4 ms·

I would like to see the film industry focus on not only increasing resolution, but frame rate as well. 24fps has remained a standard for too long mostly because

by imiric 5y ago

I would like to see the film industry focus on not only increasing resolution, but frame rate as well. 24fps has remained a standard for too long mostly because of legacy and stylistic reasons, but with the switch to digital productions and projections, and internet bandwidth increases across the board, there's no reason why shows and movies couldn't be produced and delivered at 60fps and beyond. The main argument against this is that consumers would find the "soap opera effect" jarring, or that it would add even more strain on traffic for ISPs. These are minor complaints that would go away as more high FPS content is produced, and bandwidth is increased. With the advent of cloud gaming, the infrastructure should already be prepared for these high bitrates anyway. And consumers could always be given the choice to stream at different frame rates if it bothers them stylistically. I for one would appreciate more detail in fast moving scenes that otherwise become a blurry mess at 24fps.

matt-attack 5y ago
James Cameron’s latest installment of Avatar will be in high frame rate. In fact he’s been advocating for high frame rate for many years now in the industry. Went so far as to shoot a mini movie demonstrating various formats and their pros/cons. Was shown at CinemaCon years ago and is available within the industry.
Mandelmus 5y ago
When I watched The Hobbit in high frame rate (HFR) it was jarring for the first 10 minutes, but after that I really enjoyed the look, and wished it would become the new standard. Unfortunately the list of HFR movies remains rather short, with each grand new attempt at popularising HFR having failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_high_frame_rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_high_frame_...
Thorrez 5y ago
>stream at different frame rates if it bothers them stylistically. I think that would be less than ideal. I think usually with 24fps, the shutter is open for 1/48th of a second. So you get a certain amount of motion blur, and movie viewers are used to that amount of motion blur. If you shoot at 60fps, the shutter will likely be open for 1/120th of a second. If you then play it at 30fps by cutting out half the frames, the motion blur will still be 1/120th, which is probably not what the viewer wants.
- phiresky 5y ago
  The shutter-open-for-half-a-frame or "180° shutter angle" is commonly recommended as a default for shooting video. It is the result of having to compromise between inaccurate recording and a blurry video when your frame rate is low. With 24fps and a small "shutter angle" you are capturing wrong information (e.g. resulting in wheels turning backwards) and you get a choppy look. With a large shutter angle you get too much motion blur. 180° is neither really correct nor really sharp, but it's the most commonly used compromise. These problems are really the result of a too slow frame rate though - with 60fps you can shoot with a 1/60 shutter, and you get 100% accurate playback while still having frames sharper than a 24fps movie (with 1/48 s shutter) and a smooth video. When you capture with a high frame rate (e.g. 120fps) and a 360° shutter angle (1/120s) you can also easily reduce the frame rate later without any ridiculous hacks like 3:2 pulldown by combining (averaging) frames or leaving them out, depending on the motion blur amount you want. Applying the "180-degree-rule" to frame rates other than 24 or 30 fps just comes from missing knowledge or misunderstandings from what I can tell.
tehnub 5y ago
Agreed. There's a new platform called TrueCut Motion [0] for handling this sort of thing, which I can see becoming big. There were some examples of it at CES this year [1] [0]: https://www.pixelworks.com/en/truecut https://www.pixelworks.com/en/truecut [1]: https://twitter.com/Vincent_Teoh/status/1479507421546622977 https://twitter.com/Vincent_Teoh/status/1479507421546622977
clktmr 5y ago
I suspect production cost, especially for special effects, do rise significantly with a higher frame rate.

by imiric 5y ago

matt-attack 5y ago

James Cameron’s latest installment of Avatar will be in high frame rate. In fact he’s been advocating for high frame rate for many years now in the industry. Went so far as to shoot a mini movie demonstrating various formats and their pros/cons. Was shown at CinemaCon years ago and is available within the industry.

Mandelmus 5y ago

When I watched The Hobbit in high frame rate (HFR) it was jarring for the first 10 minutes, but after that I really enjoyed the look, and wished it would become the new standard. Unfortunately the list of HFR movies remains rather short, with each grand new attempt at popularising HFR having failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_high_frame_rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_high_frame_...

Thorrez 5y ago

>stream at different frame rates if it bothers them stylistically. I think that would be less than ideal. I think usually with 24fps, the shutter is open for 1/48th of a second. So you get a certain amount of motion blur, and movie viewers are used to that amount of motion blur. If you shoot at 60fps, the shutter will likely be open for 1/120th of a second. If you then play it at 30fps by cutting out half the frames, the motion blur will still be 1/120th, which is probably not what the viewer wants.

phiresky 5y ago
The shutter-open-for-half-a-frame or "180° shutter angle" is commonly recommended as a default for shooting video. It is the result of having to compromise between inaccurate recording and a blurry video when your frame rate is low. With 24fps and a small "shutter angle" you are capturing wrong information (e.g. resulting in wheels turning backwards) and you get a choppy look. With a large shutter angle you get too much motion blur. 180° is neither really correct nor really sharp, but it's the most commonly used compromise. These problems are really the result of a too slow frame rate though - with 60fps you can shoot with a 1/60 shutter, and you get 100% accurate playback while still having frames sharper than a 24fps movie (with 1/48 s shutter) and a smooth video. When you capture with a high frame rate (e.g. 120fps) and a 360° shutter angle (1/120s) you can also easily reduce the frame rate later without any ridiculous hacks like 3:2 pulldown by combining (averaging) frames or leaving them out, depending on the motion blur amount you want. Applying the "180-degree-rule" to frame rates other than 24 or 30 fps just comes from missing knowledge or misunderstandings from what I can tell.

tehnub 5y ago

Agreed. There's a new platform called TrueCut Motion [0] for handling this sort of thing, which I can see becoming big. There were some examples of it at CES this year [1] [0]: https://www.pixelworks.com/en/truecut https://www.pixelworks.com/en/truecut [1]: https://twitter.com/Vincent_Teoh/status/1479507421546622977 https://twitter.com/Vincent_Teoh/status/1479507421546622977

clktmr 5y ago

I suspect production cost, especially for special effects, do rise significantly with a higher frame rate.