5 ms·

High framerates give the appearance of and in some cases substantially better images reducing significantly various temporal aliasing effects. They are without

High framerates give the appearance of and in some cases substantially better images reducing significantly various temporal aliasing effects. They are without doubt better in every way from a technical point of view. There is however a cultural issue that is worst amongst the film creators that "film" is regarded as expensive, high-end and good so that things that don't have the artefacts (low frame rate, film grain and colour) are regarded with at least suspicion. This will probably pass with time especially as the number of high budget, high quality TV series increases.

mikeash 14y ago
I feel like I'll go mental if I hear one more film buff talk about the essential nature of various imperfections in traditional film. It's so obvious that nobody would have chosen to go with film grain, low frame rates, or any of the other limitations that were foist upon them if they had had a choice. But now these technical limitations get enshrined as the medium's supposed true nature, at least by some....
- jakejake 14y ago
  I'm a bit of a film buff, by that I mean I like shooting of film & I own 16mm film cameras. (I shoot most if my work in digital though, so I don't consider myself all that snobby about it) To me some arguments for film hold up, but are rapidly becoming less relevant as digital sensors improve. The biggest case form film to me is the dynamic range (in film terms "latitude") compared to digital. Film is currently still better at retaining detail in high contrast shots (for example a person dimly lit against a bright sky). And when film does "blow out" it has a tendency to be a smooth curve and even the over-exposed parts of the frame that may be fully white still have some texture. Whereas digital has a harsh drop off where the information is just gone and it has a rather ugly look. Newer camera sensors are starting to get very, very close to film in terms of latitude. But for the moment even the most expensive Hollywood level cameras are not quite as good. I expect this to change and eventually film won't have this advantage anymore. Film does tend to have a pleasing, organic look. But plugins are getting very good at emulating the good parts of that without all of the hassles of film. I liken it to audio recording, which went through a similar analog-vs-digital revolution in the 90's. there are still people that choose analog for artistic reasons, but digital is accepted as the primary recording medium now. As for 48fps, though, that's irrelevant in the digital-vs-film argument because both types of cameras can shoot at either frame rate.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    I'm perfectly fine with preferring film for things that film is better at. Stuff like the dynamic range you mention is an excellent example of this. I'm not sure if digital has caught up in terms of raw resolution, either. Arguments like this make a ton of sense: if film is actually better for something, then that's a reason to prefer it. I only have problems with weird arguments where people prefer stuff that's obviously worse, like the aforementioned grain and low frame rates.
    - snogglethorpe 14y ago
      Hmm?　There's all sorts of "noise" that are generally considered a positive thing, at least in certain contexts. After all, the end goal in most cases isn't perfect information capture, it's communicating emotion/feeling/message/etc, and "degrading" an image can add something (just not the original thing). Of course the correlation between certain types of noise/distortion and the resulting interpretation is in many cases culturally determined, and that changes over time... One minute shakycam is considered the height of immersion, the next, it's an embarrassing affectation. But still, there's nothing inherently wrong with preferring something "worse," especially when the latter judgment is made on a narrow technical basis which misses the larger picture.
  - Keyframe 14y ago
    Latitude is something I am more interested in too. But, once I've tried Sony SRW-9000PL I was blown away. Full 12 stops, image looked (stock) like it was hand delivered from heaven without any lighting used (I had it only for a test), and even digital noise was pleasing, film like, in low light situations. I can only imagine what F-65 does then if 9k did that. Hell, even RED, post MX sensor, looks really great. Film has a charm to itself though (even just watching rushes projectioned vs monitor), but from a practical standpoint it's dead and gone. When you factor in a cost of stock only for a 90 minute film (with a, standard, coverage of 20:1 or 30:!) you have to pay for it as much as a new digital camera. Not to mention developing, scanning, handling, storing it...
    - jakejake 14y ago
- MrScruff 14y ago
  Would you feel the same about lens flares, vignetting, chromatic aberration, distortion used as an effect in music etc...
  - mikeash 14y ago
    Of course. Anything of this nature can be used to good effect, but they should never be imposed on everything just because people are used to inferior technology.
- objclxt 14y ago
  Film is more than just the quality of the image - it's about the mindset you approach shooting. If you're shooting on film you'll be lucky if you can have more than a 3:1 overrun. On digital it's much higher...you can afford to shoot more because you're not paying processing costs. Directors working with film shoot in a very different way to digital, and this does affect the final product: I know not because I'm a film buff, but because I used to crew on shoots with both formats. I love digital, I love film. I'd like directors to have a choice, but I suspect we'll see studios effectively enforcing digital for all but the most influential directors going forward.
- scrumper 14y ago
  As in so many creative endeavours it's the limitations which make the art. It's not always about going for perfection, but it always has to be emotional. Which is a more powerful statement? This: http://virgo.bibl.u-szeged.hu/wm/paint/auth/monet/parliament/1905.jpg http://virgo.bibl.u-szeged.hu/wm/paint/auth/monet/parliament... or this: http://isitthattime.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/fog-over-the-houses-of-parliament.jpg?w=610&h=406 http://isitthattime.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/fog-over-the... There's no question that the latter is more technically accurate, more lifelike, more realistic, but it lacks the guttural punch of the Monet. Monet was a master, but only by exploiting the limitations of his medium could he attain that mastery. So it goes with film. A decent cinematographer uses the inherent faults of film to convey emotion. Without the low dynamic range of film, the dark corners of the Nostromo in Alien would have looked like a plywood movie set. Without lens flare and blown highlights then the plight of a dehydrated hero in the desert would be much harder to get across. Those things - 24fps, lens flare, low range, depth of field - have become part of our shared culture now. So much so that even media which aim for perfect realism (eg video games) mimic some of them to aid immersion and, once again, heighten the emotional response.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    It's one thing to creatively take advantage of limitations to make art better. It's quite another to insist that an arbitrary limitation must be present on every work, regardless of whether it's good or not. If 24fps is somehow good for certain types of film, then by all means, keep using it. But it's silly to say that 24fps is universally better, as I've heard some people say.
    - scrumper 14y ago
      I can't disagree with that Mike. Absolutes have no place in art.
      - mikeash 14y ago
        No absolutes in art, ever, no matter what! :D
davedx 14y ago
See also the eternal discussion about whether vinyl or digital music formats sound better...
- ImprovedSilence 14y ago
  I thought that was an actual issue dealing with "loudness" and the dynamic range of the sound. ie, newer media is formatted so that it's so loud, it will clip parts off before it you can hear the softer bits in it. I could be way off though, I'm not really and audio buff in that sense...
  - roc 14y ago
    "Loudness" is an orthogonal debate revolving around mixing (pop music). There's nothing about the various media that requires or prohibits one from mixing 'loud'. vinyl vs CD, tube vs solid-state/digital -- those are more similar to film's 24fps vs higher frame rates: straightforward arguments against higher-fidelity technologies because we've grown emotionally attached to the particular artifacts of legacy technologies.
  - krymise 14y ago
    That's just the way music is mastered these days, a great article on this stuff is here: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm But the debate between vinyl and cds is completely separate from the debate on loudness.
  - apl 14y ago
    You're confusing a couple of things here. DR is substantially increased with digital recording; so is SNR. Behaviour at the upper end of the DR differs between digital and analog media. Whereas tape, for instance, saturates (which may induce pleasant distortion!), digital audio clips (which induces headaches). However, that doesn't really matter in practice if the audio engineer in question is worth his salt. Levels at every point of the digital chain need to be adjusted accordingly: the old strategy of keeping everything close-to-maximum doesn't work anymore. One keeps everything well below clipping point instead. Overeager compression (specifically, limiting) is a whole different problem, especially with modern pop production.
ender7 14y ago
Yes, bigger numbers are always better! So, yes, increased framerates do make things like aliasing concerns -- long the bane of many an action movie director's existence -- go away. However, there is a concrete and visceral difference between 24fps and 30/48 that is impossible to ignore (unlike, say vinyl vs. digital, which requires an expert and a dollop of wishful thinking to recognize). This is not something that only the snooty directors and film buffs will notice -- everyone (and I mean everyone) in the theater will comment on it. Now, perhaps we all as species just need to adjust to the new normal. We'll see. Personally, I find that 24fps adds a sense of larger-than-lifeness that I find really attractive. Maybe I'll just get over it, but I suspect that I'll miss 24fps for quite a while.
- derleth 14y ago
  > Yes, bigger numbers are always better! Nice strawman. Do you have any actual arguments?

mikeash 14y ago

I feel like I'll go mental if I hear one more film buff talk about the essential nature of various imperfections in traditional film. It's so obvious that nobody would have chosen to go with film grain, low frame rates, or any of the other limitations that were foist upon them if they had had a choice. But now these technical limitations get enshrined as the medium's supposed true nature, at least by some....

jakejake 14y ago
I'm a bit of a film buff, by that I mean I like shooting of film & I own 16mm film cameras. (I shoot most if my work in digital though, so I don't consider myself all that snobby about it) To me some arguments for film hold up, but are rapidly becoming less relevant as digital sensors improve. The biggest case form film to me is the dynamic range (in film terms "latitude") compared to digital. Film is currently still better at retaining detail in high contrast shots (for example a person dimly lit against a bright sky). And when film does "blow out" it has a tendency to be a smooth curve and even the over-exposed parts of the frame that may be fully white still have some texture. Whereas digital has a harsh drop off where the information is just gone and it has a rather ugly look. Newer camera sensors are starting to get very, very close to film in terms of latitude. But for the moment even the most expensive Hollywood level cameras are not quite as good. I expect this to change and eventually film won't have this advantage anymore. Film does tend to have a pleasing, organic look. But plugins are getting very good at emulating the good parts of that without all of the hassles of film. I liken it to audio recording, which went through a similar analog-vs-digital revolution in the 90's. there are still people that choose analog for artistic reasons, but digital is accepted as the primary recording medium now. As for 48fps, though, that's irrelevant in the digital-vs-film argument because both types of cameras can shoot at either frame rate.
- mikeash 14y ago
  I'm perfectly fine with preferring film for things that film is better at. Stuff like the dynamic range you mention is an excellent example of this. I'm not sure if digital has caught up in terms of raw resolution, either. Arguments like this make a ton of sense: if film is actually better for something, then that's a reason to prefer it. I only have problems with weird arguments where people prefer stuff that's obviously worse, like the aforementioned grain and low frame rates.
  - snogglethorpe 14y ago
    Hmm?　There's all sorts of "noise" that are generally considered a positive thing, at least in certain contexts. After all, the end goal in most cases isn't perfect information capture, it's communicating emotion/feeling/message/etc, and "degrading" an image can add something (just not the original thing). Of course the correlation between certain types of noise/distortion and the resulting interpretation is in many cases culturally determined, and that changes over time... One minute shakycam is considered the height of immersion, the next, it's an embarrassing affectation. But still, there's nothing inherently wrong with preferring something "worse," especially when the latter judgment is made on a narrow technical basis which misses the larger picture.
- Keyframe 14y ago
  Latitude is something I am more interested in too. But, once I've tried Sony SRW-9000PL I was blown away. Full 12 stops, image looked (stock) like it was hand delivered from heaven without any lighting used (I had it only for a test), and even digital noise was pleasing, film like, in low light situations. I can only imagine what F-65 does then if 9k did that. Hell, even RED, post MX sensor, looks really great. Film has a charm to itself though (even just watching rushes projectioned vs monitor), but from a practical standpoint it's dead and gone. When you factor in a cost of stock only for a 90 minute film (with a, standard, coverage of 20:1 or 30:!) you have to pay for it as much as a new digital camera. Not to mention developing, scanning, handling, storing it...
  - jakejake 14y ago
MrScruff 14y ago
Would you feel the same about lens flares, vignetting, chromatic aberration, distortion used as an effect in music etc...
- mikeash 14y ago
  Of course. Anything of this nature can be used to good effect, but they should never be imposed on everything just because people are used to inferior technology.
objclxt 14y ago
Film is more than just the quality of the image - it's about the mindset you approach shooting. If you're shooting on film you'll be lucky if you can have more than a 3:1 overrun. On digital it's much higher...you can afford to shoot more because you're not paying processing costs. Directors working with film shoot in a very different way to digital, and this does affect the final product: I know not because I'm a film buff, but because I used to crew on shoots with both formats. I love digital, I love film. I'd like directors to have a choice, but I suspect we'll see studios effectively enforcing digital for all but the most influential directors going forward.
scrumper 14y ago
As in so many creative endeavours it's the limitations which make the art. It's not always about going for perfection, but it always has to be emotional. Which is a more powerful statement? This: http://virgo.bibl.u-szeged.hu/wm/paint/auth/monet/parliament/1905.jpg http://virgo.bibl.u-szeged.hu/wm/paint/auth/monet/parliament... or this: http://isitthattime.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/fog-over-the-houses-of-parliament.jpg?w=610&h=406 http://isitthattime.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/fog-over-the... There's no question that the latter is more technically accurate, more lifelike, more realistic, but it lacks the guttural punch of the Monet. Monet was a master, but only by exploiting the limitations of his medium could he attain that mastery. So it goes with film. A decent cinematographer uses the inherent faults of film to convey emotion. Without the low dynamic range of film, the dark corners of the Nostromo in Alien would have looked like a plywood movie set. Without lens flare and blown highlights then the plight of a dehydrated hero in the desert would be much harder to get across. Those things - 24fps, lens flare, low range, depth of field - have become part of our shared culture now. So much so that even media which aim for perfect realism (eg video games) mimic some of them to aid immersion and, once again, heighten the emotional response.
- mikeash 14y ago
  It's one thing to creatively take advantage of limitations to make art better. It's quite another to insist that an arbitrary limitation must be present on every work, regardless of whether it's good or not. If 24fps is somehow good for certain types of film, then by all means, keep using it. But it's silly to say that 24fps is universally better, as I've heard some people say.
  - scrumper 14y ago
    I can't disagree with that Mike. Absolutes have no place in art.
    - mikeash 14y ago
      No absolutes in art, ever, no matter what! :D

davedx 14y ago

See also the eternal discussion about whether vinyl or digital music formats sound better...

ImprovedSilence 14y ago
I thought that was an actual issue dealing with "loudness" and the dynamic range of the sound. ie, newer media is formatted so that it's so loud, it will clip parts off before it you can hear the softer bits in it. I could be way off though, I'm not really and audio buff in that sense...
- roc 14y ago
  "Loudness" is an orthogonal debate revolving around mixing (pop music). There's nothing about the various media that requires or prohibits one from mixing 'loud'. vinyl vs CD, tube vs solid-state/digital -- those are more similar to film's 24fps vs higher frame rates: straightforward arguments against higher-fidelity technologies because we've grown emotionally attached to the particular artifacts of legacy technologies.
- krymise 14y ago
  That's just the way music is mastered these days, a great article on this stuff is here: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm But the debate between vinyl and cds is completely separate from the debate on loudness.
- apl 14y ago
  You're confusing a couple of things here. DR is substantially increased with digital recording; so is SNR. Behaviour at the upper end of the DR differs between digital and analog media. Whereas tape, for instance, saturates (which may induce pleasant distortion!), digital audio clips (which induces headaches). However, that doesn't really matter in practice if the audio engineer in question is worth his salt. Levels at every point of the digital chain need to be adjusted accordingly: the old strategy of keeping everything close-to-maximum doesn't work anymore. One keeps everything well below clipping point instead. Overeager compression (specifically, limiting) is a whole different problem, especially with modern pop production.

ender7 14y ago

Yes, bigger numbers are always better! So, yes, increased framerates do make things like aliasing concerns -- long the bane of many an action movie director's existence -- go away. However, there is a concrete and visceral difference between 24fps and 30/48 that is impossible to ignore (unlike, say vinyl vs. digital, which requires an expert and a dollop of wishful thinking to recognize). This is not something that only the snooty directors and film buffs will notice -- everyone (and I mean everyone) in the theater will comment on it. Now, perhaps we all as species just need to adjust to the new normal. We'll see. Personally, I find that 24fps adds a sense of larger-than-lifeness that I find really attractive. Maybe I'll just get over it, but I suspect that I'll miss 24fps for quite a while.

derleth 14y ago
> Yes, bigger numbers are always better! Nice strawman. Do you have any actual arguments?