24p is outdated

[ghostwind]

My son is 15 and plays a ton of video games. We watched "Gemini Man" a year or so ago on 4K UHD disc at both 60p and 24p. He thought the 60p looked like a video game, not a movie, and preferred the 24p version. I doubt he's the only young person who feels this way. My point is that saying 24p is for older folks because they are used to it is too simplistic an argument and simply not correct. 

[JulioD]

Yeah this argument keeps coming back but there is never any evidence to support it. 
 

With technology as time progresses most things do improve. 
 

Bit depth. Resolution.

There’s an assumption that faster must be better.

But audiences continue to prefer 24

 

[Fatalfury]

On 12/4/2023 at 8:03 PM, zlfan said:

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

avatar to me is surreal, hobbit is fantasy, titanic is epic, guess what, all were shot on 48p. when i watch titanic, i never think that this is just a real tv show, and the heroes and hero are real life like. to me, they are above life for sure. the cinematography is just stunning. not to say avatar and hobbit, although they are not dramas, the cinematography is definitely not at real tv show level. 

are these box failures? go check yourself. all are 5 times profit ratios. and all are good movies worthy watching even many years later. 

no matter what the critics say about them, these are legendary movies to viewers. there is no point denying this to justify 24p. 

You don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about or are simply trolling to make 24fps look good - if the latter is true, than you've succeeded. Titanic was shot in 24fps and was always 24fps until artificially converted to 48fps in 2023 for extremely limited cinema release - so chances are you have never ever seen Titanic in 48fps.

Hobbit movies looked like absolute dogshit in 48fps - though many theatres screened it only in 24fps and that's the reason why Jedi Master and his mates didn't see any difference. Avatar 2, I was interested to see how the switch between 24/48 panned out, but turned out my cinema showed it only in 24fps.

Outside of 24fps cinema standard:

30 fps - tv soap look, also fine for broadcast etc,

50-60fps - makes everything look like a weightless video game. I thought Hobbit looked quite bad in 24fps also but not head ache inducing like 48. 

100+ fps in real time - now this is where it gets interesting if the goal is ultra realism. I'm open to it.
Anything cgi will of course struggle as the animation needs to be higher quality to be less noticeable as 24fps can mask it a little. I think cgi is nowhere near ready for this so 100fps in the next few years is not worth it. 

[kye]

4 hours ago, Fatalfury said:

100+ fps in real time - now this is where it gets interesting if the goal is ultra realism. I'm open to it.
Anything cgi will of course struggle as the animation needs to be higher quality to be less noticeable as 24fps can mask it a little. I think cgi is nowhere near ready for this so 100fps in the next few years is not worth it. 

My wife bought a gaming monitor that can do 240Hz and (after much research) we figured out a solution to actually get 240Hz to it.

I haven't played with it, but in theory I could play back video at 240fps on it, given the right software.

I have no idea what it would look like, and don't in any way think it would be cinematic, but it would be interesting to see.  My phone shoots 240p, so in theory I could record some video.  I hate the look of 60p and also find 30p to have the same slippery look, just less severely than 60p.  You've got me curious now.

[Fatalfury]

1 hour ago, kye said:

My wife bought a gaming monitor that can do 240Hz and (after much research) we figured out a solution to actually get 240Hz to it.

I haven't played with it, but in theory I could play back video at 240fps on it, given the right software.

I have no idea what it would look like, and don't in any way think it would be cinematic, but it would be interesting to see.  My phone shoots 240p, so in theory I could record some video.  I hate the look of 60p and also find 30p to have the same slippery look, just less severely than 60p.  You've got me curious now.

Just got a gaming laptop and have tried some games in 120fps fully synced with the monitor and the difference between 60 and 120 is pretty damn huge. 120 - 200 and the difference is getting smaller. But since it's still a game engine, it doesn't look real but the slippery motion is eliminated. But sometimes I like the slippery motion in games a la fighting, arcade games etc.

Haven't tested with any real time high frame rate real life footage yet. My guess the result is the same, slippery look is eliminated. But even then, in the end I guess I will always prefer 24fps as it makes the visuals larger than life. But it will surely gain traction in the future.

[Andrew Reid]

14 hours ago, JulioD said:

Yeah this argument keeps coming back but there is never any evidence to support it. 
 

With technology as time progresses most things do improve. 
 

Bit depth. Resolution.

There’s an assumption that faster must be better.

But audiences continue to prefer 24

 

Exactly

 

[Jedi Master]

12 hours ago, Fatalfury said:

though many theatres screened it only in 24fps and that's the reason why Jedi Master and his mates didn't see any difference.

No. The theater we saw it in showed it in 48 FPS, not 24 FPS. 

I have never played a video game on a computer, so perhaps that influences what I like with respect to movie frame rates.

[kye]

I just watched John Wick 4 and what a movie!

No spoilers, but I found it to be enjoyable, surprisingly creative and also cinematic as hell.

I cannot imagine, in any form, where making it more realistic would improve things.  I think computer games and immersive experiences definitely benefit from being more realistic, but cinema is just a fundamentally different type of experience.

[JulioD]

6 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

No. The theater we saw it in showed it in 48 FPS, not 24 FPS. 

I have never played a video game on a computer, so perhaps that influences what I like with respect to movie frame rates.

And as I’m sure you know,

Projecting material at 48fps that was acquired at 24FPS doesn’t realllllly make it HFR either even if this is the case. 
 

 

[Evgeniy85]

Cinema is not about being smooth or representing reality, otherwise anamorphic lenses or color grading wouldn't exist. 

[Jedi Master]

19 hours ago, JulioD said:

And as I’m sure you know,

Projecting material at 48fps that was acquired at 24FPS doesn’t realllllly make it HFR either even if this is the case. 
 

 

I was under the assumption that the hobbit movies were shot in-camera at 48 FPS. Is that not correct?

[JulioD]

5 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

I was under the assumption that the hobbit movies were shot in-camera at 48 FPS. Is that not correct?

I thought we talking Titanic. 
 

FYI Hobbit was shot 48fps but with a 270deg shutter. 
 

[92F]

On 05/12/2023 at 06:56, kye said:

Pour ceux qui pensent que ce genre de choses est uniquement destiné à Hollywood et au cinéma, c'est bien vivant dans le monde de YT. Voici une vidéo de Natalie Lynn. C'est un excellent exemple de techniques de réalisation de films appliquées à la vidéographie personnelle de voyage, et elle est très émouvante d'une manière qu'une caméra impartiale ne peut pas réaliser.

et voici une interview et un aperçu de la production sur la façon dont il a été créé :

Spoilers : il comprend un éclairage spécial, elle a acheté une machine à fumée, a passé un temps ridicule au montage, et plein d'autres choses. Il faut beaucoup de travail pour que les choses paraissent sans effort.

Personally I find it quite shitty... Wanting to make films is a bit pitiful, but is it possible to film cleanly?

Ok a lot of self-sacrifice but if it's making cinema (speech/story lousy, image deliberately degraded to make... "eh I'm making cinema well yes it's 24 p"

Not held for more than 5 minutes,  mental age 12 years max 

This doesn't make me dream at all... a lot of empty talk to say I'm doing cinematics.

Sorry ..

[kye]

1 hour ago, 92F said:

Personally I find it quite shitty... Wanting to make films is a bit pitiful, but is it possible to film cleanly?

Ok a lot of self-sacrifice but if it's making cinema (speech/story lousy, image deliberately degraded to make... "eh I'm making cinema well yes it's 24 p"

Not held for more than 5 minutes,  mental age 12 years max 

This doesn't make me dream at all... a lot of empty talk to say I'm doing cinematics.

Sorry ..

It sounds like you missed the point.

I didn't post the video saying that it was an example of great image quality, I posted it to make the point that a lot of the techniques being used in cinema are also being used for creative YouTube videos.

This entire discussion has been about if film-making should be more or less realistic, and the point that many of us have been making is that almost all of the tools and techniques used in cinema deliberately make things less realistic.

The video I posted was an example of many techniques that improve the creative aspects, but make the end result less realistic, including:

• cutting up clips into sequences that aren't 'continuity editing' but are more emotive
• combining multiple images at a time (e.g. the top-down shot in the bedroom)
• splicing in audio clips that were recorded at a different time than the visual being shown
• overlapping audio clips and other foley and SFX to create a creative rather than realistic sound design
• non-realistic colour grading
• filming insert shots (like the hanging of the clothes in the closet) for the purpose of association rather than limiting the edit to 'real' events
• production design techniques like use of lighting and light modifiers, smoke machines, etc
• in-camera visual effects like the top-down shot of the medium format camera
• etc.  there are likely lots more, these are just the things I could name off the top of my head

From this perspective, such a video is an example of a great many techniques that are employed by film-makers to make the finished product more appealing, but do so specifically by making the end result less realistic.

You didn't like it, and that's fine, but my point was that there are deliberately non-realistic techniques being used on YT and the example shows a variety of them in use.  It didn't share it because I thought everyone would like it, it was an example to discuss the techniques.

[92F]

I always like your reasonable comments so continue to post things that I don't like..this allows dialogue. thank you

On the other hand, the title is indeed 24 p... it's so stupid to believe that this is what makes the magic of cinema that it's something to laugh about... it's so much more complicated.

There are even some who believe that in 25p it's still a camcorder and in 24p one image less and watch.... I make cinema (lived experience)...

A lot of crazy in the field of creation and audiovisual is no exception: light / lens / ... play a much more important role.

 I understood that you are following another idea from the discussion

Have a nice day and continue to share your wise thoughts 👍

[Jedi Master]

4 hours ago, kye said:

From this perspective, such a video is an example of a great many techniques that are employed by film-makers to make the finished product more appealing, but do so specifically by making the end result less realistic.

I predict that in a few years, movies will be entirely CGI created by AI systems, including the actors. Since "realism" doesn't seem to be necessary in movie making, I don't see this as a problem, and it'll save the studios zillions of dollars and lots of time.

[mercer]

@Jedi Master Sure let's take humanity out of art.

Sadly you're probably correct, but it will take another 20-30 years before it happens entirely. I'm still waiting for the flying cars and hovercrafts we were promised in the 80s.

Btw, 24p looks better. No room for debate. If other frame rates looked better, they'd be used. It's been tried and were utter failures.

But every couple years there are a few new forum members that try to argue against it... but their argument has no footing because every example they have that it looks good, has been shot down by the audiences.

Btw, what is that you shoot that makes you prefer 60p or even 120p?

[Jedi Master]

32 minutes ago, mercer said:

@Jedi Master Sure let's take humanity out of art.

Sadly you're probably correct, but it will take another 20-30 years before it happens entirely. I'm still waiting for the flying cars and hovercrafts we were promised in the 80s.

Btw, 24p looks better. No room for debate. If other frame rates looked better, they'd be used. It's been tried and were utter failures.

But every couple years there are a few new forum members that try to argue against it... but their argument has no footing because every example they have that it looks good, has been shot down by the audiences.

Btw, what is that you shoot that makes you prefer 60p or even 120p?

Depends on what you define as art. When I go to the movies, I'm looking for escapist entertainment, not art. If I want art, I'll go to an art gallery.

I predict AI-generated CGI movies will be here a lot sooner than 20-30 years, given the cost incentive this change will bring.

24p may look better to you, but saying there's no room for debate discounts the opinion of those of us who feel higher frame rates look better.

[mercer]

17 minutes ago, Jedi Master said:

Depends on what you define as art. When I go to the movies, I'm looking for escapist entertainment, not art. If I want art, I'll go to an art gallery.

I predict AI-generated CGI movies will be here a lot sooner than 20-30 years, given the cost incentive this change will bring.

24p may look better to you, but saying there's no room for debate discounts the opinion of those of us who feel higher frame rates look better.

Even escapism is art. Hollywood is run by unions, and the unions will not let that happen for a long time. Eventually, actors will sell off their likeness', or their heirs will, but until that day, you will not have the star power to put asses in the seat of an AI generated movie.

Sorry, you're entitled to your opinion... obviously... but the evidence in favor of 24p dwarfs any anecdotal evidence against it. So as much as you want to believe the winds will change after nearly a century of tradition... sorry there is just no evidence for your claim...

The fact remains... if people wanted to see films shot at 60fps or 120fps, then films would be shot like that. The ones that attempted it failed.

[Jedi Master]

5 minutes ago, mercer said:

Even escapism is art. Hollywood is run by unions, and the unions will not let that happen for a long time. Eventually, actors will sell off their likeness', or their heirs will, but until that day, you will not have the star power to put asses in the seat of an AI generated movie.

It would be interesting to see Hollywood "resurrect" actors like Bogart and Brando in the form of CGI.