5 ms·

It's just peculiar that all the director's named in that article and almost everyone I know who thinks in any depth about this issue disagrees with you. It's c

It's just peculiar that all the director's named in that article and almost everyone I know who thinks in any depth about this issue disagrees with you. It's conceivable I might "get used to it" but that's like telling someone who hates cilantro that that will "get used to it". They don't want to and neither do I.

mrob 7y ago
It's not peculiar in the slightest when, as Upton Sinclair famously put it, "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." The industry is under increasing financial pressure (e.g. see https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/why-hollywood-as-we-know-it-is-already-over https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/why-hollywood-as-we-... ), so why increase costs when customers are still buying 24fps material?
- andybak 7y ago
  So you're saying the listed film directors have some vested interest in 24fps? And all the film lovers are just following their lead? I don't buy it.
- greedo 7y ago
  How on earth would increasing the frame rate increase costs? It's all (mostly) shot on digital media, so there's no extra film costs like in the pre-digital era. Storage costs are trivial for digital media. It wouldn't increase the time for setting up shots, and probably wouldn't cost extra in postprod.
  - mrob 7y ago
    Brighter lighting required. Scenes become impossible to shoot with natural light. Props and sets need more detail. Unless the actors are very good, more takes are needed to get the acting right. More work needed on continuity, and more reshoots because a mistake is obvious. More VFX render time (and more manual work in some cases, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20600107 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20600107 ). And storage costs are not trivial. Assuming a modest 10:1 shooting ratio, 8K resolution, 120fps, and 36bit color (12 bits per channel), that's 1.29PB of raw data for a 2 hour movie. Some genres (notably documentaries) have much higher shooting ratio.
    - greedo 7y ago
      1. Most scenes are lit with extra lights. It's extremely rare to shoot with just natural light. 2. Prop and set detail has nothing to do with FPS, but with final image resolution. 3. Actors are always good. They're pros. You'd be amazed at how good. Regardless, the FPS has no bearing on the amount of retakes due to talent performance. 4. FPS has nothing to do with continuity. Either the script supervisor catches the error, or it's noticed in post and corrected then. 5. Storage costs are trivial compared to most production costs. Above the line costs dwarf storage.
IshKebab 7y ago
Directors are artists. They pretty much always prefer the old inferior way because it is more arty. C.f. film vs. digital.
- andybak 7y ago
  You say "arty" like it's a bad thing. How peculiar.
  - IshKebab 7y ago
    It is in this context. Directors like 24 FPS because it is more arty than 60 FPS, but really it is strictly inferior. Even if you prefer a lower frame rate for weird aesthetic reasons, just shoot at a high frame rate and then cut every other frame so people can choose. It's like, nobody thinks 1080p is better than 4k. Or that 8 bit dynamic range is better than 10 bit. So why do some directors think that 24 FPS is better than 60? Art. Right.
    - edflsafoiewq 7y ago
      Course they do. If 1080p is all you need, the extra cost of 4k is pure waste. Bigger numbers do not mean better.
      - IshKebab 7y ago
        4k is definitely better than 1080p, unless you have pretty bad eyesight and no glasses.
moogly 7y ago
It's interesting that you, of all things, chose cilantro for your simile, when there are indications that dislike for cilantro is actually primarily genetic[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriander#Taste_and_smell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriander#Taste_and_smell
- bori5 7y ago
  Cilantro. The worst! In 24fps or otherwise.
dahart 7y ago
> that’s like telling someone who hates cilantro that that will “get used to it”. They don’t want to and neither do I. This is an important point, and has more to do with the debate than whether or not 24 vs 60 is actually better. Many people don’t care if 60 is better and don’t want to hear the argument. I expect that TV manufacturers aren’t intentionally trying to change anyone’s mind, but rather are looking at the future generations of viewers. Kids don’t seem to mind HFR as much, and kids outnumber adults who prefer 24fps. Today’s kids are tomorrow’s TV buyers. A good answer might be to appease today’s vocal film lovers by adding settings or changing defaults, but they might also reasonably choose to cater to the preferences of the next generation over the current one.

mrob 7y ago

It's not peculiar in the slightest when, as Upton Sinclair famously put it, "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." The industry is under increasing financial pressure (e.g. see https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/why-hollywood-as-we-know-it-is-already-over https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/why-hollywood-as-we-... ), so why increase costs when customers are still buying 24fps material?

andybak 7y ago
So you're saying the listed film directors have some vested interest in 24fps? And all the film lovers are just following their lead? I don't buy it.
greedo 7y ago
How on earth would increasing the frame rate increase costs? It's all (mostly) shot on digital media, so there's no extra film costs like in the pre-digital era. Storage costs are trivial for digital media. It wouldn't increase the time for setting up shots, and probably wouldn't cost extra in postprod.
- mrob 7y ago
  Brighter lighting required. Scenes become impossible to shoot with natural light. Props and sets need more detail. Unless the actors are very good, more takes are needed to get the acting right. More work needed on continuity, and more reshoots because a mistake is obvious. More VFX render time (and more manual work in some cases, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20600107 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20600107 ). And storage costs are not trivial. Assuming a modest 10:1 shooting ratio, 8K resolution, 120fps, and 36bit color (12 bits per channel), that's 1.29PB of raw data for a 2 hour movie. Some genres (notably documentaries) have much higher shooting ratio.
  - greedo 7y ago
    1. Most scenes are lit with extra lights. It's extremely rare to shoot with just natural light. 2. Prop and set detail has nothing to do with FPS, but with final image resolution. 3. Actors are always good. They're pros. You'd be amazed at how good. Regardless, the FPS has no bearing on the amount of retakes due to talent performance. 4. FPS has nothing to do with continuity. Either the script supervisor catches the error, or it's noticed in post and corrected then. 5. Storage costs are trivial compared to most production costs. Above the line costs dwarf storage.

IshKebab 7y ago

Directors are artists. They pretty much always prefer the old inferior way because it is more arty. C.f. film vs. digital.

andybak 7y ago
You say "arty" like it's a bad thing. How peculiar.
- IshKebab 7y ago
  It is in this context. Directors like 24 FPS because it is more arty than 60 FPS, but really it is strictly inferior. Even if you prefer a lower frame rate for weird aesthetic reasons, just shoot at a high frame rate and then cut every other frame so people can choose. It's like, nobody thinks 1080p is better than 4k. Or that 8 bit dynamic range is better than 10 bit. So why do some directors think that 24 FPS is better than 60? Art. Right.
  - edflsafoiewq 7y ago
    Course they do. If 1080p is all you need, the extra cost of 4k is pure waste. Bigger numbers do not mean better.
    - IshKebab 7y ago
      4k is definitely better than 1080p, unless you have pretty bad eyesight and no glasses.

moogly 7y ago

It's interesting that you, of all things, chose cilantro for your simile, when there are indications that dislike for cilantro is actually primarily genetic[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriander#Taste_and_smell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriander#Taste_and_smell

bori5 7y ago
Cilantro. The worst! In 24fps or otherwise.

dahart 7y ago

> that’s like telling someone who hates cilantro that that will “get used to it”. They don’t want to and neither do I. This is an important point, and has more to do with the debate than whether or not 24 vs 60 is actually better. Many people don’t care if 60 is better and don’t want to hear the argument. I expect that TV manufacturers aren’t intentionally trying to change anyone’s mind, but rather are looking at the future generations of viewers. Kids don’t seem to mind HFR as much, and kids outnumber adults who prefer 24fps. Today’s kids are tomorrow’s TV buyers. A good answer might be to appease today’s vocal film lovers by adding settings or changing defaults, but they might also reasonably choose to cater to the preferences of the next generation over the current one.