3 ms·

23.976 fps has been put on a pedestal as the "correct" look. Just look at the reaction to The Hobbit. However it does provide some objective advantages. 60 fps

23.976 fps has been put on a pedestal as the "correct" look. Just look at the reaction to The Hobbit. However it does provide some objective advantages. 60 fps requires more lighting. Adding more lights means more electric setup and heat for actors in heavy makeup and costume. In post production that's more frames to edit.

UltraSane 1y ago
Isn't it strange how people accepted much bigger changes like sound and color but are now balking at higher frame rates?
- account42 1y ago
  Those came much earlier in the history of film and have a much more significant qualitative impact.
  - UltraSane 1y ago
    Higher frame rate has a huge impact on the smoothness of motion and really benefits actions movies.
LocalH 1y ago
23.976fps is only "correct" when telecining to a 59.94Hz format. 24fps round is the "correct" format in terms of actual filmmaking. I don't know of many films specifically shot at 23.976fps.
fc417fc802 1y ago
> 60 fps requires more lighting. Assuming the comparison uses the same image sensor for each.
account42 1y ago
If that were an argument then frame rates would have increased with more efficient lighting.