee that they'll become progressively more accepted as time goes on, just like the number of horses on the streets slowly dwindled away while more and more of those gas-burning infernal contraptions took over the roads in the early years of the 20th century.
Gamers LOVE high frame rates. So do people like me who find that fast motion scenes look better on film with enough motion blur, or look good at a high enough frame rate that it doesn't end up looking like a rapid rate slide show.
Nobody's questioning that film looks good. But higher frame rates are the future and people will come to accept it, and in fact many
will prefer higher frame rates eventually.
Besides, 24 FPS makes no sense in an increasingly digital world where all other video media is produced at 30 FPS and beyond.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're very confused and completely illogical CM.
Did you not read what I wrote above as to why most people do not like higher frame rates for major motion pictures? It's because they felt the footage was too lifelike (thus breaking the suspension of disbelief).
You want gaming to feel lifelike so you want high frame rates (the higher the better). So your comparison of frame rates in major motion pictures vs gaming is irrelevant and illogical.
| Quote: | | ... people like me who find that fast motion scenes look better on film with enough motion blur, or look good at a high enough frame rate that it doesn't end up looking like a rapid rate slide show. |
That you. Most people do not because it breaks the suspension of disbelief.
| Quote: | | But higher frame rates are the future and people will come to accept it, and in fact many will prefer higher frame rates eventually. |
I have no idea where it's going but I do know that today most do not like higher than 24 fps today. Nobody knows where the industry's going. I find it really odd that just because you seem to like higher FPS across the board for everything you assume that the rest of the world will too going forward. That's really weird and illogical. You keeping making these "advancements in technology" comparisons which do not make any sense either as it has nothing to do with advancements in technology.
| Quote: | | Besides, 24 FPS makes no sense in an increasingly digital world where all other video media is produced at 30 FPS and beyond. |
This makes absolutely no sense.
I give up.
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Last edited by kal on Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmob135lc
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:58 pm Post subject: oddity/whimsicality |
|
|
Well, if 24 fps can mess up a (supposedly smoothly scrolling) panoramic shoot , then it messes up close up shoots even much worse, & there should be an intermediate format , where the director can specify exactly the wanted amount temporal aliasing eg. mess up (see below).. I agree defending 24fps is very whimsy by ones who became accustomed to it. Directors should collectively grow some balls against such oddity/whimsicality.
| Quote: | | Temporal aliasing is caused by the sampling rate (i.e. number of frames per second) of a scene being too low compared to the transformation speed of objects inside of the scene; this causes objects to appear to jump or appear at a location instead of giving the impression of smoothly moving towards them. To avoid aliasing artifacts altogether, the sampling rate of a scene must be at least twice as high as the fastest moving object.[1] The shutter behavior of the sampling system (typically a camera) strongly influences aliasing, as the overall shape of the exposure over time determines the band-limiting of the system before sampling, an important factor in aliasing. A temporal anti-aliasing filter can be applied to a camera to achieve better band-limiting.[2] A common example of temporal aliasing in film is the appearance of vehicle wheels travelling backwards, the so-called wagon-wheel effect. Temporal anti-aliasing can also help to reduce jaggies, making images appear softer.[3] |
By that time CRT will have the even more mysterious Zorro neckboards I presume. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
barclay66
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
Posts: 1304
Location: Germany
TV/Projector: Marquee 9500 Ultra
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi,
There is a reason why modern digital cameras are available with higher framerates than 24 fps: Scenes in slow motion! Very popular in recent action movies...
Regards,
barclay66
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| barclay66 wrote: | | There is a reason why modern digital cameras are available with higher framerates than 24 fps: Scenes in slow motion! Very popular in recent action movies... |
A good example. The framerate that a camera is able to capture isn't necessarily going to be the framerate that the finished product is going to be shown at. That's what I was trying to point out CM above when he mentioned that cameras can all capture higher than 24 fps. It's irrelevant to the playback FPS that directors may choose to use for major motion pictures.
Guys, I don't think Tim and I are defending 24 fps. We're simply trying to explain why it hasn't been picked up by most, and explain why the idea that eventually higher FPS will "without a doubt/unequivocally" be the standard that CM seems to think it will be is completely illogical. He has no idea, any more than we do what will be used 10, 50, 100 years from now any more than we can guess what an artist's favourite paint colours will be in the future. Because that's all that FPS is: It's an artistic medium with no right/wrong, or better/worse.
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Last edited by kal on Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What is completely illogical to me is the assertion that a higher framerate disturbs the viewer's suspension of disbelief.
I mean, really, parse that one out. Apply logic to it.
Disbelief: You don't buy what you're seeing.
Suspend disbelief: You buy it. You're willing to go with what you see.
Increase framerate to something that is more realistic...because the world is not running at only 24 FPS, you know...and you don't buy what you're seeing anymore?
That makes perfect logical sense....IN BIZARRO WORLD.
I stand by these beliefs: 1: Movie framerates in the future will increase. 2: Many viewers will prefer the difference.
And, 3: 24 FPS was ever and only originally chosen because it delivered generally satisfactory performance at a reasonable cost.
Not because it made the best looking film, but because it was at the sweet spot in the tug of war between keeping costs down and delivering enough quality to satisfy the viewers. We became used to 24 FPS. It was normal, it was ordinary, it was familiar.
Change it and suddenly it's unfamiliar, out of our comfort zone, and may take some getting used to.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cmjohnson wrote: | | The trend toward higher bandwidth in EVERY data transmission format as availability of higher bandwidth pipelines expands is unmistakable and really can not be argued with. |
You're right. I wouldn't argue that higher bandwidths are now available, and will increasingly be so in the future.
At the same time, it's probably not wise to opine that HFR will be a natural outcome of that evolution. Especially so, considering the shift to streaming more and more, where BW is still highly constrained, and will be allocated to resolution and bit-depth first, long before higher frame rates are even considered.
| Quote: | ...
In actual fact there isn't a single professional grade HD or 4K movie camera in current production that isn't capable of substantially more than 24 FPS. |
I'll give you all that. But I never claimed anything otherwise. However just because they're developing capabilities doesn't imply their purpose is for recording movies.
| Quote: | | You saying that film will never be accepted past 24 FPS is every bit of as much of a dinosaur's attitude as saying that the CRT projector will always be the best way to watch a movie. |
Yes, that would be a dinosaur's attitude, and I'm not quite there yet. (Close, but not quite. ) And I don't think I said 'never'. You said 'before long', and that's what I was disagreeing with. The simple fact that film started out at 24 fps, and has been so ever since, means the 'feel' that it provides is what everyone (so far) has come to associate with movies. As Kal points out, that's a critical element of how we suspend our disbelief, and can relate to and become immersed in the imaginary world the film creates.
But that's just what it is now. I can't tell you (and wouldn't) that it's not possible that eventually (generations) that kids growing up could start out on a diet of movies recorded at 120 fps, and that could be their 'norm'. Who knows? And then, if they saw 24 fps, it would look very unnatural to them, just as even something as closely related as 48 fps looks unnatural to (most of) us today. Could happen. <shrug>
But I think you're mistaking the real point that I and others are trying to make. I'm not arguing that the 60 fps and 120 fps you are advocating wouldn't be 'more accurate', and capture more fully and with higher temporal resolution real-life events. I also agree that if your goal is to see every detail of movement in a fast-action scene, then these HFRs would certainly help with that. And if I were using them to analyze a real-life event, I would have the same preference as you've expressed for 'give me more'.
But that's not the situation. Movies are not real. They're not dashcams of life. They start out as a figment of someone's imagination, and then get transformed into a visual exposition that uses all sorts of techniques to pull us into an imaginary world. Perhaps as crude analogy, a painting vs. a photograph. Recording at 24 fps is just one of those, but it's an important one. For now anyway.
But just to be clear, I'm NOT saying that what you are forecasting will NEVER come to pass. It might, some day. I think if it does, that would be a loss. But I could be wrong there too, and that may be nothing more than my lifetime of experience watching films. However I do disagree with your assertions that this is something that is coming soon, AND that it is something we should welcome.
| Quote: | | Next you'll be saying you prefer your house to be lit with reliable gas lighting rather than those newfangled, unnatural looking incandescent light bulbs. |
What's an incandescent bulb? I'm about 40% LED, and 60% CFL.
But hey! "Don't touch that dial", while I go" tape" something off an "antenna" to watch later.
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VideoGrabber wrote: |
But hey! "Don't touch that dial", while I go" tape" something off an "antenna" to watch later. |
I can still do this ^
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cmjohnson wrote: | | I stand by these beliefs: 1: Movie framerates in the future will increase. 2: Many viewers will prefer the difference. |
What evidence can you cite to support that "belief"?
| Quote: | | We became used to 24 FPS. It was normal, it was ordinary, it was familiar. |
And it became tightly associated with what we consider to be 'cinematic'. I.e., a specific art form.
| Quote: | | Change it and suddenly it's unfamiliar, out of our comfort zone, and may take some getting used to. |
Riiiight. That sounds like an EXCELLENT way to make boatloads of profits, off the huge investments that go into movies. Make a product that is "uncomfortable", and viewers need to "get used to". I can see the studios lining up for that right now.
No, wait... I DON'T see that! Wow, that's just totally bizarro.
It seems to me that you are overlooking movies as art forms, and only looking to what can be done to achieve a closer reproduction of 'reality', as you put it. But there's a HUGE difference between creating and reproducing. What are your feelings toward paintings? Are they pointless now, because technology makes it possible to reproduce an image vastly more accurately? Not to mention much more easily? Is accuracy the only metric that concerns you? (And BTW, I'm not implying that photographs can't be 'artistic' as well.)
If your feeling is that not only should we strive for 'accuracy' at all costs, but that people are actually wanting that and would embrace it, could you explain to me why studios are spending lots of money to ADD 'film-grain' to their pristine digital movie recordings? All that is doing is "degrading" the quality, in what must be a feeble attempt to recreate the look & feel of film stock (more 'dinosaur' thinking). What's the point there?
xmob135lc commented:
| Quote: | | defending 24fps is very whimsy by ones who became accustomed to it. Directors should collectively grow some balls against such oddity/whimsicality. |
An interesting perspective. So Directors should produce a product that the vast majority don't want. Presumably to jolt them out of their stupor, and educate them on the 'better way'. The fact they won't buy into that (or buy the product), and thus the product will not be a commercial success is not relevant. Because if they just "had balls", they'd do it anyway. In spite of hundred-million dollar losses, and not being given an opportunity to direct again. They could then join other DWB's (Directors With Balls) on the unemployment line. 
Films (sorry, movies) are artistic products, developed to be sold to an audience. It's fairly logical that the product they're creating would have been adapted pretty closely to what the paying audience wanted. If they truly wanted something else, then that demand would create a supply to match that. Ostensibly that will be happening "any day now".
Heck, forget the blockbuster movies with the enormous investments required just to get them off the ground. Please give me a list of just a few of the many "indie" movies that have been produced at 60 fps. I say many sarcastically, but if your assertions were valid, there is certainly nothing stopping indie movie makers from doing what you espouse. The gear to do it is right in their hands (and has been, for some time)... so where is that product?
Or is it your thesis that to get into the Directors Club, they had to have their balls removed first? And they just haven't had enough time to to grow new ones yet?
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, think about this for a moment. How many movies are really all ABOUT showing us something unfamiliar and out of our comfort zone?
EVERY MEMORABLE MOVIE EVER MADE QUALIFIES!!!!
The unmemorable ones DON'T qualify.
So don't tell me that there aren't directors and cinematographers out there that wouldn't be willing to mess with the frame rate,
because that changes the look of the movie...which is an ARTISTIC choice, to take the words right out of your mouth.
You're also missing out on an important reason why 24 FPS became standardized, and here's why:
| Quote: | 24 fps was an economical and technical decision
What changed everything was sound synchronization. Synchronizing sound with film was attempted as early as 1900, but the technology was too unreliable for major motion pictures. By the late 20s, it became possible to sync sound using a phonograph or similar device, interlocked mechanically with a projector. The first “talkie”, a film with recorded dialogue, used this method, set at 24 fps. It was 1927s The Jazz Singer.
Eventually, sound was synced to film by actually printing an optical track on the filmstrip alongside the image. This practice linked frame rate to the limitations of audio technology of the time. Given that film is an expensive medium, it was in Hollywood’s best interest to consume as little film as possible during a production. Although silent films ran at an average of 16 fps, it wasn’t possible to produce a quality soundtrack at that frame rate. Eventually, the studios decided on 24 fps because it was the slowest frame rate possible for producing intelligible sound; which means the decision was not an aesthetic decision, but a technical and economical decision. |
Source: https://vanillavideo.com/blog/2012/history-frame-rates-why-speeds-vary
Furthermore, in normal film PROJECTION, every frame is projected TWICE so your 24 FPS movie is seen as 48 FPS to the eye.
The reasons for sticking to 24 FPS in a digital era are rapidly dwindling. The only remaining reason is because the director or producer or cinematographer wants to.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmob135lc
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | They could then join other DWB's (Directors With Balls) on the unemployment line |
Haha . They should rather call themselves , Directors Against the Ineradicable Methods of Cinematic Bamboozling
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/ves-douglas-trumbull-peter-jackson-james-cameron-2001-kubrick-288290
Trumbull shouldn't even talk about such spectacle and immersion,
since
it's very clear now, there are directors who are not willing to compromise artistic freedom, and there are others who are easily caught up in profiteering and don't mind archaic, never mind archaic, ANTIDELUVIAN practices. No wonder they don't aid their uncompromising peers when they just can bath in the narcissistic limelight thru aiding some odd whimsicality, a narcissist will choose shortest possible path to the limelight always all the time.
Look at that URL:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/ves-douglas-trumbull-peter-jackson-james-cameron-2001-kubrick-288290
since it's not about some established whimsy stuff, it's necessarily risky , wow
maybe when they see the VR-kids are having some success and start stealing limelight, they will act , by aiding THAT OTHER WHIMSICALITY.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cmjohnson wrote: | | So don't tell me that there aren't directors and cinematographers out there that wouldn't be willing to mess with the frame rate, |
I won't, because there is no need for me to do so. You can see that for yourself, as the rest of us already have. Reality speaks volumes.
| Quote: | | because that changes the look of the movie...which is an ARTISTIC choice, to take the words right out of your mouth. |
Thanks! That's a refreshing change, because several times in this discussion you've been trying to put things IN my mouth, that I never said nor implied.
| Quote: | | You're also missing out on an important reason why 24 FPS became standardized, and here's why: |
Yet another assumption on your part, however the reasons why are not pertinent to the discussion we started off with. But I can understand why you'd want to steer things in another direction.
| Quote: | | Furthermore, in normal film PROJECTION, every frame is projected TWICE so your 24 FPS movie is seen as 48 FPS to the eye. |
Come on, CJ. You know darn well that everyone here is already aware of that. You're grasping at straws now.
| Quote: | | The reasons for sticking to 24 FPS in a digital era are rapidly dwindling. |
The technical constraints are already gone, and as Kal pointed out, have been for quite some time now.
| Quote: | | The only remaining reason is because the director or producer or cinematographer wants to. |
Great! I'm glad you have finally accepted what the rest of us have been saying all along.
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
What I think is remaining that we differ on is that I believe that higher frame rates for future (digitally recorded) films are going to become more common as time goes on.
I simply do not consider it likely that in 20 years most new films will still be shot at 24 FPS.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
