Jump to content




Photo

Current frame rates for shooting movies?


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 GregBest

GregBest
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Director
  • West Des Moines, Iowa, USA

Posted 18 February 2016 - 10:07 PM

my noob group claims 30p has replaced 24 for commercial movies... is this the case now?

In all the pics i've seen, most were 23.97, and 24.


  • 0




#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 February 2016 - 10:17 PM

No, most movies are shot at 23.978 or 24.


  • 1

#3 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 451 posts
  • Director
  • OG from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 19 February 2016 - 08:33 AM

No, most movies are shot at 23.978 or 24.

I know this questions is splitting hairs, but is anyone going to worry about the difference between 23.978 and 23.976 if there's a difference between software/systems?


  • 0

#4 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11234 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 February 2016 - 08:59 AM

It's an issue of audio synchronisation. There's still a need to produce versions of movies for 29.97fps systems using 3:2 pulldown. With this technique the frame rate is increased by 25%, so to end up at 29.97 we actually need to shoot at 23.976. If we shot at 24, we'd end up at 30, meaning that our picture would be played back slightly too fast on a 29.97 system, and we'd have huge audio sync problems.

 

Modern systems can retime audio quite effectively, but this may be expensive and it can create artifacts.

 

This does still bear cautious talking-about before production starts, involving the camera and sound departments as well as postproduction people and any expected delivery requirements from the people buying the movie.

 

As an interesting aside, digital cinema packages do theoretically support 23.976, though it's deprecated and I'm not sure what the real-world support is like. Sensibly, the DCI people seem to prefer whole-number frame rates. It's a shame this decision couldn't have been made when we went to HD, but it would have created complicated problems with simultaneous broadcast HD and SD material. The whole thing comes down to an exceptionally bad engineering decision which was made at the dawn of colour television and is going to take a lot of getting rid of.

 

P


  • 0

#5 Perry Paolantonio

Perry Paolantonio
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, MA

Posted 19 February 2016 - 09:25 AM

I know this questions is splitting hairs, but is anyone going to worry about the difference between 23.978 and 23.976 if there's a difference between software/systems?

I think that was just a typo. It's 23.976.


  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 February 2016 - 10:45 AM

Sorry, it was a typo.


  • 0

#7 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2182 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 19 February 2016 - 11:44 AM

 

 

 The whole thing comes down to an exceptionally bad engineering decision which was made at the dawn of colour television and is going to take a lot of getting rid of.

 

P

Do you mean using the mains frequency as a sync reference?


  • 0

#8 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 19 February 2016 - 12:33 PM

Do you mean using the mains frequency as a sync reference?

 

The reason is that to place the color burst information between the luminance and the audio of the NTSC broadcast signal, a slight adjustment was made to the horizonal line frequency. NTSC used a 6 MHz bandwidth, while PAL used 8MHz, and did not 'suffer' from having less bandwidth, so the color carrier could be placed further away from the audio carrier.

 

Had the US used 8MHz bandwiths for the TV channels, where would have been a better placement for the color burst, and not had to compromise...


  • 0

#9 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1367 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 19 February 2016 - 03:24 PM

This is a really good summary. Around the 7:10 mark, he discusses the introduction of colour in TV, and how that complicated the situation. They had to alter the field rate by an ever so small amount to avoid the colour sub carrier signal interfering (beating) with the audio signal.

 


Edited by Carl Looper, 19 February 2016 - 03:34 PM.

  • 0

#10 GregBest

GregBest
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Director
  • West Des Moines, Iowa, USA

Posted 19 February 2016 - 05:08 PM

I appreciate 24 and all, and realize the advantage of LESS data, but 60, 120, can't get here soon enough to me.  Bring on the clearer, better looking visuals.  We've been stuck in the past too long with THIS technology while everything else has advanced.


  • 0

#11 Perry Paolantonio

Perry Paolantonio
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, MA

Posted 19 February 2016 - 05:14 PM

I appreciate 24 and all, and realize the advantage of LESS data, but 60, 120, can't get here soon enough to me.  Bring on the clearer, better looking visuals.  We've been stuck in the past too long with THIS technology while everything else has advanced.

 

Er, not everyone thinks it's "clearer, better looking." Frankly I find high frame rate footage to be unwatchably weird looking. 


  • 0

#12 Kenny N Suleimanagich

Kenny N Suleimanagich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 19 February 2016 - 05:35 PM

Is it a matter of technology? Or aesthetics?


  • 0

#13 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 19 February 2016 - 05:47 PM

I appreciate 24 and all, and realize the advantage of LESS data, but 60, 120, can't get here soon enough to me.  Bring on the clearer, better looking visuals.  We've been stuck in the past too long with THIS technology while everything else has advanced.

 

As far as I've read, the only 'theatrical' frame rates that are under realistic discussion are the traditional 24 fps, and 48 fps, which apparently 'helps' 3-d viewing... since I'm not a fan of 3-d, I've not been to too many presentations. But I recall the "Hobbit being shot @ 48 fps", and for 3-d, projected at 48 fps. Since I've only seen the 2-d at 24 fps... can't comment on the quality difference, if any...

 

For 'Video' (hey there's that Video word again....),  25 and 30 are the traditional frame rates, and there is some movement perhaps to 50/60p (modulo the NTSC color madness for 60...).

 

But I suspect most people will be watching at 25/30 if playing standard Blueray/DVD/InternetStreaming.


  • 0

#14 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1367 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 19 February 2016 - 07:19 PM

Are these things technological or aesthetic?

 

Perhaps there is no real distinction to be made between these two terms. The ancient greek word for art was τέχνη (or techne).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techne

 

 

The choice of 60Hz mains frequency has it's origin in ancient (3rd millenium BC) Sumerian number system, which was base 60, which our present day time and angle measurements still use.

 

https://en.wikipedia...iki/Sexagesimal

 

 

The distinction between art and technology doesn't really emerge (or re-emerge) until after the Renaissance. Da Vinci will be an expert in both, and this would not have been regarded as unusual. But Ancient distinctions existed, and would re-emerge in modernism. Plato would famously put geometers ahead of artists. Artists would be banned from his republic.

 

In Diderot's encyclopedia we'll find art/technology are related under the category of nature (uses thereof), whereas science will be separated out into a different category altogether: that of reason.

 

https://en.wikipedia...human_knowledge

 

There is a distinct bias throughout history for heirarchial classifications (and force fitting knowledge into such) rather than alternatives such as a more networked approach.

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 19 February 2016 - 07:27 PM.

  • 0

#15 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3081 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 19 February 2016 - 07:47 PM

To be fair, the 'clearer better pictures' thing is true in the realm of consumer and prosumer cameras. A decade ago, professionals had 35mm, 16mm, Varicam, F900, etc. while prosumers were stuck with Super 8 and sub-HD small sensor video cameras like the HVX200, most of which still recorded interlaced footage. So while the new prosumer cameras are still a step down in image quality for most professionals, amateur and no-budget filmmakers have never had it better.
  • 1

#16 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1367 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 19 February 2016 - 08:39 PM

Interesting term: "prosumer".

 

Makes me think there must be a category of camera users that we could call "confessesionals". But not sure how we'd define them.

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 19 February 2016 - 08:42 PM.

  • 0

#17 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 451 posts
  • Director
  • OG from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 19 February 2016 - 09:45 PM

 

As far as I've read, the only 'theatrical' frame rates that are under realistic discussion are the traditional 24 fps, and 48 fps, which apparently 'helps' 3-d viewing... since I'm not a fan of 3-d, I've not been to too many presentations. But I recall the "Hobbit being shot @ 48 fps", and for 3-d, projected at 48 fps. Since I've only seen the 2-d at 24 fps... can't comment on the quality difference, if any...

Yeah I was about to say that even "regular" viewers who saw The Hobbit were put off by the 48fps. The phrase "soap opera" kept being used.


  • 0

#18 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 20 February 2016 - 05:52 AM

 

As far as I've read, the only 'theatrical' frame rates that are under realistic discussion are the traditional 24 fps, and 48 fps, which apparently 'helps' 3-d viewing... since I'm not a fan of 3-d, I've not been to too many presentations. But I recall the "Hobbit being shot @ 48 fps", and for 3-d, projected at 48 fps. Since I've only seen the 2-d at 24 fps... can't comment on the quality difference, if any...

 

For 'Video' (hey there's that Video word again....),  25 and 30 are the traditional frame rates, and there is some movement perhaps to 50/60p (modulo the NTSC color madness for 60...).

 

But I suspect most people will be watching at 25/30 if playing standard Blueray/DVD/InternetStreaming.

 

The old school TV standards were 50i for PAL and 60i for NTSC.

The more modern high def video standards also support 50i and 60i for 1080i broadcasts.

In the USA 720p is more common at 60p but here in Europe 50i is common. 1080p broadcast is very rare.

 

I understand that blu-ray supports 24p but ironically not 25p. I guess because 25p is that weird frame rate used by the rest of the world outside of Japan (and the USA), so 25/30 will not be common for blu-ray I suspect.

 

Freya


  • 0

#19 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 20 February 2016 - 06:01 AM

To be fair, the 'clearer better pictures' thing is true in the realm of consumer and prosumer cameras. A decade ago, professionals had 35mm, 16mm, Varicam, F900, etc. while prosumers were stuck with Super 8 and sub-HD small sensor video cameras like the HVX200, most of which still recorded interlaced footage. So while the new prosumer cameras are still a step down in image quality for most professionals, amateur and no-budget filmmakers have never had it better.

 

 

To be fair both the HVX200 and the earlier DVX100 were both progressive cameras.


  • 0

#20 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1046 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 20 February 2016 - 06:45 AM

Japan is also weird in that the TV system nation wide is NTSC based.. but the country it divided into two different frequencies .. 50Hz and 60Hz.. there is a river which is the border just south of Tokyo !


  • 1


rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Zylight

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Pro 8mm

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

CineLab

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

CineLab

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Glidecam

Pro 8mm

CineTape

Zylight