24p is outdated

[IronFilm]

17 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

The funny thing about all this is that if, back in the early 1900s, movie makers adopted another frame rate, say 46 FPS (which Edison advocated), people today would be saying that to simulate emotions and dreams you need 46p.

Maybe. Or perhaps 46fps would have flopped eventually, and it was naturally to drift to 24fps (or similar, such as 23fps or 25fps) as the framerate of choice 

[IronFilm]

17 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

It never occurred to me that some people purposely don’t want their films to look realistic. That’s a completely foreign concept to me.

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"? 

[JulioD]

17 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

The funny thing about all this is that if, back in the early 1900s, movie makers adopted another frame rate, say 46 FPS (which Edison advocated), people today would be saying that to simulate emotions and dreams you need 46p.

Pre sound there was no standard.  18FPS was kind-of the default.  Most hand cranked cameras did 9 frames per crank, so two cranks per second becomes the defectors about standard.  

16FPS is about the lower threshold where you start to not perceive continuous motion.

24 FPS only became the default with the introduction of sync sound in the late 30’s that required a slightly higher / faster playback.

The first thirty years of cinema HAD NO STANDARD frame rate.  They could have, and DID shoot a huge number of variations of frame rates.  Just like we do today (for slow mo or under cranking)

It’s got to be more than just legacy, because there have been decades of options available and audiences continue to preference 24FPS in drama.

 

 

[JulioD]

10 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

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"? 

Exactly.

[EduPortas]

On 12/2/2023 at 3:44 PM, Jedi Master said:

That's a defeatist attitude that will impede progress.

When The Hobbit came out a few years ago, some people were ready to break out the pitchforks and torches and march on Hollywood, but I loved it--those movies looked much better to me than the typical 24 FPS stuff.

I guess you're in the 1% who actually liked the horrendously artificial movement fluidity of the movie.

And that's coming from a guy who has read every Tolkien book and movie ever produced (yes including the animated ones).

The contraste between the CGI and the real-life characters of The Hobbit is jarring and imposible to "un-see".

Progress is great except when it makes something worse, friend. 

[Jedi Master]

32 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Why do we purposefully distort reality by choosing these range of other focal lengths to film with? 

For the same reason I occasionally use binoculars and spotting scopes: to get a different view of an object.

[Jedi Master]

24 minutes ago, JulioD said:

It’s got to be more than just legacy, because there have been decades of options available and audiences continue to preference 24FPS in drama

I believe it's just legacy, and the studio's desire to use the minimum feasible frame rate to save money on film.

[Jedi Master]

7 minutes ago, EduPortas said:

Progress is great except when it makes something worse, friend. 

"Worse" is subjective. What's worse for you might be better for me, and vice versa.

[JulioD]

2 minutes ago, Jedi Master said:

I believe it's just legacy, and the studio's desire to use the minimum feasible frame rate to save money on film.

Gaming has been here for decades. Younger audiences are used to and have seen a lot of HFR.

Several very top shelf filmmakers have TRIED. Digital means there’s no cost difference to shoot HFR.

It failed every time.

It’s not just legacy. 

[EduPortas]

9 minutes ago, Jedi Master said:

"Worse" is subjective. What's worse for you might be better for me, and vice versa.

Ay caramba!

It's real easy: "worse" means the technical aspect of the film makes it harder to watch bc it distracts you from the story.

That's why 24fps is the standard for cinema. If you're willing to deviate from that standard you better have a very good reason to do so.

The Hobbit DID NOT have a valid reason for doing this 48p stuff. None. Jackson learned this lesson the hard way.  

[kye]

5 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

Ah, you mean the faddish "orange and teal" look? I find that weird. To me, it adds nothing to a movie. I hope that trend goes away soon, and it takes shaky hand-held footage, and artificial grain with it to the rubbish heap of history.

Movies, IMO, are about plot, dialog, and, secondarily, action (when appropriate). I couldn't care less about what some production designer thinks is high art. Asteroid City was an extreme example.

I guess I'm just different than most people on this forum. While others prefer movies to be art above all, even if it deviates from reality, I prefer technical accuracy.

Actually, the Orange and Teal look is copied from reality (but sometimes dramatically overdone).

Any time the sun is shining and the sky is blue then objects that are lit directly from the sun will appear one colour and objects in the shade will be lit solely from reflected light, which a significant amount will have come from the blue sky, so shadows are more blue than things lit by the sun, and in comparison, things lit by the sun are more orange (the opposite of the colour of the sky) than the shadows.

This is a subtle effect, but is observable.  I did the test myself.

Here's a RAW photo of my fence at sunset:

If we radically juice up the saturation, then we get this:

and if we shift the white-balance cooler, then we get this:

So, although reality doesn't look anything like how strong this colour grade is, the orange/teal look is part of reality, not a fictional thing that's made up.

Also, a great many movie colour grades don't have the orange and teal look.

Here are a bunch of movie stills from Blockbusters:

(you have to click and expand the image to view it large enough)

Many of them are almost one hue, with almost zero colour separation:

But, once again, since you missed the point I was trying to make...   with all the equipment and talent these movies have at their disposal, why on earth would they look like this if they were trying to make them look realistic?

5 hours ago, zlfan said:

this whole realism vs dreamlike is just a later made up to justify 24p. 

You've got it all wrong - it's the other way around.

People who make movies want to make things a certain way, and shooting 24p is one of the (dozens / hundreds) of ways they accomplish this.

I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to make?  Genuinely?

If it was simply that movies were in 24p but were trying to be as real as possible in every other way, then yes, you could make the argument that it was a legacy choice, but there is practically no aspect of movie-making that is trying to imitate reality.

5 hours ago, zlfan said:

if christopher nolan knows that some dps think that gravity is a reality show, and sandra bullock knows that she is just a real life middle aged desperate woman in a reality show. how sad will they be......  

I think you're exactly right. 

If these movies were 'realistic' then they would look like small reality shows.  

The evolution of film-making started by recording theatre productions.  There were no cuts, it was like you were sitting in the crowd watching a play.  They didn't think they could edit because real-life doesn't suddenly jump to a new location.  When they worked out that cutting was fine and the human mind didn't get disoriented if you did it, they still thought that the mind wouldn't understand if there were jumps in time, so they had continuity editing, which meant that if someone entered the room then you'd have the whole sequence of them opening the door, walking through it, closing it behind them, then walking across the room, and only then starting to speak to the person inside.  Turns out we're completely fine with cutting most of that out - in dreams we experience time jumps and the theory is that we're fine with time jumps because dreams do it.

The history of film-making is a journey from one-shot films that made you feel like you were at a theatre production, and have gradually evolved into Bayhem, Momento, Interstellar, etc.  

If anyone wanted realism then they've been walking in the wrong direction for an entire century now.

Either the entire history of cinema was done by people who are completely incompetent, or, they're aiming at something different than you are.

[IronFilm]

4 hours ago, zlfan said:

"“Peter Jackson says he has toned down the higher frame rate version of Hobbit sequel The Desolation of Smaug following complaints from audiences and critics about the sharp look of its predecessor.”"

nice pr.

a famous dp cannot have his freedom on artistic exploration.

sad story.  

1) Peter Jackson is not a DP

2) even famous DPs have to respond to market forces (and heck, their ability to  accurately feel the pulse of the market forces is quite likely a contributing factor why they're a famous DoP)

3 hours ago, zlfan said:

where did i say i cannot tell the difference of 24p and 60p.

Earlier you gave an example of a HFR 60fps film, which was actually a 24fps film

 

  

54 minutes ago, JulioD said:

Gaming has been here for decades. Younger audiences are used to and have seen a lot of HFR.

Several very top shelf filmmakers have TRIED. Digital means there’s no cost difference to shoot HFR.

It failed every time.

It’s not just legacy. 

Not "no cost", but very minimal cost vs the overall production budget. 

[kye]

Here's a video that explains the basics of lens choice:

Perhaps the single biggest take-away from this video is how the cinematographer is speaking - he is talking about how he wants the audience to feel, not what is 'realistic'.  

In fact he introduces the video by saying "Hello.  I'm Tom Single and I've been a cinematographer for the past 40 years.  Today I'm going to be focusing on how film-makers achieve the desired mood as it relates to lens choices".

Think about that...  "the desired mood".

Realism isn't the goal, and it's not even relevant to the context.  It's completely besides the point for the industry that he's in.

You can take almost any aspect of film-making and when you find very experienced people talking about it, it will always be discussed in the context of the mood and perceptual associations you want to create.

[PannySVHS]

Darn. I've been a member here for 8 years by now. But never have I given anyone a thumbsdown. You righteously earned all of those I could have had potentially given towards other nonsense before, dear og poster. What nonsensensical, arrogant and depreciative statements you've been coming up with just to feel being right. Your statement could have even been an attractive thesis for me to talk about with you. But your argumentation is without any respect for any good nor in the service of your claim.

"24p is dead". Maybe it is. Maybe not. Maybe 25p as here in  Europe is the current 24p. But no need to act up like a triumphator about it. Something like "Your old world is dying, let's  celebrate that." NOT.

That doesnt mean, you are not a lovely person with possibly an adorable filmmakers mind. But your statements are a long way to go from in order to be a good testimonial for a convincing positive assumption about you. Wasting our planet for consumption of 4k 60 video junk is not a thing to be goofy about. 8k 60p- like looking outside of the window. Let's look outside of our window for sure: the world is burning. No tolerance for most terrible display of ignorance and stupidity in behaviour nor speech.

"Thongs", "clothes forum", are you a chauvinist scared of thongs? Never seen a thong in your life or someone undressing a thong? I will do that now for a change. Seeing is believing.

So many people trying to provide awesome content here. So many good reasons to reason with THEM, because they make it possible. Never used capitals before. Oh, well..

[kye]

This thread inspired a different one: 

I think that what I described in that thread is one of the underlying factors in this discussion.

 

[kye]

I found this video when searching for the lenses one above and just re-watched it.  It talks about how David Fincher designed the colour palette of the movie Se7en to accentuate the story-telling aspects and heighten the climax.

Spoilers for the movie Se7en from 1995, in case you haven't gotten around to seeing it yet lol.

The underlying concept is that these choices are designed to provide psychological queues to the audience and heighten the excitement.  Once again, none of this is remotely realistic, and does not aspire to realism as a goal, but does the opposite for dramatic effect.

For those who like cameras and recording video and watch YT but don't really have much awareness of how cinema and high-end TV shows are created, these things might be completely new concepts and the above videos hopefully provide a glimpse behind the curtain.

For those that think this stuff is purely for Hollywood and cinema, it's alive and well in the world of YT.  Here's a video from Natalie Lynn, and is a great example of film-making techniques applied to personal travel videography, and is very emotive in a way that an impartial camera cannot achieve.

and here's an interview and production breakdown of how it was created:

Spoilers: it includes special lighting, she bought a smoke machine, spent a ridiculous amount of time in the edit, and lots of other things.  It takes a lot of work to make things look effortless.

[Emanuel]

It's not a bad thread though : ) I think it has ended more a promotion of 24p as preferred frame rate delivery than its opposite! LOL : )

[Emanuel]

It's not a bad thread though : ) I think it has ended more a promotion of 24p as preferred frame rate delivery than its opposite! LOL : ) Looking it from both perspectives and each arguments seems 24p is well alive! ; ) Not that we had the need for such discussion but they came so powerful on bright and nonsensical sides respectively I believe we are still more comfortable on the natural side of the thongs... oops, things! : D

 

 

 

[IronFilm]

6 hours ago, kye said:

Here's a video from Natalie Lynn, and is a great example of film-making techniques applied to personal travel videography, and is very emotive in a way that an impartial camera cannot achieve.

and here's an interview and production breakdown of how it was created:

Spoilers: it includes special lighting, she bought a smoke machine, spent a ridiculous amount of time in the edit, and lots of other things.  It takes a lot of work to make things look effortless.

Shot with only a Sony a6600! But she's upgraded now to a Sony FX30. 

[kye]

11 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Shot with only a Sony a6600! But she's upgraded now to a Sony FX30. 

Yeah, and she said she shot with baked-in colour profiles for lots of it, and then spent 30 hours trying to colour grade it.  The struggle is real!