3 ms·
Surely 24 fps was made the standard to save money on film. It's about the slowest frame rate that's not very distracting. Needless to say, film is no longer t
by HPsquared 3y ago
Surely 24 fps was made the standard to save money on film.
It's about the slowest frame rate that's not very distracting.
Needless to say, film is no longer the major expense it used to be. In the early days the film itself was a fairly big part of the production cost (and don't forget distribution - cost to replicate the film - and operating cost for the projectors - handling film rolls twice as big, etc.).
And standards are sticky, so the industry stayed on 24fps for decades.
- andersa 3y ago> It's about the slowest frame rate that's not very distracting. Except, it is very distracting. Around 60 it starts to become bearable for me and allow camera pans to be interpreted as fluid motion.
- llm_nerd 3y agoIt's quite astonishing how terrible 24 FPS really is, but as the GP mentioned it was "good enough" for the time. It's a scale, and costs and processing was prohibited that it was the point where most scenes, especially dramas and human interest type things, were served well by the format. Action scenes are just brutal at 24FPS. Running, pans, and so on. Either it's a blurry mess at a 180 degree shutter, or it turns into a rapid slide show (like early in Saving Private Ryan).
- klausa 3y agoThis is as much about frame rate as it is about display technology. 24hz on an OLED with very quick pixels is a very different experience than 24hz on a CRT or 24hz on a film projector.