Motion Cadencemo

[Taranis]

Lets see how many shoot 24P after 5 years.

There is no such thing as film today. Why try to imitate old look with new tools? Okay 60P ecosystem is just coming in fullhd and not reality in 4k but 30P is still available everywhere.

Is there anyone who shoots nature movies or documentaries or sports films? Are you all shooting fiction movies with dreamy look and shallow DOF? How about recording memories or everyday life? Does perfect, sharp and fluid motion has actually the best cadence?

What is the difference of broadcast TV and film today. People watch everything with everything. We watch TV programs with computers and smartphones and movies with TV. Why a look which blurs the movie and adds stuttering artefacts or faults to moving parts of video is more "cool" than clear and sharp video. Even as a child I always wondered why the movie looks bad every time the camera pans or someone moves. I never learned to love those faults. Is there any value when all the landscape detail disappear when turning camera? Why not add some scratches and jittering film projector vibration and film noise too (in fact some are doing that).

​There are huge threads about this. I share your views to an extent, I think the world is changing and 24p will have to go in the future. I have to admit though that even I find the 24p hobbit better than the 48p one, but I think that's because my brain is trained the way it is. I'd love to see a survey about kids watching 24p/48p movie comparison. It would be interesting to see which one they preferred.

[Kristoferman]

Who cares what kids think?  The illusion isn't broken for them because they barely grasp the concept of illusion.  If the sets don't look real it doesn't matter to a child because it doesn't even cross their minds that it isn't real.  

Once the curtain is pulled away and you lose your child like sense of wonderment, HFR narrative ceases to be convincing.  HFR action sports works because its actually real life and no illusion needs to be created. 

I don't think 24P is going anywhere until the film industry itself evolves into something other than watching moving pictures on a large screen. 

[Vesku]

It is a paradox for me. Image must have faults to convince viewer that the story or set is true or believable. If you add realism to image the film is not true any more. It is like a fairy tale book is not as believable if it has photos instead of drawings.

Many movies are still "true" stories or documentaries. Why we must shoot these real life films with dreamy look?

[Oliver Daniel]

It is a paradox for me. Image must have faults to convince viewer that the story or set is true or believable. If you add realism to image the film is not true any more. It is like a fairy tale book is not as believable if it has photos instead of drawings.

Many movies are still "true" stories or documentaries. Why we must shoot these real life films with dreamy look?

1. Because it looks better.

2. Because it suspends your disbelief. 

3. Dreamy is a form of imagination.

4. Imagination can create great art. 

5. Tell A DJ that vinyls are history. Now tell a filmmaker the same thing about 24p. 

6. Just my opinion. 

[Vesku]

Dreamy look is OK as one art form but it is not OK for everything. I wonder how 24P survives when 4k becomes mainstream. Do people want sharper motion and more realism? It is interesting to see what happens. The change seems to be slow. Movie makers has trained their 24P skills so good that they can hide its faults very well. They must also learn new tricks and skills for higher frame rates before they can get it work optimally.

[fuzzynormal]

I believe a production will come along soon wherein utilizing 48p (or higher) really jibes with the narrative and becomes a useful character of the story.  For instance, using it with a particular near-future hard Sci-Fi film. Where maybe you would want the setting to be very realistic --to create a sense of practical possibility?  I don't know.  Seems like that might have potential.

As an example, imagine if it was 1968 and you saw 2001 in the theatre @48p.  That would be a pretty cool mind f*ck.

However, since most of us are conditioned from experience to accept 24p, I really don't expect wholesale changes to happen with conventional films in our lifetime.

I mean, I shoot my documentaries @24p; mostly because they've dealt with memory and nostalgia, so that sort of sentiment fits the surreality that imperfect 24p allows.  I should also mention that I shoot 0º shutter @24p.  That really does a number on motion edge blur in a way that I find appealing.

It is very much visually false.  But, for what I've been doing, it's allegorically true. 

 

...Hmmm, makes me think that combining both in a certain narrative might be a cool experiment...

[Kristoferman]

I believe a production will come along soon wherein utilizing 48p (or higher) really jibes with the narrative and becomes a useful character of the story.  For instance, using it with a particular near-future hard Sci-Fi film. Where maybe you would want the setting to be very realistic --to create a sense of practical possibility?  I don't know.  Seems like that might have potential.

As an example, imagine if it was 1968 and you saw 2001 in the theatre @48p.  That would be a pretty cool mind f*ck.

However, since most of us are conditioned from experience to accept 24p, I really don't expect wholesale changes to happen with conventional films in our lifetime.

I mean, I shoot my documentaries @24p; mostly because they've dealt with memory and nostalgia, so that sort of sentiment fits the subtle surreality that imperfect 24p allows.

Hard scifi seems like the last place you'd want high frame rates.  Making a set look believable would be an intense challenge.  Kinda like the fantasy setting of the hobbit didn't work. 

[j.f.r.]

 

There is no such thing as film today.

​Please come back to this discussion when you even remotely have an idea what you're talking about.......... 

Well over 30+ Movies released in 2014 were shot on Film

http://filmmakermagazine.com/88971-39-movies-released-in-2014-shot-on-35mm/#.VUk6jVzdtDp

[Vesku]

​Please come back to this discussion when you even remotely have an idea what you're talking about.......... 

Well over 30+ Movies released in 2014 were shot on Film

http://filmmakermagazine.com/88971-39-movies-released-in-2014-shot-on-35mm/#.VUk6jVzdtDp

​Very interesting article. Thanks. I was a little ahead of time.

Two quotes:

“To capture all the resolution of an anamorphic 35mm film image, you need a scan somewhere between 8K and 12K. So while everyone brags about 4K cameras and scans, we’re shooting on, effectively, a 10K camera. Why replace that with an inferior technology?”

“On the location scout, we were standing in the pouring rain, and I said, ‘We need film cameras. We can throw them down on the sandbags in the mud and they work.’"

[fuzzynormal]

Making a set look believable would be an intense challenge.  Kinda like the fantasy setting of the hobbit didn't work. 

​Hard Sci-Fi and Fantasy shouldn't even be written about in the same sentence.  Those two genres have nothing in common!  Sacrilege!  May the reverse thrusters of a Heinlein rocket scorch you from the earth.  

Anyway, if high frame rate realism could be pulled off with a hard Sci-Fi story line, it might be an incredible achievement --insomuch that such a plausible future reality would then seem more real to an audience.  

My argument may seem a bit like a contradiction as the bar for the suspension of disbelief is indeed higher when using HFR (because the perceived reality of HFR is more like our own eyesight and invites the uncanny valley).  However, even though getting over that bar would be a huge challenge, if successful would take the viewer that much deeper into the narrative.

[Kristoferman]

I just meant that the two genres both require extensive set work as it is to make it look believable.  

Forget sets, you'd literally have to build actual environments to sell it. Not only that but also light things in a completely different way since hollywood lighting is in no way realistic. And props and body armor?  Everything would have to look absolutely real. IF all of that was pulled off (billion dollar budget? ) , then yes,  it could potentially work imo. But it's not likely or feasible. 

HFR can potentially help with epic, spectacle laden action sequences because people are a bit more forgiving with their suspensions of disbelief. Nobody is truly fooled when watching the avengers fight giant monsters throughout new york. It's just neat spectacle. 

[Taranis]

Who cares what kids think?  The illusion isn't broken for them because they barely grasp the concept of illusion.  If the sets don't look real it doesn't matter to a child because it doesn't even cross their minds that it isn't real.  

Once the curtain is pulled away and you lose your child like sense of wonderment, HFR narrative ceases to be convincing.  HFR action sports works because its actually real life and no illusion needs to be created. 

I don't think 24P is going anywhere until the film industry itself evolves into something other than watching moving pictures on a large screen. 

​You (and me) have absolutely no idea how a world would look like with 48p as the standard for storytelling. We grew up with 24p, we think it's a great tool for creating illusions, but I would never consider it as a golden standard for mankind. You say if the curtain is pulled away high frame rates cease to be convincing, but I wonder if you really missed 24p if you had no idea about it. Let's say you grow up this way and someone shows you a 24p movie, would you really think it is better? I highly doubt that. I know this is hypothetical, but it's important to see that we are highly trained to believe that 24p is ideal, it became standard like 80 years ago.

[Axel]

My argument may seem a bit like a contradiction as the bar for the suspension of disbelief is indeed higher when using HFR (because the perceived reality of HFR is more like our own eyesight and invites the uncanny valley).  However, even though getting over that bar would be a huge challenge, if successful would take the viewer that much deeper into the narrative.

​There is imo a simple way to see it:

Avatar @ 48p (or higher): Works, because the narration itself says this is virtual reality. This is  N O W.

Hobbit @ 48p: Doesn't work, because the narration says Once Upon A Time.

48p - present tense, 24p - past tense

How many novels are written in present tense and why? Resp. why not?

This is not going to change.

As an example, imagine if it was 1968 and you saw 2001 in the theatre @48p.  That would be a pretty cool mind f*ck.

​One can try. Put on motion smoothing (or how your TV calls it) and watch the bluray. Of course it's not exactly the same, but the main characteristics will be there. The higher the frame rates, the less any esoteric distinctions of cadence count.

[Liam]

even with this younger generation of gamers, I don't hear much about them PREFERRING the higher frame rates. often they can't tell the difference. Maybe sometimes they still think 24p looks better but don't realize it or know why, but it looks more professional like other films they've seen. anything the TV does to fake a higher frame rate is going to have awful artifacts. there's also more flexibility with shutter speed for artistic effect at a lower frame rate and smaller file sizes. Of course a higher frame rate can be a tool, but would kinda suck as a standard.

[hmcindie]

Saying that a camera has jello because it has a CMOS sensor is simply false. It's not true. 

 

​No. But saying shit like "isn't really connected" is lying too. So there you go.

It was basically a rule for years and years.

 

[Mattias Burling]

​No. But saying shit like "isn't really connected" is lying too. So there you go.

No it isn't and you know it.

But fine, if you feel the Internet is better of with incorrect information go right ahead. 

But don't quote me if you can't take an answer. 

[hmcindie]

Lets see how many shoot 24P after 5 years.

There is no such thing as film today. Why try to imitate old look with new tools? Okay 60P ecosystem is just coming in fullhd and not reality in 4k but 30P is still available everywhere.

​What is this bullshit? 60fps has been here for decades and decades. It was 60i/50i but every sport event and documentary was shot with it. Movies weren't and will not be shot with 48p/60p except for experimentations. And they will be failures just like they always are.

There was a time when videocameras DID NOT SHOOT 24p. They all shot 60i/50i. The 24p was a coveted film look. When the DVX100 appeared, people rejoiced. I will never shoot 60p unless I'm doing a documentary or sporting event (or slowmo). I think that's why the Avatar sequels might work in 48p, they are actually going for that documentary / realistic look. 

 

[Vesku]

​What is this bullshit? 60fps has been here for decades and decades. It was 60i/50i but every sport event and documentary was shot with it. Movies weren't and will not be shot with 48p/60p except for experimentations. And they will be failures just like they always are.

60i is not 60P. 60P fullhd is just coming to Youtube and web streaming and there are almost no 60P movie in theaters. Canon and Nikon are just now adding 60P fullhd to their consumer cameras.

[hmcindie]

It is a paradox for me. Image must have faults to convince viewer that the story or set is true or believable. If you add realism to image the film is not true any more. It is like a fairy tale book is not as believable if it has photos instead of drawings.

Many movies are still "true" stories or documentaries. Why we must shoot these real life films with dreamy look?

​I think you're not grasping how films are made. They are made in a studio with a hazer blowing out in the corner with 2kw lights pretending to be sunlight. You walk into that set and look at it with your real eyes and your gonna be like "looks like theatre". You make the cameras shoot realistic 48p and you're gonna see that set "as is" and it's quite difficult to just take that feeling out with a bit of grading as the Hobbit 48fps showed. There were ridiculous scenes where the characters stood in a studio, surrounded by greenscreen, extremely plasticky swords and a couple of plastic walls painted over to look like boulders. Huge amounts of light were blasting overhead so that the "firelit" atmosphere looked ridiculous.  The 3d did not help as you were focusing in on the characters and saw how everything was fake, from their moustaches to their clothes. You could also see the different grading areas funnily in 3d and look at the different masks in stereo. Pouring rain did not look like pouring rain but something that was poured on just a bit over the cameras and lit from the side (as they are done)

All of that disappeared in the 24fps 2D version. And oh my lord, Lord of the Rings looked SO MUCH BETTER.

[fuzzynormal]

Avatar @ 48p (or higher): Works, because the narration itself says this is virtual reality. This is  N O W.

Huh.  I didn't think it worked. I thought it looked stupid. Maybe my opinion was influenced by how god awful, trite, and terrible the story was.

Did I mention stupid?  

Regardless, in my subjective opinion hfr in that movie just looked ridiculous. 

Guess that's what it's ultimately about. Subjectivity.