-
Standard 60fps?
-
Wow,
I didn’t realise that I was open to personal attack just for writing my opinion down. I don’t smoke anything thank you very much and have instead been shooting for the last 13 years. Before that I was an editor. I shoot film & tape, and have successfully shot with the Varicam on many occassions and frame rates spending upon the needs of the project, and funnily my last one was at 18FPS to give a slightly antique feel (but some was at 60 to capture more detail).
If you know me then you can make statements as to my character and whether or not I am on drugs, but otherwise a rational discussion of the thread is more useful. You can take exception to my viewpoint and that is fine, I agree that the more detailed and higher resolution, temporally, in colour space, and lines per image something captured is, the more information you have. That is a given. Obvious really.
A 35mm film frame holds vaguely 12megapixels of detail and is analog in it’s colour and luminance range, but if I can’t tweak a camera to do/be that, but I can change one factor to make it comparable to what an audience perceives as filmic, then perhaps a similar frame rate, with its associated loss in temporal quality is an option.
If a director wanted a 1970’s feel that reflected a person’s memories of childhood I might suggest shooting on 8mm too. Maybe at 18FPS with a reversal stock that only has 5 stops of contast range too! But I’d probably suggest shooting 16mm to have more quality and flexiblity. As you say, artifacts can be introduced.
As a great English focus puller once told me dryly…
“whatever’s right” 🙂
Dale McCready
DP -
Hi Herb,
That project sounds great, and I’ll keep do some tests of 50 interlaced to 25 to have a look (I’m in PAL land downunder).
Unfortunately for your DP, they’ll have to live with the flickery eyepiece for the time being. It’s the progressive nature of the Varicam, that you are seeing only 24/25/30 HZ replayed to you progressively. There is no interlacing between the camera head and the eyepiece monitor so that persistence of vision thing turns up again and strobing is noticed. In a film camera eyepiece it is also 24FPS progressively, but with a blurred shutter look so it’s softer and easier to deal with.
On my recent drama shoot, after a day of shooting neither the operator or I noticed it anymore, and once you know it’s normal or okay, it can quickly be forgotten about and bigger problems come up. The nice thing about the Varicam while shooting is that you see what you get with frame rates, shutter angles and lighing power supply flicker, and I wouldn’t trade that now that I’ve become used to it.
Dale
-
While I appreciate your contributing your views, Herb, but I disagree with almost everything in your post.
It is not “more common to shoot and edit at 59.94;” at least not on this planet. Overwhelmingly, the standard frame rate for HD is 24 fps, and for very good reasons.
No, you cannot “add motion blur” in post to make 60 fps material look like the motion blur of 24 fps material. The effects are quite different. Furthermore, 24 fps material is usually shot with a 180
-
haha. a last thought. I think I’m eating my own tail now anyway.
It’s interesting to me that film and television is holding on to these low frame rates. There are a lot of logistical reasons, from my point of view the amount of light it takes to shoot high frame rates becomes restrictive. But it’s interesting to me that interactive media such as gaming is where the high frames are really demanded.
Perhaps this is a key thing. That passive media up to this point is comfortable living with it’s older system and low frame rate, and maybe just having a larger TV won’t change this.
But what about a real pradigm shift? If you were able to immerse yourself in your media in the way that gaming does today, then I imagine you’ll want all the frames you can get because it’s about believable immersion. Perhaps when a change of this type comes along to replace our films and television?
-
Leo –
“it is not “more common to shoot and edit at 59.94;” at least not on this planet. Overwhelmingly, the standard frame rate for HD is 24 fps, and for very good reasons.”
I meant it was more common to shoot at 59.94 then at 60 – I apologize if that was unclear. No one knows more than I how uncommon it is to shoot Varicams at anything other than 24.
“I think resolution plays only a very weak role on a filmic look. Does a film originated on 65/70 MM look more filmic than one shot on 35 MM? Do we sit in the theater trying to enjoy a movie but regretting that it’s only shot on 35 MM? I think not.”
I know for certain that 35 is more “filmic” than 16 or 8mm. I also know that if you get a chance to see a 70mm print of a 65mm negative every other way of viewing it will look mundane. To go even furher I know that I prefer 8×10 negatives to instamatics and that the most beautiful motion pictures I have ever seen were shot on 3 strip technicolor. I think that all other things being even, and they never are, more information is always more impressive than less information.
“Yes, 60 fps Showscan was unsuccessful; people didn’t like the look.”
At the Showscan screening I was at the film got a standing ovation. People liked the look, it was the accountants who didn’t. What hurt it was the fact that the only feature ever attempted in the format, “Brainstorm”, was a fiasco; in part because the leading lady died during filming (Natalie Wood) and in part becasue Trumball was an awful Director – witness “Silent Running.” The picture was hurriedly finished without even trying to distribute it in Showscan. Showscan was used in special event theateres for many years. And it dazzled the audiance.
“IMax is terribly expensive, but successful. It’s a totally closed system of cameras and projectors, so they could have chosen any frame rate; they chose 24 fps.”
I would suggest that it’s succes occured despite its frame rate, not because of it. As I said before there is nothing magical or mystical about 24 FPS. It was merely the slowest and worst possible frame rate that could reproduce acceptable audio in 1927. If they could have gotten decent audio at 18fps they would never have changed rates and my guess is that you would now be extolling the virtues of 18 fps.
Look, everyone is entitled to their opinion to like whatever they like – hey i have a brother who like the Mets – go figure. But I find it hard to believe that you cannot see that the reason you like 24fps is because, for historical and economic reasons alone, that is what you grew up watching. I like the Lone Ranger, but I can’t reasonably tell my son that those shows were better then the crap that’s on now. It isn’t, it’s just what I grew up with. Paladin on the other hand was better.
“I assume, Herb, that you’re a working professional and you’re clients are satisfied with your work at 60 fps; that’s fine, but I don’t think it’s at all good advice to give to emerging shooters.”
Yeah I guess I’m a working professional – although that can also be said of your basic south bronx street walker. But in case you didn’t read it all the way through this is how I ended my original post – “Film history aside, the biggest knock on 60fps is that it’s too good and too expensive, so if you
-
Dale –
I apologize if you thought I was getting too nasty and personal – I think I’ve been too long in the company of my teenage son and his friends to whom the phrase “what are you smoking” is merely a more entertaining way of saying “we have a divergence of opinions on this matter.”
The main thing I wanted to get accross is that there is nothing magical or mystical about 24fps. It is merely what we are used to. And my logic dictates that if I can use more informaiton in a production I will, and if artfuly presented the audiance won’t care what frame rate I chose. 60fps does not have to only be for sports adn 24P is not automatically the best choice for drama. Although it’s obviously the way to go if you are shooting HD for a film release.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
Logic is certainly under-employed in general, but, as useful as it is, it all too often fails to predict the results of empirical tests.
In other words, it is often dead wrong. Your logic that 60 fps must be better than 24 fps because it’s a bigger number is no more valid than taking five aspirin instead of two. In fact, taking too much medication is less effective.
I’ve seen tons of material shot at 60 fps for slow motion that was screened 60 for 60, and it always has a “video” look. That’s not a worthwhile attribute, by the way. That’s why we try mightily to shoot scenes that may or may not be edited slow motion at both 24 fps and 60 fps, or some other over-cranked rate.
Opinions vary on many issues, but I’ve personally never met a single person who thought 60 for 60 looked better than 24. Not one. Cutting into a 24 fps program, the 60 fps material stick out, and badly at that. By the way, this is true even with film, not just HD. As I said in an earlier post, I tried shooting at higher frame rates on film, 30 for 30, and the results were very disappointing. Instead of looking better the 30 fps material looked decidedly less appealing.
I’ll guess that you can see the difference and that your visual tastes are quite different.
Regardless of your own opinion, there is something “magic” about 24 fps/180* shutter. I used quotes on the “magic” word, because it’s not really magic at all, but something very real that happens when the brain is forced to fill in the gaps in the “reality” that is presented on the screen. It’s more engaging, and that makes it more enjoyable. I believe it’s akin to what happens when we read, the imagination is called forth. It is, however, much more fun to call it magic.
Best regards,
Leo
Director/Cinematographer
Southeast USA -
Leo –
I can’t argue the benefit’s of a 180* shutter. I’m not a cameraman and I didn’t know that a shutter was even necessary for shooting video. I always thought the point of a film shutter was to keep film from getting exposed during the time it was advancing in a camera. But if you tell me that it has wonderful properties for telling stories with pictures I have no reason not to believe you.
I do know that of the many people who have seen the shows we are shooting at 60FPS not one has said – Gee -that looks like a sports show. All they have said is Gee- that looks great. And when we shot our original tests at 24, 30 and 60 – with Producers, Directors and DP’s who are not without experiance and talent – not a one thought 24 looked “better” – different certainly, but not better. But that’s anecdotal and totally subjective. Just like we have rectums, everybody has an opinion.
I don’t like to use the word better. That’s too judgemental. What I’m talking about is more information vs. less information. From a position of more information I can discard what I wish – I can get less out of more, I can’t get more out of less. That’s why a DP such as yourself might spend $10,000.00 on a lens and then put a $20 piece of glass in front and rub some nose wax onto it, or put a tiny piece of netting behind it. Why not just use a lens with less sharpness to begin with and save yourself a few thousand. Because you want the control to throw away only the information you want. I feel the same way about temporal resolution – I want to start with all I can get, and then I’ll get rid of what I don’t like.
As far as film at 30 goes, while I’ve never shot 35mm at 30 I have shot 16mm at thirty and it knocked everyone out. I can’t count the number of people who thought we had shot 35mm. Back in those days I shot 16 exclusively and after my first experiance with it at 30 I fought for it every chance I got. But then again, that’s just me and my rectum, er, opinion.
My problem with your statment is the absoluteness of it – 60FPS is ONLY for sports – 24 is better – because it is. In my posts I’ve talked about the many problems in editing 720P60 but there are also the positives – what about the audio editing advantage. You tend to gloss right over that one. My guess is you don’t have to do that much editing or you might give it a little more wieght in your thinking.
The argument for 24 as being the “best” speed, ignoring the fact that it came about NOT becuase of aesthetic concerns but for purely finanacial and technical considerations, is “magical.” Even at 60FPS we are talking about still images that only create the illusion of motion. There are more than enough “gaps” at 60 to call on the viewers imagination.
Elsewhere in this thread Dale started speculating about the possiblity that a new generation, grown up on the very high frame rates of video games, might find that 60 or even higher has a “magical” feel to it and that a whole new media paradigm might emerge out of it.
All I suggest is that you give that idea some consideration when making your absolute statements about what is best.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
I’ll wrap up my comments with this.
The electronic shutter is interactive with the frame rate to produce the desired exposure duration, and thus the amount of motion blur. Unlike a film camera, the shutter can be turned off, eliminating the blanking period entirely. Material captured with the shutter off has the same temporal effect of shooting interlaced, 60i. Of course there is no odd/even line flicker with progressive.
For most story-telling purposes, audiences prefer 24 fps. In my book, and certainly to my taste, that makes it better. I’m curious about your early tests for your show; did you prefer the look of 60 fps over 24 fps, or did your post process influence your choice? What is the content of the show? The effect of the frame rate is more or less obvious depending on the amount of camera/subject movement. For example, there’s little motion blur on something like a talking head and a great deal in rapid action.
There are zero problems editing 24p VariCam footage, either as SD or HD; we’ve been editing with it ever since the VariCam first appeared. It’s entirely straight-forward. I’m happy to help if you are having some work-flow problem with it.
I do look forward to seeing your show; please give us a heads up so we can watch it.
Best regards,
Leo
Director/Cinematographer
Southeast USA
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up