The New Trend In Hollywood?

[A24 4,339]

Is this the end of 24fps? It might happen since James Cameron, Douglass Trumbull and Peter Jackson are the big advocates:

Learn all about it here.

Alex

[TownerFan 4,983]

The 24p format is indeed a thing of the previous century. This particular frame rate was conceived because it was the most ideal to get the sound in sync with the film. With digital cameras and digital sound everything is now relative. The 24p format has been kept because of the speed of standard film projectors in movie theaters and also because all the post-production process is based around that.

Now, a higher frame rate could indeed be a good thing, but it's a major change for all the production and post-production processes, not to mention that theaters must adapt with new projectors that supports it (also, the TV sets and DVD/BD players must be upgraded).

[crocodile 8,017]

I'm happy with that. We're getting twice as many frames for the same price of the ticket. It's a bargain then... right?

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But...but we are paying more already for the third dimension? They will charge us even more for the double framerate.

[crocodile 8,017]

Then I'm not happy with that.

Can we reduce it to, say, 16fps?

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

24fps were never conceived as the ideal, but as a means to an end. It's a relic of the past - its passing lamented only by the dinosaurs who fear change, their comfort zone altered. 24fps have served us well, but 48fps will bring films into the 21st century. Feel free to linger in nostalgic past glorious if you must, but I'll be embracing this new era - an era which absolutely is not a mere immersive gimmick to put bums on seats in the summer, but instead a genuinely important advance in what makes movies great.

RIP 24fps, long will you be loved, but not missed.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

24fps were never conceived as the ideal, but as a means to an end. It's a relic of the past - it's passing lamented only by the dinosaurs who fear change. 24fps have served us well, but 48fps will bring films into the 21st century. Feel free to linger in the nostalgic past glorious if you must, but I'll be embracing this new era - an era which absolutely is not a mere immersive gimmick to put bums on seats in the summer, but instead a genuinely important advance in what makes movies great.

RIP 24fps, long will you be loved.

You are a 3D lover, right?

[Quintus 5,399]

No.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Hmmm....

[crocodile 8,017]

He's just a typical male, thinking in sizes and big numbers.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

So bigger...is better?

[Quintus 5,399]

I'm not adverse to the fun 'ride' quality of 3D in any way shape or form - I think 3D has its place in the cinema and I can enjoy it for what it is - a harmless gimmick. If it vanished tomorrow I would give two fucks. I'm certainly no 'lover' of the medium.

Put it this way: I intend on seeing The Hobbit in gorgeous 2D.

He's just a typical male, thinking in sizes and big numbers.

Karol

I see what you tried to do there, but the tacking on of the big numbers doesn't really work, since typical men don't concern themselves with big numbers at all. You got the big cock obsession right of course, but that alone didn't really make your joke work. Never mind, eh.

[A24 4,339]

According to Trumbull, shooting at 60fps (and projected on a screen that is big enough) is a bigger deal than 3D. It's like opening your dirty window, looking outside and seeing things clear for the first time. Things become 3D without the negative side effects of real 3D.

[Quintus 5,399]

Oh Alex, you not seen it action? YOU will love it.

[A24 4,339]

I guess I saw once with one of the first IMAX/NASA films. What's the title again? I thought the exterior shots were mind-boggling. I still remember the satellite in orbit around Earth. I could almost touch it. The interior shots had too much grain though.

[crocodile 8,017]

I'm not adverse to the fun 'ride' quality of 3D in any way shape or form - I think 3D has its place in the cinema and I can enjoy it for what it is - a harmless gimmick. If it vanished tomorrow I would give two fucks. I'm certainly no 'lover' of the medium.

Put it this way: I intend on seeing The Hobbit in gorgeous 2D.

He's just a typical male, thinking in sizes and big numbers.

Karol

I see what you tried to do there, but the tacking on of the big numbers doesn't really work, since typical men don't concern themselves with big numbers at all. You got the big cock obsession right of course, but that alone didn't really make your joke work. Never mind, eh.

Blast! That online sarcasm course costs me 400 quid.

Karol

[Romão 2,274]

So I reckon this upgrade might make CGI effects become much more expensive, am I right?

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

mmm, good point.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

So I reckon this upgrade might make CGI effects become much more expensive, am I right?

Only as far as rendering times go. You could also say that at 48fps, 2D CGI effects should be about as expensive as 3D effects at 24fps (though perhaps still somewhat cheaper, since there won't be much of a difference at the modelling stage).

[Koray Savas 2,251]

James Cameron says every single film with be shot in 3D come 2015, so I doubt this is going to take effect anytime soon. 2D will never die.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Developments are expensive as shit and take a lot of time. A majority of theaters still use 35mm, once you get everything digital, then you can talk about 3D and higher frame rates.

[Quintus 5,399]

James Cameron says every single film will be shot in 3D come 2015

Where did he say such a daft thing?

[Datameister 2,044]

I've only seen a handful of live action things in (theme park) theaters with higher framerates, but it's never been a negative thing. I suppose there is a certain cinematic quality that we interpret 24fps as having, but something that's shot well on film with a higher framerate can still look plenty cinematic. It's just a smoother, more realistic sort of motion. Your eye provides the motion blur instead of the camera, so it's more like real life.

The difference definitely won't be huge for most moviegoers. Probably won't be huge for me, either. But whatever impact it does have will be positive, I think - and I suppose if a filmmaker really wants to, (s)he can still shoot a film at 24fps. Perhaps the traditionally cinematic effect of it will even become intensified if it becomes more of a rare thing. Could end up being used the way black and white is used nowadays.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

The biggest challenge with the 24fps to 60fps transition will be convincing people that 60 fps is not home video.

Aside from that mental conditioning, 60 fps is superior in every way (even 3D movies will be more watchable, less headachey)

Except for the visual effects guys. And the keyframe animation guys. It makes life twice as painful for them.

[Datameister 2,044]

I'm not so sure about that first part. I'm sure you're more knowledgeable about this than I am, but the "home video" quality isn't purely a function of framerate. A lot of it has to do with image quality. (Not to mention shooting style, lighting, sound quality, etc....) For example, the Soarin' attraction at Disney California Adventure and Epcot is shot and projected at 48fps, and it does indeed look very smooth, but it definitely doesn't have any of that "home video" quality. It just looks like smooth, realistic film.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Except for the visual effects guys. And the keyframe animation guys. It makes life twice as painful for them.

Screw them!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

James Cameron says every single film will be shot in 3D come 2015

Where did he say such a daft thing?

I don't think this was the original article I read, but this site reported the same thing.

Cameron predicts - optimistically - that there will be 100% adoption of 3D in cinemas within five years, but thinks that the home market may take longer - at least until glasses-free 3D is perfected (at which point, he says, that market "is going to go ballistic"). And with the Cameron-Pace Group ready to manufacture cameras and equipment for the people creating the content, it's a future that can't come soon enough.

Here's another article about his new 3D production company.

The biggest challenge with the 24fps to 60fps transition will be convincing people that 60 fps is not home video.

Aside from that mental conditioning, 60 fps is superior in every way (even 3D movies will be more watchable, less headachey)

That's my problem with higher frame rates. Looks like crap.

[Datameister 2,044]

What are you basing that assessment on?

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

That's my problem with higher frame rates. Looks like crap.

That's like people saying CDs suck because they don't have LP's crackling noise.

[King Mark 3,631]

so ,does this mean we'll need new TV's to play these movies?

because I just bought one

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

My projector should be able to handle it. The question is, what kind of devices will we need to output this material. While BD is much superiour to DVD as far as formats go, I think it's still rather unflexible to allow this kind of change.

[crocodile 8,017]

Which means we'll have to re-buy our film collections. Yet again.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

Cameron predicts - optimistically - that there will be 100% adoption of 3D in cinemas within five years.

Um, that doesn't amount to what you originally claimed he said. Cameron is clearly stating that he believes all cinemas will have 3D capability within five years, that's all. Nothing stupid or sensational about that.

Woody Allen isn't about to make Hannah and Her Sisters 3D.

[King Mark 3,631]

What are you basing that assessment on?

Well ,if you turn on the 120Hz "Motion flow" feature on your TV, isn't it what higher frame rates would look like? It's a weird effect, like all the backgrounds become stabilized and look fake. I always have that feature off on my TV

the lack of motion blur in the backgrounds means you also notice all the set imperfections

[Datameister 2,044]

1. I don't have a TV right now.

2. I've never had a TV with that feature.

3. No. With features like that, you're faking a higher framerate. Shooting a film at a higher framerate and then displaying it at that framerate can only improve the realism of the image. To some people, that won't look quite as traditionally filmic, but there won't be anything fake-looking about it.

EDIT: I don't think your last comment is a reason to avoid higher framerates. I mean, if we stuck to VHS copies of black-and-white films, the filmmakers could get away with all kinds of stuff! But color film and high-res display systems have been positive innovations nonetheless.

[Quintus 5,399]

What are you basing that assessment on?

Well ,if you turn on the 120Hz "Motion flow" feature on your TV, isn't it what higher frame rates would look like? It's a weird effect, like all the backgrounds become stabilized and look fake. I always have that feature off on my TV

It looks shit because the function on your tv is shit.

Sometimes I wonder about you, KM, I really do. I mean, do you seriously believe industry experts and artists in the field are embracing the new technology based on what they've seen of "Motion Flow" on your 42" plasma screen which you got from Best Buy?

[Ollie 1,059]

In the end, it's not going to matter about how many frame rates a film is shot in, as always it's going to come down to the directors and producers. They make good films and no one will care. With every advancement in film technology there are those that know how to use it and make good movies.

[Datameister 2,044]

Definitely.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Bullshit. Gigli would have been an Oscar winner if only it were shot in 60fps.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

In the end, it's not going to matter about how many frame rates a film is shot in, as always it's going to come down to the directors and producers. They make good films and no one will care.

By that logic, it shouldn't matter if the orchestra or recording engineer messes up a Williams score, as long as the music Williams has written is good.

[Ollie 1,059]

No it isn't. If I had said a higher frame rate makes a film worse, then yes you would have a an argument.

[Datameister 2,044]

And it's true anyhow, to an appropriate degree. People still like music, even if technology allows recordings to sound less like recordings and more like the real thing.

[Ollie 1,059]

Actually I should apologize to Marian.

There are several Goldsmith scores that have subpar performances by the orchestras that are still good. And of course there's Shawn Murphy......

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

This doesn't affect older movies at all because it's not like they can artificially create new frames and give it that weird video look (or can they?!)

[King Mark 3,631]

well, I can on my crappy 42 inch plasma from best buy

[Delorean90 42]

I'm absolutely willing to be surprised by this, but I'm not expecting much out of this. I like the standard film look as it has been, thanks.

Honestly, I don't mind the idea of the option, but I absolutely HATE all of this death of film/death of 2D/death of 24 fps rhetoric. Why does it have to be all or nothing?

Also, not thrilled that Trumbull ditched the film process for digital. It seems to me that using film would go a long way to making the process seem more "legitimate."

Lots of question marks here. It'll be nice to see some footage from The Hobbit to give us a good idea of what we're in for.

[Datameister 2,044]

Honestly, I don't mind the idea of the option, but I absolutely HATE all of this death of film/death of 2D/death of 24 fps rhetoric. Why does it have to be all or nothing?

Can't argue with that. Luckily, I don't think we'll see 24fps making a complete disappearance anytime soon, and even if (when?) higher framerates become the standard, I'm sure some filmmakers will choose to use 24fps for artistic purposes, just as black and white photography is still used for effect.

Also, not thrilled that Trumbull ditched the film process for digital. It seems to me that using film would go a long way to making the process seem more "legitimate."

Now that bothers me. I understand the convenience of going digital, but I'm still a sucker for real film, even if the results are projected digitally. As with the framerates, the difference isn't enormous, but I'd rather have a film shot on film with a high framerate than shot digitally at 24fps, at least with current technology.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Um...2D in the sense of 2D animation is with once in a blue moon exceptions dead. Even "flat" cartoons now are done in 3D.

It's forseeable that within the next 100 years 2D in the sense of "not shot in 3D" will be dead. Mainly thanks to virtual reality. Speaking of which makes me giddy for SIGGRAPH this year....since I'm going after being absent a couple of years.

Now that bothers me. I understand the convenience of going digital, but I'm still a sucker for real film, even if the results are projected digitally. As with the framerates, the difference isn't enormous, but I'd rather have a film shot on film with a high framerate than shot digitally at 24fps, at least with current technology.

The wonders of having pristine digital quality and Spock's "it's easier to destroy than to create" is that digital can simulate the film looks easily. So no worries. You don't need film to look like film.

[Datameister 2,044]

I can't recall seeing any digitally-shot films that truly looked like film, but I could be wrong, or things could change. And Spock does make a good point.