24p is outdated

[kye]

12 hours ago, zlfan said:

Actually, your words and your case already defeat the logic that 60p is for sports, 24p for cinema, and 30p for news. If John Wick 4 is not action packed, I don't know which one is. 

Like @mercer has said, this is ridiculous.

There's two people in this thread who are making post after post about how 24p is old and wrong etc, and then there's the entire industry spending trillions of dollars a year shooting films and who have access to any camera they want and could shoot in any frame rate they liked, and yet they select 24p.

So, who is right?  Two internet keyboard warriors, or the entire worlds entertainment industry?

Please.

We did a survey, and you didn't win this "debate".

[BTM_Pix]

14 hours ago, zlfan said:

Also, why does EU set to 25p, not set to 24p, if 24p is scientifically fundamental? Further, why does EU not set to 23p, 24p plus 1p is 25p, minus 1p is 23p.

When the UK was in the EU, it used 25p too.

Following the overwhelming 4% landslide will of the people advisory vote to leave the shackles of the worlds largest trading bloc that also happens to be under 30 miles away, the sovereign UK was able to make its own rules.

Following Brexit, the pound devalued greatly against the dollar and Euro so that 25p was now only worth 23p.

Free from the Brussels overlords and WEF puppet masters  and defying economic reality, the UK therefore adopted 23p as its new standard.

However, there is a strong movement to exert the virtues of Brexit by exceeding anything that those banana straightened obsessives in the EU can do by going past their paltry 25p by a further 20%.

This movement is championed by an MP called Lee Anderson, deputy chairman of the Tory party, who is so identified with the quest that he is now known nationally as “30p Lee”.

You should google 30p Lee as he’s a big fan of alternative facts as well.

[PannySVHS]

Roger Deakins is a legendary dp of dps, a gentleman, craftsman, artist and scholar of cinematography. To insult him on a Dslm cinematography forum is a final unappetizing antic.

I suggest you enjoy some fresh air and calm down. Watch T1 and 2, if you want to witness 80ies and 90ies scifi greatness. Instead you watched the lame follow ups and many youtube camera recommendation videos. You then come to our forum as an unfamiliar guest with a familiar depreciative sound of writing, suggesting nonsense, implying to consume our earth to its vital limits.

I am not even interested in the question, if you have ever done anything in the field of cinematography or small passion projects or anything at all. I dont care. Please just stop your disgrace or leave like you came, this year of 2023.

You are a naked keyboard user after all.

[Emanuel]

19 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

I don’t believe the paranormal exists. James Randi, for many years, offered a $1M prize to anyone who could demonstrate any paranormal phenomena under controlled conditions. No one ever claimed the prize.

You're entitled to believe what you want but as man of computers you are, give this book a try:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Supremacy

By https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku

Take a look on the criticism over that work in specific... This is the problem of many people, they think they understand every other fields of the human knowledge ; )

«Some theorize that the universe itself acts as a vast quantum computer, “processing” the activity of its countless particles and forces from one end of reality to another. If so, as computers begin to more directly imitate nature’s own computations, new insights may open into physics, chemistry, and biology—even the architecture of the brain itself.

Yet mankind has not proven the best steward of such knowledge. On our path to learning more about how God’s remarkable creation works, we inevitably come to various crossroads regarding how we choose to use what we learn. Understanding God’s design of matter and energy has allowed us to harness the power of the atom—both to power our cities and to destroy them.

Understanding the strange, counterintuitive world of quantum mechanics will bring us to a similar crossroads. What decisions will we have to face when quantum computing is fully ours to wield however we wish? Will we have the character to properly apply what we learn from this aspect of God’s creation?»

source

[Jedi Master]

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

Take a look on the criticism over that work in specific... This is the problem of many people, they think they understand every other fields of the human knowledge ; )

I have read the book you referenced and agree with the critics. Kaku is a physicist and doesn’t appear to know much about quantum computing based on what he says in this book.

Whenever someone makes a positive claim, such as the existence of the paranormal, or of gods, the burden of proof falls on them to provide objectively verifiable evidence for their claim. Lacking that, we have no reason to believe their assertion (because without evidence, that’s all it is—an assertion).

Carl Sagan said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Some claims are mundane and don’t require much evidence, but others do. For example, if I told you I got a new pet dog, that wouldn’t require much, if any, evidence for you to believe me because dogs are common pets, and many people have one, perhaps including yourself. But if I told you that I got a new pet fire breathing dragon, you shouldn’t believe me without more evidence because fire breathing dragons are the stuff of myths and legends, not everyday reality. I would posit that the existence of the paranormal and of gods are extraordinary claims, and, hence, require extraordinary evidence.

[Jedi Master]

6 hours ago, kye said:

There's two people in this thread who are making post after post about how 24p is old and wrong etc, and then there's the entire industry spending trillions of dollars a year shooting films and who have access to any camera they want and could shoot in any frame rate they liked, and yet they select 24p.

So, who is right?  Two internet keyboard warriors, or the entire worlds entertainment industry?

Lets break this down into its component parts. First that 24p is old. This is unquestionably true. That frame rate came about fairly early in the history of cinema and has been with us ever since, for almost a century.

The second assertion, that 24p is “wrong”, is specious. I certainly haven’t argued in this thread that it’s wrong (whatever the heck that even means in this context), and after rereading this entire thread I conclude that others aren’t necessarily arguing that it’s wrong either, but that some other rate might be better. 

The claim that the industry is spending “trillions of dollars a year” is completely off base. The latest data I could find says that the industry spent about $16 billion in 2021. That‘s several orders of magnitude lower than your claim.

I find it curious that even suggesting the use of higher frame rates could generate such a firestorm of responses from some on this thread. You’d think that such a suggestion would generate reasoned discussion, but it seems more like the responses of someone who’s sacred cow has been gored. And then it degenerated into a discussion of what is art, with some suggesting that anyone not agreeing with their definition of art just doesn’t understand art (especially if that art isn’t created by a human).

I will assert (because I don’t have direct evidence to back it up) that Hollywood is driven by money, not art, and if switching to 43.5763747 FPS would generate more money, Hollywood would switch to it in a New York minute.

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, Jedi Master said:

I have read the book you referenced and agree with the critics. Kaku is a physicist and doesn’t appear to know much about quantum computing based on what he says in this book.

Whenever someone makes a positive claim, such as the existence of the paranormal, or of gods, the burden of proof falls on them to provide objectively verifiable evidence for their claim. Lacking that, we have no reason to believe their assertion (because without evidence, that’s all it is—an assertion).

Carl Sagan said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Some claims are mundane and don’t require much evidence, but others do. For example, if I told you I got a new pet dog, that wouldn’t require much, if any, evidence for you to believe me because dogs are common pets, and many people have one, perhaps including yourself. But if I told you that I got a new pet fire breathing dragon, you shouldn’t believe me without more evidence because fire breathing dragons are the stuff of myths and legends, not everyday reality. I would posit that the existence of the paranormal and of gods are extraordinary claims, and, hence, require extraordinary evidence.

First off, the point is that book is not exactly about quantum computing but other fields connected with, which demand some knowledge other than that native one ; ) Means that to be called a science requires a scientific approach? For sure.

This doesn't mean what we call science addresses answers to everything.

On the opposite.

There's a lot to lack a scientific explanation provided by... science, yes ; ) That is, science is unable to have a response to every single portion of universe. We know too little about it.

That's the narcissistic observation made by Marty (aka @PannySVHS) and it's not much scientific to infer anything different... LOL :- )

[Jedi Master]

17 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

There's a lot to lack a scientific explanation provided by... science, yes ; ) That is, science is unable to have a response to every single portion of universe. We know too little about it.

I would argue that an explanation for anything, whether scientific or not, requires objectively verifiable evidence. Science can’t explain everything, sure, but any explanation from any other source should be held to the same standards of evidence.

Yes, Kaku went far afield in that book by trying to extrapolate quantum computing to all sorts of things (like climate change) that have no direct connection with quantum computing.

[Emanuel]

Standards of evidence, yes, and from many distinct realms of knowledge, it's not an exclusive of one over another :- )

[Emanuel]

Found Michio Kaku's approach particularly interesting indeed 'cause of that respectful interdisciplinary methodology exactly on the spot ;- )

[PannySVHS]

It makes it very unappealing to me to participate in an exchange if tone and content of presentation is rather rude or triumphant despite the fact that it is underlined by interesting arguments. I know Donald Trumbull was an ambassador and follower of high framerates. I imagine his contribution to discussion would have been indeed a joy to follow and reflect upon. This thread is not.

[zlfan]

Nowadays, a lot of events are shot on 24p, and a lot of weddings. Hard to justify events for 24p, as viewers want larger than life events? Weddings, to some degree, understandable. 

[zlfan]

also, a previous commentor says that 60p is not for real life, 120p is. if so, then come 60p is bad unworldly, 24p is the optimal for the unreal, all the way from 119p to 1p? any histogram or other kind of graphs to justify this optimal 24p unworldly thing? then how about 25p? closer to 120, so less unworldly? lol. 

[zlfan]

at the 16p soundless age, 24p was introduced because it represents the real world better, i.e., it was more WORLDLY and BETTER frame rate than 16p. then when 30p 60p come, 24p suddenly is a holy grail UNWORLDLY YET BETTER beauty.  24p wins all the time. lol.  

[KnightsFan]

7 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

I find it curious that even suggesting the use of higher frame rates could generate such a firestorm of responses from some on this thread. You’d think that such a suggestion would generate reasoned discussion, but it seems more like the responses of someone who’s sacred cow has been gored. And then it degenerated into a discussion of what is art, with some suggesting that anyone not agreeing with their definition of art just doesn’t understand art (especially if that art isn’t created by a human).

It's a couple people, really. I disagree with you about aesthetics of 24p and about the purpose of art, but agree about AI. I disagree with some others about the nature of art requiring a human origin, but agree with them about 24p and the purpose of art. And a lot of us who disagree have had a decent discussion, between the silliness, so don't give up entirely.

In my opinion @zlfan has been especially inflammatory, not addressing examples or arguments, and ending every other post with lol. And I'm not interested in @Emanuel 's statements like "art made by machines is not art. Period." I know some of it is a language barrier, but it's not a useful statement or a reasoned argument. I appreciate @kye's detailed posts with actual examples, even when I disagree. I didn't read every post, but he might be the only one other than me who has tried to explain their artistic position with any depth or examples. Saying "24p is better better because it's what we've always done" is as inane a position as "more frames is better" not because of the position taken, but because neither statement contributes to anyone's understanding.

I haven't posted here in a while because I don't have time for making movies anymore. I don't know if I was included in the previous statement that there are too many engineers in this thread--I would definitely prefer to be tagged if so--but I'm one of the few people who has posted original narrative work here on the forum, back when we had a screening room section (as low budget and poorly made as my work was! I'm certainly not the best filmmaker here). As an artist, I will say that anyone who does not delve into the exact mechanics behind the emotional response that art invokes, particularly in a field that requires huge amounts of collaboration, might be doing their artistic side a disservice.

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

In my opinion (...) And I'm not interested in @Emanuel 's statements like "art made by machines is not art. Period." I know some of it is a language barrier, but it's not a useful statement or a reasoned argument.

(...)

Correct. Territory of opinion ; )

You're entitled to an opinion like any other one here. Including those you ain't interested in, as well LOL : )

 

The problem there is a different one though (and it is even funny to come and read once again *sigh* the barrier language idiom argument... sounds clearly to me inscribed on that category Marty has left on his posting: "rude or triumphant"... : )

Such type of approach seems a typical complex of superiority or patronizing someone when looks like to pop up with some distinct standpoint or then hard to even understand. Again, it's not a problem with idiom, really ; ) In my particular case, I professionally use the English language since almost 30 years... (I even did part of my graduate and postgraduate studies for a long academic year with Hollywood bigwigs and they never complained, nevertheless, internet warriors as someone along this thread already called them, yes... WOW LOL)

In a daily basis, today. For living!

Or I am a bad learner : D or everyone outside understands it, just not a few people here : P

 

Well, in the 1st year of law school on the introduction to law class, people were used to complain about the lessons of the lecturer...

At the film shool, I recall colleagues of mine on sound technical terminology or when the subject of study was Deleuze...

Yup, legal reasoning can happen to be a pain in the ass, very true.

The same applies for art stuff.

The fact you believe art can be produced by machines rather than human source doesn't make it true.

 

Art is not subjective.

It can be subjective but is not necessarily subjective.

 

If any reader of this, is unable to realize that, I can only suggest to go to inform themselves on basics : ) As already said, that's what people do about getting some information when wish figure out a certain field.

The access to knowledge is far to be democratic when people think it depends on opinion realm. I'm sorry, I don't want to look triumphant but does not for real :- )

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

I appreciate @kye's detailed posts with actual examples, even when I disagree. I didn't read every post, but he might be the only one other than me who has tried to explain their artistic position with any depth or examples. Saying "24p is better better because it's what we've always done" is as inane a position as "more frames is better" not because of the position taken, but because neither statement contributes to anyone's understanding.

I haven't posted here in a while because I don't have time for making movies anymore. I don't know if I was included in the previous statement that there are too many engineers in this thread--I would definitely prefer to be tagged if so--but I'm one of the few people who has posted original narrative work here on the forum, back when we had a screening room section (as low budget and poorly made as my work was! I'm certainly not the best filmmaker here). As an artist, I will say that anyone who does not delve into the exact mechanics behind the emotional response that art invokes, particularly in a field that requires huge amounts of collaboration, might be doing their artistic side a disservice.

I guess everyone (if not, they should ; ) appreciate @kye's entries. And I still really think (not idle words) you're being unfair with the remaining ones who have contributed along this thread. No, I don't beg for a distinct input nor become upset for your remarks on your unpleasant impression on my own. The same way I find not productive at all coming here with this level of judgment on ones over the others. It's not nice and it's not the only one case readers can read it through these pages.

 

Japanese have a curious way to say thanks to an author than saying they've appreciated the work.

 

To be a filmmaker, good one included, doesn't mean to entitle whoever to be an authority on aesthetics.

The same to those who look like to gather camera technology expertise.

The same way a thread is not a campus :- )

[Emanuel]

Or if I write...

'doesn't mean whoever is entitled to be'

...will it be (a bit) clearer then?

LOL :- )

[kye]

10 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

Lets break this down into its component parts. First that 24p is old. This is unquestionably true. That frame rate came about fairly early in the history of cinema and has been with us ever since, for almost a century.

The second assertion, that 24p is “wrong”, is specious. I certainly haven’t argued in this thread that it’s wrong (whatever the heck that even means in this context), and after rereading this entire thread I conclude that others aren’t necessarily arguing that it’s wrong either, but that some other rate might be better. 

The claim that the industry is spending “trillions of dollars a year” is completely off base. The latest data I could find says that the industry spent about $16 billion in 2021. That‘s several orders of magnitude lower than your claim.

I find it curious that even suggesting the use of higher frame rates could generate such a firestorm of responses from some on this thread. You’d think that such a suggestion would generate reasoned discussion, but it seems more like the responses of someone who’s sacred cow has been gored. And then it degenerated into a discussion of what is art, with some suggesting that anyone not agreeing with their definition of art just doesn’t understand art (especially if that art isn’t created by a human).

I will assert (because I don’t have direct evidence to back it up) that Hollywood is driven by money, not art, and if switching to 43.5763747 FPS would generate more money, Hollywood would switch to it in a New York minute.

A few points..

• I have no idea how much is spent, but it's enough for them to shoot everything in 1000fps if they wanted to, but they don't
• The thread is literally titled "24p is outdated", so translating that to be "old" and "wrong" isn't too far a stretch
• The firestorm is likely a reaction to the increasing popularity of 30p and 60p video, which just looks awful to many of us...  perhaps a good parallel was if restaurants all over the world all started cooking every dish with Kale (or some other ingredient that many people hate) - lots of people who don't mind Kale would just say "eat somewhere else" but it would really be a bad outcome.  and then the Kale Lovers Association starts a thread on their cooking forums saying that everything except Kale is crap...   that is the response here.
• The thread didn't "degenerate" into a discussion about art, it actually elevated because creativity and art is the whole point of film-making, which is a point you seem completely impervious to hearing
• Yes, the goal of the industry is to make money, but in case you didn't notice, emotion is what drives sales.  Newspaper headlines, clickbait video titles, social media feuds, etc - these all generate the most sales and clicks because they stimulate the human emotional system.  You can think what you like about rationality and realism, but it's not how the vast majority of humans work.  A great movie is one where the reaction is "I laughed, I cried", not "I found it to be sensible and factual".  Movies make us feel to generate sales.

To make money, movies make us feel.  To make us feel, movies have to be emotive.  To be emotive, they use all the tricks.. one of which, out of literally hundreds that are in use, is 24p.

[Emanuel]

To place 'degenerate' and 'art' in the same line with the latter as consequence of the other one is the most funny part I've read over these lines...

Almost as much as so many distinct definitionssssss of "art" à la carte! LMAO : ) Sounds the same when people are used to feel about "love" ; ) We are all experts of it, after all, ain't we? : D

A science called 'love' everyone can be an expert about! LOL

Amusing, only to say the least ;- )