Why are movies and music videos always in 24-30 fps?

[.spider.]

5 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I'm fairly certain now you're not on the same page as us.  If I film a movie in a frame rate such as 60fps for example, I will not be able to distribute it using every kind of distribution channel out there because not all of them play back at 60fps.  And when I say distribution channel, I am talking about movie theaters, blu-ray, DVDs, tv broadcasts, etc.  This means some portion of the market will be out of my reach.  So while, for the sake of creative expression I may film my movies at 60fps, I will also need to convert them to formats suitable or supported by each distribution channel I want to use.

And I said:" It's best to avoid frame rate conversion" 

I did not say that frame rate conversions are not possible. 

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I'm not talking about 3:2 pull down or converting up from a lower frame rate to a higher one.  I'm talking about filming at one frame rate and down converting to a lower frame rate for the sake of some reason or another.  The 3:2 pulldown used by broadcast TV to show 24fps film on 60hz screens is something I don't really consider part of the post production process in film making.  This is something done by the TV channel.

It is done by the TV Channel, but it could just as easily have been done by the studio.

 

2 minutes ago, .spider. said:

And I said:" It's best to avoid frame rate conversion" 

I did not say that frame rate conversions are not possible. 

Best based on what criteria? I disagree. Best to engineer solutions that circumvent and surpass the negatives of the process. The potential benefits of filming at a higher frame rate in my opinion, far outweigh the totally surmountable technical issues surrounding frame rate conversion.

[AkiraDaarkst]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

It is done by the TV Channel, but it could just as easily have been done by the studio.

I know it can easily be handled by me for the stuff I film, but I film with the primary purpose that my stuff are shown in film festivals.  So the conversion process done by the TV channel if they want to broadcast my film do not concern me as much.

[.spider.]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

The potential benefits of filming at a higher frame rate in my opinion, far outweigh the totally surmountable technical issues surrounding frame rate conversion.

Could you recommend any frame rate conversion software? 

[dalekphalm]

Just now, AkiraDaarkst said:

I know it can easily be handled by me for the stuff I film, but I film with the primary purpose that my stuff are shown in film festivals.  So the conversion process done by the TV channel if they want to broadcast my film do not concern me as much.

True, but it's still a consideration in which frame rate you film in, if you're a Hollywood studio.

 

You want your movie to look the best, even if someone else does a 3:2 pulldown conversion when it gets broadcast on TV.

[AkiraDaarkst]

12 minutes ago, .spider. said:

And I said:" It's best to avoid frame rate conversion" 

I did not say that frame rate conversions are not possible. 

So if I want to be able to distribute my work on distribution channels that support either 60fps or 24fps, again I am using only these as examples, that would mean I will need to do twice the work.  Film each scene twice using two different frame rates.  Do you realize how much that can end up costing?

 

While it would be ideal, it's not quite so simple in the real world.  Here's another way of viewing things.  Say I film a movie at FHD.  But if I want to distribute my videos on discs, Blu-rays support FHD resolution but DVDs don't.  And if 80% of the market was accessible only by distributing my work via DVD, I can't just say "Oh, no, I will not reduce the quality of my work by reducing the resolution of my beautiful film."

[.spider.]

2 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

So if I want to be able to distribute my work on distribution channels that support either 60fps or 24fps, again I am using only these as examples, that would mean I will need to do twice the work.  Film each scene twice using two different frame rates.  Do you realize how much that can end up costing?

What are you talking about?

I did not say that frame rate conversions are not possible it is just good to avoid them. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

Just now, .spider. said:

What are you talking about?

I did not say that frame rate conversions are not possible it is just good to avoid them. 

My point is, sometimes it cannot be avoided.  Otherwise some movies would never become available on certain medium.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, .spider. said:

What are you talking about?

I did not say that frame rate conversions are not possible it is just good to avoid them. 

Yes, you've said that a ton of times. But why? You haven't given us any concrete reasons to avoid them, besides "because it's hard".

[AkiraDaarkst]

7 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

True, but it's still a consideration in which frame rate you film in, if you're a Hollywood studio.

 

You want your movie to look the best, even if someone else does a 3:2 pulldown conversion when it gets broadcast on TV.

Yes that's why I would choose to film using a more standardized frame rate or a frame rate that makes sense rather than using something completely random.  I understand that conversion processes are not 100% flawless or perfect.  I think I said it earlier, with certain decisions the problems can be reduced to a minimum if not zero.

[.spider.]

 

 

8 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Yes, you've said that a ton of times. But why? You haven't given us any concrete reasons to avoid them, besides "because it's hard".

 

1 hour ago, .spider. said:

Bad frame rate conversion will be visible as stuttering or artifacts

[.spider.]

9 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

My point is, sometimes it cannot be avoided.  Otherwise some movies would never become available on certain medium.

My point is it should be avoided 

[AkiraDaarkst]

4 minutes ago, .spider. said:

My point is it should be avoided 

Even if it means I risk not being able to access a significant portion of the market and lose the chance of making money?  I think you should tell that to my business partners and the production company I associate with.

 

@dalekphalm has already pointed out one instance where it can hardly be avoided.  TV broadcasts, where 3:2 pull down is used to convert movies filmed using 24fps to screens that play back at 60hz.

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, .spider. said:

 

 

 

That's not a reason not to do it. Of course bad conversions will look bad. Just like a bad Mastering of a Blu-Ray will look bad. Does that mean that Studios should not bother with Blu-Ray? Of course not.

7 minutes ago, .spider. said:

My point is it should be avoided 

Yes, we've gotten that. You just don't seem to have many points to argue as to why they should be avoided.

[.spider.]

45 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Even if it means I risk not being able to access a significant portion of the market and lose the chance of making money?

 

Did I say that?  

[.spider.]

41 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

 

Yes, we've gotten that. You just don't seem to have many points to argue as to why they should be avoided.

Which program for frame rate conversion do you recommend? 

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, .spider. said:

Which program for frame rate conversion do you recommend? 

The only one I personally use is Handbrake, but I have no personal need for frame rate conversions at home. Furthermore, I'm not an expert in the field, so there are likely many options to choose from that I'm simply unaware of.

[AkiraDaarkst]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

The only one I personally use is Handbrake, but I have no personal need for frame rate conversions at home. Furthermore, I'm not an expert in the field, so there are likely many options to choose from that I'm simply unaware of.

Adobe and Final Cut have tools for interpreting/conforming footage.  There's also a tool called Twixtor that can be used to help improve the conversion if the tools and techniques available in Premiere or Final Cut is not enough.

[flibberdipper]

On 9/27/2016 at 1:47 PM, dalekphalm said:

"Good enough" to you, maybe. But when I see panning shots in an otherwise gorgeously filmed movie, that look like someone is using flip cards, then no, that's not good enough for 2016.

 

People are used to 24p - that doesn't make it better.

I honestly can't imagine how much better Suicide Squad would have looked to me if it was at least 48p. I think I would explode.

[dalekphalm]

12 minutes ago, tmcclelland455 said:

I honestly can't imagine how much better Suicide Squad would have looked to me if it was at least 48p. I think I would explode.

I watched the new Jason Bourne movie, and some of the shots (shaky cam, yo) were so hard to follow - but if they were shot in 48p or 60p, it would have been a breeze following all the action.

 

I can't believe that other people don't also notice all the stutter and choppiness of certain parts in almost every movie ever filmed. They have to. It's plain as day.

[flibberdipper]

15 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I watched the new Jason Bourne movie, and some of the shots (shaky cam, yo) were so hard to follow - but if they were shot in 48p or 60p, it would have been a breeze following all the action.

 

I can't believe that other people don't also notice all the stutter and choppiness of certain parts in almost every movie ever filmed. They have to. It's plain as day.

I mean, myself personally, lower framerates on large screens isn't as noticeable to me as the same thing on something like my monitor. I can see that applying to other people.

 

If only everything was 4K60 and Dolby Atmos certified.

[ShadowCaptain]

7 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I watched the new Jason Bourne movie, and some of the shots (shaky cam, yo) were so hard to follow - but if they were shot in 48p or 60p, it would have been a breeze following all the action.

 

I can't believe that other people don't also notice all the stutter and choppiness of certain parts in almost every movie ever filmed. They have to. It's plain as day.

 

Those shots are done on purpose to hide stunt doubles, cuts, etc and for "dramatic effect" the chaos of the camera adds to the chaos of the scene

 

you can shoot a perfectly good fight and action scene at 24fps, watch The Raid or something

Lots of movies go for the badly cut, shakey cam fight scenes in movies, because its easier than choreographing a proper fight

[AkiraDaarkst]

24 minutes ago, ShadowCaptain said:

 

Those shots are done on purpose to hide stunt doubles, cuts, etc and for "dramatic effect" the chaos of the camera adds to the chaos of the scene

 

you can shoot a perfectly good fight and action scene at 24fps, watch The Raid or something

Lots of movies go for the badly cut, shakey cam fight scenes in movies, because its easier than choreographing a proper fight

My first comment in this discussion basically said that frame rates are chosen for creative purposes.  John Woo is known for sometimes undercranking the camera when filming action scenes.  Instead of 24fps he would use something like 22fps when filming and when played back at 24fps the action is slightly sped up.  Filmmakers had to overcrank the camera when filming action scenes with Bruce Lee because his movements were too fast to get nice looking action shots.  There were just too much motion blur filming him at 24fps.

 

In one of my other comments, I posted a video showing Douglas Trumbull demonstrating how filming at 120fps can result in footage that can be converted to footage that looks like 24fps or 60fps.  I think 120fps is a nice frame rate for people who want to use HFR but still have the ability to down convert if they want the motion blur of the slower frame rates or turn 120fps footage into nice slow motion.

[ShadowCaptain]

13 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

SNIP

the point isnt about what framerate it is filmed in though, its about what it is displayed in

 

over-cranking and under-cranking are specific techniques, but making cameras shoot 120fps RAW 6k etc is still much harder than 24fps, due to heating, storage etc - plus extra work conforming footage

 

The argument is should we still use 24fps, is it still a viable cinematic rule, or can it be broken

Its hard to say, 24fps gives a "filmic look" but is there way to shoot HFR without it looking cheap

[AkiraDaarkst]

21 minutes ago, ShadowCaptain said:

the point isnt about what framerate it is filmed in though, its about what it is displayed in

 

over-cranking and under-cranking are specific techniques, but making cameras shoot 120fps RAW 6k etc is still much harder than 24fps, due to heating, storage etc - plus extra work conforming footage

 

The argument is should we still use 24fps, is it still a viable cinematic rule, or can it be broken

Its hard to say, 24fps gives a "filmic look" but is there way to shoot HFR without it looking cheap

You're right, it is about playback speed and I think it can be done or we develop techniques or media projectors, players that can playback movies that have a mixture of frame rates.  In the demonstration by Douglas Trumbull he talks about mixing frame rates in the same scene.