Leaderboard

The display format and venue also matter. Oppenheimer doesn't look dated in the IMAX theatre in 24p. Looks incredible, to old and new generations alike. So to say 24p is outdated is just a blanket statement really. And equally, to say 60p isn't cinematic is also a blanket statement. It can be.... All depends on a lot else, other than just frame rate.

Every movie that I really enjoy and watch over and over has elements that are purposely unrealistic, whether in the image, the staging, or characterization. I'm not talking about technical story unrealism, like elves or warp speeds. ^ Here, it's not the image quality, considering the time it was shot. However, the staging of the actors is unrealistic. The way they pose, the dialog--no one actually does that or speaks that way. One of my top 5 films, and perhaps my favorite opening scene ever. ^ Have you ever seen a toy shop organized like that, with those colors and lights? I picked Hugo because, seeing it in 3D, I was blown away by how they changed the interpupillary distance for different scenes to get different moods, using unrealism as part of the craft. And it's an easy segue into the highly creative movie it revolves around. Even in 1902, they could have made the moon more realistic! Specifically on the topic of framerate, Spiderverse did a fantastic job using different frame rates to convey different moods. Some of it is explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN5sqSEXxm4 ^ This is another favorite movie (and it's recent--they could have shot digital or HFR if they'd wanted). Everything works because of unrealism, from the costumes, to the sets, to dialog, sound, delivery. I would argue that purposely making films look or act realistic results in boring content. I don't necessarily disagree. Good movies transport me to that world with perfect clarity, but the world may not be realistic. When I watch the Third Man, I'm there, in black and white, with the grain, and the film noir corny dialog, and Orson Welles' overacting. That's the world I'm in.

Better this than being the old lady front and centre capturing everything with her iPad.

30p is TV and YouTube 60p and 120hz are for gaming 24p is for cinema and film. This is not an opinion. The subjective part of it is what one's definition of 'cinematic' is. Is the big dome at Vegas cinematic, probably is. Sitting in there, with panoramic vision, amazing, But it is simulating reality. Cinema is not restricted to just simulating reality, it can also simulate emotions and dreams. And for that you need 24p.

Maybe you should lead with that instead of making troll-baiting posts with a title of “24p is outdated”. You can’t even tell when watching the difference between 24P and HFR. It’s an objectively wrong statement. End of story.

Nah it looks like crap. What’s dated is that this keeps coming up as being an issue that needs to change, that only dinosaurs shoot 24 and we’re all out of touch blah blah. This argument is decades old now and guess what? The audience knows. So far it hasn’t worked in a cinema. Many have tried. Many have spent a lot of money. AUDIENCES don’t want it for DRAMA. You may delude yourself that your YouTube channel is empirical evidence of HFR take up but let me know when I can go watch a MOVIE of your YouTube channel in a CINEMA and I’ll let you know if it’s filmic. If HFR really really truely was better the audience would know. We have had HFR for DECADES with gaming, a whole generation that SHOULD prefer it but they freakin don’t. Theres nothing at all stopping you making a killing with your HFR on YouTube right now. Make a movie for YouTube and let us know how it goes.

I really do think there is something non-subjective to our current state of frame rates. This is coming from someone who likes to push the norms and who would have no problem filming in higher frame rates if I thought they looked good. As someone said earlier, I really think the motion blur of 24p emulates the dream state, it puts us into a state of believing the world we are immersed in as fake as it actually is. 30p is smoother and more realistic, but realistic has its downsides. If I wanted my films to look realistic there are a heck of a lot of things I would do differently other than frame rate. To me, content shot in 60-120p look nauseating and fake, I can't stand the look personally. I know this is somewhat subjective, but there are quite a few film goers that experience this. 30p looks realistic, but watchable. I run a fairly successful YouTube channel with news commentary studio style and we opt to shoot 30p for most of that content. 24p just looks magical, dream like, immersive. I shoot all of my cinematic documentaries and more dramatized emotional content this way. At the end of the day this isn't about conserving or progressing. The looks are different, they do different things to the viewers. People keep saying that we need to leave the old ways behind and "progress" to higher frame rates. Progression is fine, but when you want to change something that has been working for generations, the burden of proof falls on you to prove the progression is actually better. Many successful directors have tried this with the examples others have mentioned, and overall it seems like people have not appreciated the experiment.

8K 24P in the rain: Dark day, suggests 8K 24P when walking with the camera will not look very good at night without the special lowlight stabilization setting.

He does. I applaud Markus for the work he does and the passion that he brings, trying to beat back the horde of Youtube-Bros who promote camera worship and the followers who segue this into the idea of camera specs above all else. But there's a progression that occurs: At first, people see great work and the cool tools and assume that the tools make the great work - TOOLS ARE EVERYTHING Then, people get some good tools and the work doesn't magically get better. They are disillusioned - TOOLS DON'T MATTER Then they develop their skills, hone their craft, and gradually understand that both matter, and that the picture is a nuanced one. TOOLS DON'T MATTER (BUT STILL DO) This is the same for specs - they are everything, they are nothing, then they matter a bit but aren't everything. By the time you get to the third phase, you start to see a few things: Some things matter a LOT, but only in some situations, and don't matter at all in others Some things matter a bit, in most situations Some things matter a lot to some people, but less to others, depending on their taste Film-making is an enormously subtle art. Try replicating a particular look from a specific film/show/scene and you'll find that getting the major things right will get you part of the way, but to close the gap you will need to work on dozens of things, hundreds maybe. The purpose of any finished work is to communicate something to the audience. For this, the aesthetic always matters. Even if the content is purely to communicate information, if you shoot a college-looking-bro delivering the lines sitting on a couch drinking a brew filmed with a phone from someone lying on the floor, well, it's not going to seem like reliable or trustworthy information, unless it's about how many beers were had at the party last night (and even then...). The same exact words delivered by someone in a suit sitting at a desk with a longer lens on a tripod and nice lighting will usually elicit a very different response (sometimes one of trust, and sometimes a reaction of mis-trust, but different all the same). A person wearing glasses and a lab coat standing in front of science-ish stuff in a lab is also different. Humans are emotional animals, and we feel first and think second. There isn't any form of video content that isn't impacted by the aesthetic choices made in the production of the video. Some might be so small that they don't seem relevant, but they'll still be there in the mix.

And after a century plus of films being in 24p, then all of us have had our brains trained to think 24p = voila, cinema! You'd not going to undo a lifetime of conditioning of the brain for everyone in the world. I'd say just move on, and fight a different battle that's more winnable.

it is interesting to see how people are locked in the stereotypic ideas. 24p for cinema, 30p for tv broadcast, 60p for sports. right now, holly wood block busters are typically action packed, green screen vfx focused. so high res high fr are actually very suitable for hollywood features, these are more sports like than classic drama dialogue center like. the classic drama which emphasizes on dialogue is moving into the broadcast or streaming service. so if 24p is critical for this kind of drama, actually 24p should be used for soap opera on tv or netflix. in summary, the paradigm has shifted. 60p should be for hollywood feature cinema 24p should be for tv soap opera, netfix 30p is still for news.

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.

This needs to be 16mm

I think this is going to be even more disrupting as the new raspberry pi 5 is just announced. I figure that cinepi 3 based on pi 5 may do 8k raw on a s16/1-inch sensor, at about $500.

When will we have it? I guess that will make more difficult to @Andrew Reid to ban anyone later on... LOL : ) Anyway, I tend to believe that would be such award to those who would attend it in any case whatsoever... ; ) Morever, to those who wouldn't be able to be physically there, it might be possible to attend via video conference or sorta web summit event but camera summit, hey Andrew? We could always show a bit of appreciation to this community created by our webmaster, thank you all guys and a special word to the owner of the house who has succeeded to keep one of the most interesting world-class online corners worldwide, let alone the topic of camera industry where this place is unique! :- )

Why do we almost never film only with a normal field of view? Why do we purposefully distort reality by choosing these range of other focal lengths to film with? Why do we light scenes in a manner that you're highly unlikely to come across randomly in real life in a natural manner? Why is 180VR massively unpopular vs conventional films when 180VR is so much "closer to realism"?

In the UK there are big cash back reductions at the moment S5ii works out at £1299, that's amazing value and there are great deals with lenses included too

OK You just screwed your own argument. Titanic was photographed at good old 24 FPS. You can’t even tell. Maybe just turn the fluid motion feature on your TV on and be happy. Avatar is a 3D cartoon. Perfect for hyper realism. Great use of HFR for that specific story telling example. Hobbit was a disaster. So much that they CHANGED the approach back for subsequent films. You’re alone in this opinion.

I just got home from the Porsche garage without the 911 I ordered. Someone on the bus there told me that petrol engines were outdated…

Fair enough! I took the opposite path: as soon as I got my first CD player, I took all my LPs down to the local music store, sold them, and bought CDs to replace them. It took almost a decade to replace everything, but I eventually did.

F3 would be my second choice. I have only used it for one test and internal Slog 420 look pretty awesome. Best internal 8bit 420 colors I have ever seen. But thing is cumbersome and heavy enough to not to get picked for a walk. I would take all three of my cameras I mentioned above. After all entry cinematography tools are my passion. I could widen the question, what would be your theoretical dream camera. That does not necessarily mean it has to be maxed out in all specs.

I think he's referring to the s16 sensor 4K camera being developed by Octopus Camera and CinePi. There isn't much info they've put out besides some test footage, specs, and a rendering of the camera body.

Everyone is complaining about their EVF and LCD screens, but she's not!

Agreed on going the used route with MPB or one of the companies that sell used gear. Most of them will include a warranty, and some even offer extended warranties. MPB I believe includes a 6 month warranty, for example. The FX30 is about $1600 in like new condition here in the US on MPB. I would save up and just go the FX30 route.

The whole idea of movie stars when I was growing up was that they were "larger than life". I think, once you start looking, you'll find that practically nothing about cinema is even remotely realistic / real-looking. Look at the visual design / colour grading for a start.... I mean, these projects all had the budget, had highly skilled people, and had every opportunity to make things look lifelike, but none of these things look remotely like reality. Even the camera angles and compositions and focal lengths - none of these make me feel like I'm looking at reality or "I am there". Bottom line: studios want to make money, creative people want to make "art", neither of these are better if things look like reality. I'm in reality every moment of every day, why would I want movies to look the same way? It's called "escapism" not "teleport me to somewhere else that also looks like real-life... ism".

Totally an FX6 for me. I'd love for it to be an Alexa 35, but I know with the crazy amounts of content I have to produce on a daily basis it would be more of a hinderance than a help.

Yes, exactly. Steady shots are great, the resolution is there.

Nobody sane is shooting news with RED ONE MX

Only if a new and much better camera module for the Pi comes out

i have a youtube channel, kind of news oriented. i use all kinds of cameras i have at 24p 30 60p and aspec tatios of 16:9 and 2.4. no viewer complains. with thew new platform like youtube, the old hierarchy of distribution of theater, network, etc does not rule. and youtube etc is very tolerant.

Is that you @zlfan? Because their entire workflow is set up for that, they're not going to ditch millions/billions of dollars worth of gear just so that they can embrace 24p. Don't try to fix what is not broken.

Filming for social media has been also one of the biggest factors in making 4:3 popular. Exactly, most of us are not filming nature documentaries where we want a 100% accurate reflection of the real world. (heck, not even nature documentaries want that!)

CD vs Vinyl DR is an old debate and it isn’t as simple as that when it comes down to it. Lossless wars aside, many other variables come into play. Here is a study that comes up with a more nuanced approach to what you are stating: https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4 ..in any case this is an analog vs digital debate that can be transposed to film but is far less subjective and entirely different than the fps topic started here..

I can't seem to see any news about a new camera module?? Not sure what OP is referring to. There is no CinePi 3. Even if a 1" CinePi 3 comes out, I reckon a person would be still better of with a secondhand P4K if they value their own time at anything above minimum wage. As the out of pocket differences between a possible future CinePi 3 and a secondhand P4K (the fact it is "secondhand" is irrelevant, it would still be more reliable than a brand new "CinePi 3"!) would only be a few hundred dollars, which would be completely swallowed up when you consider the many hours you'd have to put into getting the CinePi3 up and running from scratch

I have no idea! If I knew, I’d buy it. 😂

What a weird thread, honestly. There's no real argument being given for why things will go to HFR, @zlfan just keeps repeating the same thing over and over. What paradigm has shifted? There is no movement towards HFR filmmaking and previous attempts were unsuccessful. There's no demand for it, from Hollywood or viewers. You can't even really use YouTube as a reason, as most narrative (and even a lot of non-narrative work) videos on there are 24 fps. I only really see 60 fps on gaming and sports channels. Even so, history has shown that will have virtually no impact on how films are shot. I mean, you're talking about the paradigm shifting while we've got an endless number of YouTubers filming themselves in their guest bedroom "studios" in 24 fps because they think it's cinematic! It's silly! I think it's cool if your preference is HFR video, and I encourage people to create whatever they want if that's their vision, it just never will become more than a personal preference.

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 :- )

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.

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.

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.

Yeah and most people watched them in 24 fps 🤣

A new generation of viewers will still be able to distinguish between cinema and video seen on social media, just as the generations before did with film and television. It's fine if your preference is high frame rate content, but it's naive to think it will ever become the standard for cinema based on that argument. Peter Jackson tried it a decade ago and it was almost universally hated by movie goers. The issue wasn't the display technology, it was that it went against an entire lifetime of what people associate with cinema and that bothered people.

And how many films followed the lead? You were in the minority. Most people hated it and most theaters showed it in 24 fps because of complaints.

No. 60p = sports 30p = TV 24 = cinema Sorry Tony, some things will never change.

To the OP, I’d seriously consider the FX6. Having used both the FX6 and FX9 i find the FX6 slightly more versatile. The FX6 is a great camera that will handle any level of work you need it to. You will not get any complaints from professionals in regards to the footage it produces despite what you may read here.

Is there a new camera module? The current camera module used by cinepi is imx477. It doesn't matter how fancy the raspberry pi is that you connect it to, it's still only a 12 megapixel sensor. If Sony have a 45 megapixel 1" sensor that can read out at 12 bits, it could be cool to see that in a Raspberry Pi camera. Until then, you'd be a lot better off buying a used BMPCC4K - it costs a bit more, but it's a lot more usable as a camera... and I say that as a person who doesn't like any "pocket" cinema camera except for the very first one from like 10 years ago. (Or for just. little bit more, a Sigma FP)

I'm not into conspiracy theories anymore really (for which I blame the chemtrails and 5G masts activating the molecular mind control devices implanted in my brain by Bill Gates through the COVID vaccine) but if I were then I'd consider whether there was any external influence to this. The Hong Kong of today is very much not the same carefree Hong Kong that is depicted in those videos so, whilst to its viewers these videos act as a time capsule of more innocent times of photography gear "reviews", there will be others viewing it as a time capsule of a far more liberal time that they would rather suppress. Of course, the videos are also a body of work for one of the presenters who fled Hong Kong for political reasons as he discusses here. The broader issue highlighted by these videos being removed from YouTube, in common with content on other streaming services, is that if you value a piece of work then get a physical copy of it. With that, I'm off to download and burn a DVD compilation of Max Yuryev's weightlifting style auto focus tests.

This is a great point - if you don't need the portability then a Mac Mini would be spectacular value. They're not powerful enough for the serious colourists, but I think those not as far into their careers use them, and I've heard that large post-houses often use them for background / batch tasks like preparing footage, rendering projects etc. The Mac Studios with the Ultra processors are apparently stunning performers, but more expensive obviously.

Equivalent in Windows-land? It doesn't really exist. 12th/13th generation Intel has much better performance per watt than 11th generation, but the built-in GPU isn't anywhere near the performance of M1 so you'd need something with a dedicated GPU which won't be low power. If I'm guessing I'd say that an i7-12700 or i7-13700 with the laptop version of an RTX 4060 should be about similar to the performance of an M1 Max while plugged into the wall, but with the caveat that the Windows laptop will pull more power and be noisier (fans to remove the heat from using so much power). However, the second you unplug the laptop from the wall, the performance and battery life of the Windows system will be substantially worse than the M1 Max. You can find Windows laptops with more raw power than even the highest-end M3 Max - and desktops even more so, but the cost is that the power usage will be a lot higher. I'm too lazy to go look now, but I'd bet that an RTX 4090 all by itself uses more power at full load than an entire M3 Max laptop, including the screen. 😃