60 frames a second....holy shit Frank!

[dakota87]

60 and 30fps bite ass. It's that stupid soap opera/video look. A high def version of that soap opera, daytime TV, Telemundo looking bullshit. High frame rate = more frames, less motion blur, not more quantifiable quality. I'll only ever shoot in 24p. 60+ should only be used when you intend to slow down footage for slo-mo shots, that way you can cut back on cheap looking frame blending in post. If you can't see the difference between 24 and 60, your brain is broken and you are unaware of how much less you are enjoying moving visual media than correct brained people.

^^This.

Exactly.

[SexSlave1972]

Same shit about how un-natural it looks was spoken when digital format came for photographs.
Film was natural, digital was plastic. Today, nobody but film enthusiastic's doesn't say nothing about it. Eye adapts, mind adapts.

[Jamie French]

Wrong. This isn't a matter of how media formats may effect the way content is delivered and interpreted by the ear or eye. Enough ones and zeros mashed together can absolutely mimic the effects an analogue signal produces as a human would appreciate them.

The the frame rates of a film, video, stop motion and digital video is physically, mathematically and quantifiable different from one rate to the next. Purposefully so. Frame rates produce very specific effects for very specific reasons. They are specialized and one frame rate is absolutely superior to another in the field for which it was designed. High frame rates have their uses. Bearing the the complete weight of narrative driven story telling is not one of them.

I know it feels like what you said is right, but you have to crack open a few books and do a little research before you speak of things that are based on mathematical principle and governed by industry and communication commissions.

Again, high frame rates as a standard for narrative story telling is a jerk off maneuver for bored, over-geeked directors who ran out of stories to tell and now lean on mere tech as expression.

Same shit about how un-natural it looks was spoken when digital format came for photographs.
Film was natural, digital was plastic. Today, nobody but film enthusiastic's doesn't say nothing about it. Eye adapts, mind adapts.

[LilyRox]

The reason we have been stuck at 24 fps for most video purposes is because of adaptability. The effect that 24 fps uses is what in psychology would call the Law of Closure. Your brain can see gaps between the film of 24 fps, but "fills" them in mentally. If there wasn't any gaps 48 or 60 fps wouldn't look any different to us.

Over the years of adapting to the 24 fps standard the brain is used to deciphering film in a certain pattern. For many people once you view a clip of 48 fps or 60 fps your brain is still treating it as a 24 fps film and filling in the "wrong" parts. This is why some people say 48 fps or 60 fps looks "weird", but they don't know why.

24 isn't a magic number. It's just a number that adapted well to adding sound with video, conversions and they never changed it. The secret is the divisibility of 6. This is why 48 and 60 are often talked about a lot too.

In order for us to move ahead to the future of 48 and 60 fps the entire industry has to change though. There's no point in filming 48 or 60 fps if lots of places take the film and show it in 24 or 30 fps. This is probably the reason why we haven't adapted to it as well.

[Jamie French]

24 was the magic number that clicked with sound. Kinda tells you everything you need to know. Imagine, the most natural synchronicity between sound and site is the one we prefer? Mind blowing. 24 looks correct right out of the box. A mind might adapt to another frame rate, ( you go volunteer for that experiment, I got movies to make) but 24fps requires no adaptation period... it just works.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. All efforts to replace 24fps rather than acting as a format adjunct is simply jerking off to electronic gadgetry for lack of originality in content and experimentation without focused direction or purpose.

The reason we have been stuck at 24 fps for most video purposes is because of adaptability. The effect that 24 fps uses is what in psychology would call the Law of Closure. Your brain can see gaps between the film of 24 fps, but "fills" them in mentally. If there wasn't any gaps 48 or 60 fps wouldn't look any different to us.

Over the years of adapting to the 24 fps standard the brain is used to deciphering film in a certain pattern. For many people once you view a clip of 48 fps or 60 fps your brain is still treating it as a 24 fps film and filling in the "wrong" parts. This is why some people say 48 fps or 60 fps looks "weird", but they don't know why.

24 isn't a magic number. It's just a number that adapted well to adding sound with video, conversions and they never changed it. The secret is the divisibility of 6. This is why 48 and 60 are often talked about a lot too.

In order for us to move ahead to the future of 48 and 60 fps the entire industry has to change though. There's no point in filming 48 or 60 fps if lots of places take the film and show it in 24 or 30 fps. This is probably the reason why we haven't adapted to it as well.

[Jamie French]

Holy shit, and another thing... no experiment needed. We all grew up seeing as much video footage as we fave film footage. Video having the higher cheaper looking frame rate. Yet we are still able to discern between the differences. This high frame rate shit ain't new and attacking our old ways... it truly does look like crap when trying to use it to make the thing it wasn't designed for. Everyone fuck off, I win.

[Jamie French]

Also, also... if 'better on a technical level' were the alpha and omega of standards by which we measured quality, the only bands we'd listen to would be Dream Theater, King Crimson, Yes and Rush. Great bands all in their own right but seriously, Fuck. A. Barrel. Of. That. Shit.

[trish]

I know absolutely nothing about this topic, but this thread has piqued my interest. It seemed to me that filming with a low shudder speed would create some noticeable stroboscopic effects; i.e. wheel going backward etc. I tend to agree with Jamie though in that if your interests are narrative, there may be no need to eliminate these sorts of aberrations (which we're all probably used to anyway). I did a little searching and found this

http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm

It's an article which claims that films shot in 24 fps when played on high end blue ray systems which play back at 1080 fps (do I have that right?) suffer from some rather extreme visual distortions. Like I said, I have no dog in this fight. Just thought the article might be relevant to the discussion.

[Jamie French]

It's not the we are use to them. It's that they look fanfuckingtastic on a fundamental level. There is a reason that it takes a lot of time, money and training to make a film look like a proper film, because reality looks awful when trying to take your audience to a realm outside of everyday experience. Watch any behind the scenes feature of any movie where the crew used video cameras to shoot footage on the exact same sets, with the exact same lighting and the exact same actors as they did when using cinematic cameras and you'll see exactly why we use the frame rates and shutter speeds that we do to make proper movies.

[trish]

It's not the we are use to them. It's that they look fanfuckingtastic on a fundamental level.

I can see that. Its fascinating to see the wheels slowly go backwards as a filmed car speeds forward...it seems psychologically to enhance the expression of speed.

Must 24 fps be played back with the appropriate equipment as the article suggests, or is that bullshit?