-
Why is 24 fps the “be-all, end-all” frame rate at which stories should be told? Why not 30 fps?
Hi cinema folks,
I’ve always wondered why 24 fps is purported to be the only way to create a true, cinematic feel in filmmaking. I understand that it evolved that way, for whatever reason; but why is it that, today, we are told that 24 fps is the “gold standard” we should strive for?
I mean, let’s say I make a “film” with a good quality video camera at 30 fps, I use professional camera techniques, shallow depth-of-field (as deemed appropriate), professional lighting, and a great script… would the average end-viewer really sense the difference in frame rate? Especially given that we’ve all grown up accustomed to 30 fps TV shows. Wouldn’t I be better off concentrating on the many other aspects of storytelling, and not worry so much about this single, technical aspect?
I only ask this because I hear about the “need” for 24 fps so often whenever the subject of “filmmaking” comes up. That, and the fact that my camera doesn’t shoot at 24 fps.
Any thoughts (or side-by-side online examples!) would surely be appreciated.
Thanks very much.
Vic -
17 Replies
-
Indeed, the holy grail has been for a long time that 24 frames is more filmic than 30 frames. I am of the heretical view that such is not so. There is only one time when it’s really important to shoot 24p: when the video is going to be transferred to film for theatrical distribution. Transferring 24 to 24 works way better than 30 to 24.
The look of 24p video is not the look of 24-frame film. Some of us think that actually 30P looks more like 24-frame film than 24p. The reason: 24p video introduces some artifacts that film does not.
You will also find that pans and tilts will look smoother shot 30p than 24p.
So fear not. You are not alone in the world. Go for your 30p and make great movies! (Just don’t plan on them become actual film to be shown in theaters.)
Rick Wise
Cinematographer
San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.RickWiseDP.com -
Awesome, Rick! I didn’t expect that answer, but I’m glad to hear it. My camera doesn’t do 24p (not true 24p, at least!) and I use FCE4, which also cannot handle 24p. I felt it was inane to “upgrade” when I, personally, didn’t perceive the frame rate difference. It’s great to know that others feel the same way.
Thanks very much for your words of encouragement!
Vic -
Remember, this is the view of a heretic. Once upon a time they burned us at the stake.
Rick Wise
Cinematographer
San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.RickWiseDP.com -
….gathering firewood now….
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
Heretic? Or, open-minded, free-thinking trail-blazer?
I’m thinking you’re the latter. ;^)
Thanks Rick. -
I agree wholeheartedly with Rick. In fact so do a lot of very high end cinematic directors. Check out this article: https://news.yahoo.com/effects-whiz-douglas-trumbull-frame-223805459.html. Just to hedge my bet though I do have one of those quick firestarter logs if you need it Todd.
Mark D’Agostino
http://www.synergeticproductions.com -
Hi Vic,
Needless to say, this topic has been discussed before here and a thorough search of the archives will reveal many threads on topic, but I’ll try to review the subject for you.
When the cinema made the transition from silent to sound the frame rate changed from 16fps to 24fps in order for the audio to have sufficient quality in playback. As a result movie audiences for almost a hundred years now have become accustomed to the motion and temporal quality of film projected at this rate in the cinema.
When George Lucas asked Sony to build a video camera that he could use for a Star Wars film, he specified 24fps because he knew that “filming out” and the common 60i video format would create all kinds of motion blur and artifacts. Thus began the adaptation of video to film, which has (now) ultimately been called “Digital Cinema”.
There have been other attempts to try different frame rates, notably Dalton Trumble’s “Showscan” which I actually had the please to see in a theater in Westwood Village maybe 30 years ago. the simple truth is that it looked like bigger than life television (60p).
There is quite a movement afoot now to shoot 3D at 48 fps in an attempt to keep the accustomed motion but increase the brightness that the 3D takes away.
When you say TV shows have been shot at 30p you’re not really correct. If they had been originated on film (like many have)it was always shot at 24fps and transferred to video using a 3:2 pulldown, maintaining much of the filmic look (yet creating it’s own particular motion effect). If originated in video (until recently) it would have been 60i (which is technically 29.97fps with each frame made up of two fields which split the 1/30th of a second. Some news and documentaries shot only for TV distribution often use 30p, such as 60 Minutes and 20/20. They do so to distinguish their “look” from that of the live news programs on their same network.
At the end of the day, shoot frame rates you have, knowing the purpose of each rate and intelligently choosing one that’s most appropriate for both your topic and exhibition scheme. But know that if you aspire to show your “film” in a cinema by projection on film you almost have to go 24p (really 23.97 if with sound).
JS
-
Maybe I’m just an old fart, but I’m a diehard 24p guy. My eyeballs can definitely and instantly tell the difference in 24p and 30p. To my eyes, 24p looks more cinematic, and 30p definitely looks more “video-y.” Not nearly as much as 60i, of course, but it’s still not as filmic looking to me as 24p.
We shoot and produce almost everything in 24p. Since the bulk of our work is broadcast commercials, we have to convert the projects from 1080p to 1080i or NTSC for airing, but that’s the very last step we do. Still, it is another hoop to jump through.
There was a trend in the late 70s early 80s era when some network television shows (I remember specifically that “Dallas” was one of them) would shoot their film productions at 30fps, so they could get a direct 1-to-1 frame transfer ratio to video. It was to make for cleaner editing, since 24p video didn’t exist then, and editors had to constantly worry about maintaining the exact 3:2 frames/fields pulldown ratio across edits…which was tedious. I never thought that process looked as good as 24fps shooting though.
But… I’ll admit that Rick is right as usual… most people can’t readily tell the difference. Not having a 24p camera shouldn’t affect your project… it’s just a tool that you can work around. Shoot it at 30p and don’t worry much about it. Until you buy your next camera. 🙂
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
I too side with the heretics.
What we’re doing in the chase after 24p is the same thing as the old joke about the beefy roast.
( The joke goes, everybody loves Mom’s version of the beef roast, she has this way of preparing it where she cuts off the end when cooking it. One day, someone at the table asks why she does it that way. She says she learned it copying from her mom. They ask grandma why she always cut off the end of the meat. She replies: “Because we were poor and I couldn’t afford a bigger pan to hold the whole thing!” )
24 frames was the slowest frame rate that still worked well with persistence of vision and could record an optical audio track. The studios wanted the slowest frame rate practical because film stock was expensive so they wanted to shoot as little of it as possible. It had zero to do with art or aesthetics.
What the majority of people (who watch MUCH more TV than film) are used to seeing now after 4-5 decades is 24-frame film with pulldown effects appled as it was projected thru a film chain and into a TV camera for broadcast. This added all kinds of temporal artifacting, which looked different from straight live video, and for decades the viewing audience had no alternative and so we created an “aesthetic” around it. One so strong, Doug Trumbull couldn’t break it, when he proposed his superior high frame rate system long ago.
It’s not about the screen proportions, which have changed over time. It’s not about film grain. It’s a *little bit* about depth of field and dynamic lattitude. But it’s mostly that $%#&$%# motion artifacting that people have come to associate with “the film look”. Today, I deal with people who point to a 16:9 letterbox on a 4:3 SD screen, showing something with that (redacted) motion artifacting, and they say: “That’s high def!”.
We’re perpetuating the unwanted side effects of an imperfect and primitive technology, because over time we’ve built this mystique around it. Just like after spending years trying to avoid vignetting in a frame as a technical fault, now 90 percent of what I see on a screen has artificial vignetting APPLIED to it for effect.
We have a huge broiler pan now, but we’re still cutting off the tip of the roast and throwing it away.
I can’t wait to see the new higher frame rates take over, myself.
-
Mark – Hear, hear!!
Now if we could just get some people to say “shooting video” rather than “filming video” it would be a better world.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up