Debunking "High Frame Rate in Cinema" Myths

[@EEVblog]

You'll never win an argument against The Internet. It's like wrestling with a pig in mud, you just end up dirty and then you realise the pig actually likes it.

[@schitlipz]

Hiya Dave!

[@909sickle]

And you'll probably drop your phone in the mud and all the electrons will fall out.

[@StefanoPapaleo-TS]

What's wrong with becoming a pig? :))) Besides, pigs are far superior than the Internet dweebs. I think the good old golden rule of "don't feed the troll", still applies and works. Although, engaging in the fight or making a little money out of it every now and then can be fun.

[@Blitterbug]

Was just going to post this exact thing (minus the pig analogy). Beat me to it, Dave.

[@JonathanMacher]

at least not with this SENCELESS STATEMENT! XD

[@M0du5Pwn3n5]

The problem with pans on high refresh rates is essentially that the TVs are too good at displaying the frames accurately without any blurring or ghosting - exactly the thing that people claim to want in higher-end TVs and monitors. What you want for watching most video is some degree of blurring to smooth the pan. It's the temporal version of the spatial thing that happens to video game art made for CRTs on a modern monitor with sharp, separated pixels.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

This is correct!

[@PoissonVisageStudios]

I'm writing my university dissertation on HFR at the moment. It's entitled: 'Do Audiences Experience a Film Differently at High Frame Rate', and I will be conducting experiments on audiences unaware that they are watching something at HFR, and I'm basically aiming to form some quantitative data on a general audience's subconscious responses to 24, 48, 60 and 120fps. You have no idea how happy I was when this dropped into my subscriptions. Great video as ever: really informative.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Somebody suggested they do a blind test of HFR but I don't think that's possible... Take a look at a JND frame rates in my description. I think if you jump people will notice right away.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Also check out the second article from Vulture where I quoted David Niles - might be someone you want to contact about how he did his research.

[@PoissonVisageStudios]

​@@FilmmakerIQI read the article, in fact I've been visiting each of the links in the description one by one since I watched your video, so thank you so much for including them. I'll get in contact now. Thanks.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I'm so glad somebody actually went through those links... They were a lot of trouble to put together but I figured it was the only way.

[@diman4010]

I believe you miss something in the framerate list. What about 25 and 30 fps?

[@kylehart8829]

In general HFR is an artistic tool that gives a certain aesthetic, and insisting that the aesthetic of 24 is ALWAYS superior for cinema and that 48 looks like a soap opera is missing the point that there are legitimate reasons to choose low or high frame rate when making a film. The 24fps look we associate with movies is great, but it isn't necessary for a movie to be cinematic. HFR isn't the future, it's a tool that filmmakers can use right now and it's worth experimenting with *artistically*, which is a point you never actually addressed. In fact your response to that argument was to ignore it and talk about technical experimentation which is a separate issue, which is an intentional choice to deflect the problem. Also generally the point that nobody who isn't a filmmaker deserves to have any input on this debate is equivalent to saying people who aren't sculptors or painters are incapable of having legitimate opinions on art. It feels like desperately grabbing at exclusivity to make yourself feel special; sure, if you're not a painter you won't know exactly how the chosen types of paint affect the color and sheen, but you aren't barred from having an opinion. Likewise, plenty of people prefer 48fps movies when given the option, and casting aside their experiences because they aren't filmmakers is absurd. If they prefer it, you pretend that they don't appreciate or understand the aesthetic of cinema, when the fact is that they simply want to watch films in higher frame rate. They have a different opinion than you and you are deciding for them that they don't know what they actually like. Viewers are the reason the industry is able to exist, so how is it that viewers who don't happen to be filmmakers themselves automatically have zero say in an argument about what they prefer? To me that's like a chef being so arrogant that he refuses to serve a guest who wants to get a dish with no cilantro. The people who consume media and their opinions are literally the entire market for films, and claiming that they don't matter while knowing that comes across as entitled and childish.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

It's not the artistic tool you think it is. The reason you think it is is because you don't have any experience. That's why I advocate making films. And the thing is people that like 24 make up a far greater portion of the market than those of HFR, so you're right the market has decided. HFR is dead.

[@magic___window]

@@FilmmakerIQ wow what a haughty response

[@rimateng2484]

*high frame rate exists vfx artists : *chuckles I'm in danger

[@swedneck]

animators: *weeping profusely*

[@rvllctt871]

@@swedneck and roto artists ...

[@NormansWorldMovies]

The reason why filmmakers use 24 FPS for movies is because that is what movies are designed to look like. 24 FPS is just enough to look realistic but no more than that and that is why it is considered the cinematic frame rate, because it doesn't make movies look too real. It makes them real enough, but no more than that.

[@reddcube]

I want HFR ... but only for the credits. Reading scrolling text is very hard at 24 fps

[@doctordothraki4378]

Thankfully, TV movies would have credits at 60fps, even if the movie was shot at any other framerate. But often the text scrolls faster than 24fps credits do. I can provide examples if need be

[@easterworshipper5579]

i never gave fps a thought until i got a tv that had 'smoothing', in effect making even a multi-million dollar movie look like a cheap 'behind the scenes' video.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Let's not mix up interacing with all this... Plus technical visual quality requires other variables like resolution display size and brightness... Ultimately it's not really a good measure of anything. Subjective quality always trumps technical quality.

[@Crlarl]

@@FilmmakerIQ I think you replied to the wrong comment here.

[@janisir4529]

It's so sad, that choppiness is somehow associated with "high budget" just because movies never decided to upgrade for absolutely no reason.

[@Astlaus]

I agree with most of the points given. I have only two comments: 1) I watched Cameron's Avatar in IMAX in 3D. I was in a front row, so the screen in front of me was absolutely massive. At that size and with the addition of 3D, in faster scenes 24 fps was extremely jarring, sometimes to the point of complete visual incomprehensibility. 2) When you talk about "badly encoded videos on KZbin": Video encoder doesn't really care about framerate, it's just processing sequence of frames (which are nothing but still pictures) -- time separation between the frames doesn't matter. The problems you pointed out happened before encoding (incorrect pulldown, changing framerate in the editor, or even just specifying wrong framerate).

[@SmithIsBetterThenYou]

Fun Fact: Silent Hill 2 the game actually used 30fps in gameplay, then, 60fps for pre-rendered cutscenes. Given the look and feel of the game, it made the character interactions more unusual and uncanny. only for the PS2 though. It had lots of bad ports. But you can mod the PC version.

[@lenk8374]

Arguing for movies having hfr is a little like someone saying to use f/16 on a camera because more of you shot is in focus. But shallow depth of field has its own artistic look and purpose

[@matheus5230]

Sadly, I actually saw someone defend HFR and also saying that shallow depth of field shouldn't exist.

[@BlighterProductions]

Not to mention a wider aperture needs much less ISO noise to compose an image with good brightness.

[@shootinbruin3614]

I personally believe HDR is a way more exciting avenue to pursue than HFR

[@FilmmakerIQ]

agreed

[@shootinbruin3614]

Filmmaker IQ your 40 minute videos are so interesting and transition so well they feel like they’re only 4 minutes long. Keep up the good work!

[@cafe80s]

I think the HDR term has already been ruined by "4K" TVs that don't come anywhere near close to the unreasonably high brightness standard.

[@PaulMcElligott]

I’ll say it again. I’ve never walked out of a movie and heard anyone say, “I would have liked it better if the frame rate was higher.”

[@KrunoslavStifter]

How true.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Unfortunately I read every KZbin comment I receive and I have heard those kind of statements. :(

[@cjc363636]

I've used the same example but it was "Hey, nobody ever left a modern movie saying "Darn, I really miss the warm analog sound."

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

I thought The Hobbit movies looked worse because of it

[@Lance_todd]

i've actually thought most david fincher movies look extra sleek in 60fps. his steady cam work would be F L U I D

[@KSE370]

I watched all the video. First want to thank you for all the effort put into this, I really appreciate that cause I am a young filmmaker and I know how difficult it is to discuss about cinema with people who believe that they know everything just because they Googled it. Honestly the info was great but I would prefer to watch a video with you talking to other experts rather than replying to silly arguments because your knowledge is really worthy, but I understand why you made it. Keep the good work going man!

[@CalvinsWorldNews]

As someone who's done proper films (as compared to home movies) on Super8 film, I think a lot of this runs true for the 18fps format that 8mm is shot on. It has a real feel that can only be described as 'aesthetic' and whilst the frame-rate and effective resolution are lousy, that's all part of the charm of what I love about rewatching 8mm films.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Absolutely and I totally agree. I never watched 8 mm personally (until recently) but I saw the intro to the Wonder Years every week when it was on showing the 8 mm feel... kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y4DFZmyeqLeUfLc

[@CalvinsWorldNews]

@@FilmmakerIQ You should especially try picking up an old camera and some B&W film. Nothing comes close to B&W on low/res stock, it gives a genuine old-timey vibe if you want a period/noire look. Also, the thought of waiting weeks for processing it and then editing it later by hand also makes you *really* focus on getting the shot right first time.

[@DingbatToast]

"Just because you're a film maker with years of experience and a reasonable argument for 24fps based on science and experience you are wrong! I filmed my mate falling off his bike at 200fps on my phone and it looked AWESOME! Get wrecked old man!"

[@Leprutz]

I bet this was Irony.

[@DingbatToast]

@@Leprutz haha! Oh yea

[@parallelfilms9710]

And that’s why you won’t be a filmmaker

[@bud389]

@@will9357 Slow motion is filmed at a higher frame rate, not a slower frame rate, your comment makes no sense.

[@bogdanpopescu8406]

Even that looks better on 24 fps...

[@LaRobertos]

this guy is a God in film making information period

[@JonathanMacher]

but he still doesn't get all the this right: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppuwpaiulN95i5Y

[@JonathanMacher]

@@will9357 Doesn't it bother you too? Once you've noticed it, you can't unsee it... and thats why people should shoot 30 for youtube. Not fo only me to be happy about, rather for everyones benefit. Its that simple. There are already a couple of youtuber creators doing it, but this knowledge should be spread to everyone. Thats why videos such as this one are so counter productive...

[@FilmmakerIQ]

@@JonathanMacher (but not enough sense to understand his limited experience) is an example of someone that took a little bit of knowledge and blew it up to the point of absurdity. According to his logic, Europeans can't produce KZbin videos because they can't shoot 30fps with the video cameras... Plain stupidity.

[@JonathanMacher]

@@FilmmakerIQ See, now you're just making stuff up.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Guess you never heard of PAL...

[@bud389]

I can't stand 48 or 60 FPS films. Smoother image, blah blah blah, it looks weird, and it makes shoddy effects jobs, both practical and CGI, look AWFUL. The Hobbit was a perfect example, where the effects would have looked decent, but the high frame rate made all the faults more visible and everything looked so fake and phony.

[@TazarZero]

Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse had different frame rates used as well, only instead of HFR, they used LFR, more specifically with the kid. At the start of the movie, he's rendered in 12fps, and when he finally understands what it means to be Spiderman, he's rendered in 24fps.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Spiderverse is why I think there might be more art in lower frame rates than in high

[@TheExodvs]

Yeah. And it worked within the medium because most animated movies switch between 12 and 24 anyway, sometimes in the same shot.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

The thing I appreciate about even lower frame rates with animation is it gives you a tactile feel of the artistry. The craft comes through, run the animation at high frame rate and yes it looks smoother but you lose the sense that someone had to actually make this.

[@erik_normark]

You're making the best educational videos about film on YT! I know the feeling having a video going viral and having the whole keybored army of internet "experts" coming in, happily informing you about everything you do wrong... How nice it is to get a video ride up, it also comes at a price.

[@dougle03]

"I get that every generation wants to overthrow the past, but every generation is nieve and clueless; youth is always stupid, Old people are always out of touch. The irony is how the same person transitions between the two extremes, and the hubris comes from thinking that you won't too..." John P Hess

[@fecu2394]

I do 24fps in my animations because it's less rendering. 😇

[@thumbwarriordx]

I didn't for a long time, suffered through and got very smooth results. But I think Spiderverse turned the world onto limited animation. Since giving it a shot it's like "Oh I'm doing real anmiation now, it's all about my intention" And compared to that, smoothness is just way overrated.

[@johannes914]

I do 12 fps in my animations because it's less drawing.

[@leestripp7387]

Think of the children, uno doing all that roto in a dark room somewhere. Not to mention us VFX guy/gals. storage space, the list goes on.

[@JonathanMacher]

Reasonable point. Still not really the perfect way to go.

[@MrBobthened]

a lot of animation is in 12fps. that would be even less rendering (and drawing)

[@onemoreconjecture]

I’ve thought really hard about everything you’ve said. I love 24fps and as someone who has also spent a lot of time making stop-motion animation I’m also a massive fan of 12/15fps. Still, The Hobbit & Gemini Man have been amongst my all time favourite cinematic experiences, in no small part because of the 3D HFR. To me more ‘real’ felt more exciting for those showings. Can’t we have HFR movies too? (I’m still a fan of 3D as well) Maybe all these things are a bit of a gimmick right now, but I love when entertainment gives me a new and novel experience. For the record though, the edges of the screen at my local movie theatre have a LOT of judder when projecting in 3D. The 3D HFR fixed this flaw beautifully.

[@cataria3903]

i'm all for the magi process, shooting in 120 fps, being able to display the movie at different frame rates and being able to sell blu rays/streaming of the movie at different frame rates. there's no reason to not have more options, i personally would watch everything at 120 fps, but by shooting at 120 fps, but when shooting at 120 fps u can combine 5 frames to regain the blur required to make 24 fps acceptable. i want the screen to fall away and let me be part of the movie and 24 fps can't do that ever. (for me at least)

[@onemoreconjecture]

@Corpsefoot Gaming Have any movies so far actually tried to replace 24fps though? And what is the harm if a few even do? I don’t think for budgeting reasons that the whole industry would be likely to switch any time soon, but a little more experimentation with the available technology can’t hurt. If it ends up damaging the movie going experience then companies will quickly revert back to 24fps only, in the same way as 3D TVs and for the most part true 3D movies are now a thing of the past.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

The reason for 24 is not budgetary, movies will spend the money if that's what's preferred. Deviating from 24 is simply not preferred. That's what the proHFR crowd don't get

[@tbk2010]

There was some push-back to "Talkies", like this one: "A film in which the speech and sound effects are perfectly synchronised and coincide with their visual image on the screen is absolutely contrary to the aims of cinema. It is a degenerate and misguided attempt to destroy the real use of the film and cannot be accepted as coming within the true boundaries of the cinema."

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I noted such in the video but not in ANY WAY like the pushback to HFR... Not even close.

[@SmithMrCorona]

High frame rates look great when you're filming something that is supposed to look live. It looks awful when applied to make-believe. It looks evern worse when you're looking at something with a lot of green screen. Every bit of fakery is magnified 1000%. The Hobbit was already a mess visually, but looked astoundingly bad when it was shown at a higher frame rate.

[@ScubaGirl68]

There are many good reasons for choosing a specific frame rate to work in. Personally I like to work at 50fps for the videos that I produce. There are advantages to working at slower rates. There are things that you can do with the camera to improve the quality of the captured Images. This can be much harder in high frames rates. Whether to deliberately have motion blur or pin sharp edges as someone moves can be used effectively by adjusting the shutter time. Many amateur cameras don't have this ability, so most people don't even consider it. My own reason for preferring 50fps for video content is due to the medium I use and seeing the flickering produced with 25fps. In a cinema the screen is setup to work well at 24fps. I don't notice the flickering there. The refresh rate of the screen is important. Any ambient light is important. The local mains power is important. Each needs to be considered and used to a suitable effect. Do I like HFR in a cinema? Yes Do I like 24fps in the cinema? Yes Would I like to see all films in HFR? Unsure. It's alright arguing today about the cinematic experience and associating 24fps with that experience as this is what we have become accustomed to. In much the same way as I was accustomed to watch SD TV as a child in fuzzy black & white. There are some technical issues associated with showing HDR content. A good modern digital cinema will handle them without any problems. The work in the production side however does increase. This will add to costs. So yes it can be done. Our perception of that cinematic experience with shift, as it did when widescreen was first introduced or full surround sound was added. Will it be better? That is always going to be the space for people to debate.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Totally disagree :) you give far too little credit to bring "accustomed to"...

[@ScubaGirl68]

Perhaps I do give to little credit. That is perhaps because I've seen too many things over the years that have caused change to happen.I guess more will happen through cost. Since cinemas are now able to produce such a wonderful all-round entertainment experience, it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend more money to produce HFR content when an audience is apparently happy with the 24 fs content.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I don't know how old you are but is a good chance that you grew up in an era of constant technological change. Unfortunately I think that era is coming to an end at least from the consumer electronics perspective. Sure we're going to continue progressing but the fact is we're reaching the biological limits of what we can perceive already. Continued advancement won't have the wow factor that it used to.

[@dalebonneau9443]

Quality of the movie aside, The first Hobbit movie in 3D, 5K, 48 fps was one of the best movie going experience I ever had. Sure, a lot of the stuff in the movie looked faked. But it was like there was a hole in the wall and middle earth was right there in front of my eyes. I just wish we could have the option to bring those experiences home... People would maybe change their mind if HFR was more easily accessible.

[@hiramesensei3112]

Anyone else know that feel when you go to someone else's house and their TV is set with that awful fake high fps that's on by default on every TV for some godforsaken reason and you feel physically ill until you can sneakily steal the remote and turn that garbage off.

[@cjc363636]

LOL When I got my current HD set years ago, I tripped over the menu pages trying to get that silly "crisp" or whatever mode turned off. Everything looked like super HD soap operas. When I finally got the set tuned right, it was just like "Hey, that's what it's supposed to look like!" Maybe not as 'crisp' but definitely more movie-like.

[@johngwheeler]

Hah - I've done this of several occasions! It's surprising how many people don't notice the HFR "look", or think it detracts from the experience, but most like it better when it's turned off - with the possible exception of sports content.

[@thumbwarriordx]

@@johngwheeler *Ahem* Sports AND porn. Definitively, the two things motion interpolation is good for.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Porn *is a sport*

[@steadystate100]

#tvninja

[@Argonautx66]

When I was managing cinema, it was explained to me that 24 frames per second was about as fast as the human eye could perceive 🤔 That said, that was the 90s with the old school celluloid Xenon projectors

[@trueaddict8733]

I'd question whether or not anyone of these people who advocate high frame rates have ever actually SEEN a film at 60fps or higher. People crap on 24fps but it seems that many crap on it simply because it's not 'up to date' since we have this mentality that everything must progress and get bigger and better. High frame rate movies typically look way too smooth and real and the cinematic quality is completely gone.

[@spyro440]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rImVp6asmdZrpNk This is how movies could look today. And now tell me that this looks like a soap opera. ;)

[@amadeusbiel6062]

I also prefer 24 fps, but why do you act like this isn't just a matter of habit and taste.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I explained my position clearly in the video. But there is also the very really fact that not nearly all.. but ALL movie and narrative TV shows use that format. As close to 100% as you can get in art. That's beyond a preference...

[@UncleMarty]

We need everything at 60FPS with options on TVs to downgrade to LFR and not the other way around (like we have now). That way everyone can be happy. Eventually 24 FPS will die out because people's eyes will be used to normal frame rates and LFR will just look "strange".

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Hahahahahahahaha.

[@UncleMarty]

Feel free to keep watching on black and white, low Def and LFR. The world moves on to better things and it's the ones that don't grasp at it that get left behind saying "but but but it looks so un natural!!!! Wahhhh?!!"

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Oh wait you were serious??? Such a tool!!!

[@UncleMarty]

Yeah because people who embrace new technologies and strive to have a better cinematic experience are tools and people who are stuck in the past are people who aren't tools. /Sarcasm.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

New tech? ABC has been broadcasting 60fps since 2001 (probably before you were born). Your grandmother watched Ed Sullivan in 60hz in 1955. You don't even know what you don't know.

[@jdnk]

When you brought up the Company recording, it reminded me of Lars Von Trier's Dogville, which used similar minimalistic staging but with more conventionally cinematic angles, so when a scene was set inside a building you could see everything else happening on set since the walls were mostly represented solely by lines drawn on the floor, and I'd love to see how HFR would change the effect created by those staging choices.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Sure why not? But you got to that far outside traditional cinematic techniques... My guess is it would just look like it was shot on video.

[@ZigUncut]

It already does look like it was shot on video.

[@Team.Louish]

Did you purposely put a picture of Zooey Deschanel when you were talking about Katie Perry? I know they look alike, just didn't know if it was on purpose or not. @ 23:28

[@hiramesensei3112]

I think your question is answered at 27:03

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Voice of a Generation! kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3-VZJ98gMujmc0

[@emersevr]

I've ALWAYS found ALL panning shots unacceptably jerky and flickery, particularly in an actual cinema with real film projection. It's not too bad with a slow pan in a close up shot but when you have fast moving pans of large expansive vistas it's like being at a rave when the strobe light comes on. Action shots are even worse especially with the close up shaky cam fight scenes that are so annoyingly popular in modern movies. They're like being shown a slideshow of a boxing match where the photographer missed half the punches. I dunno it might just be me but I feel like having an epileptic fit sometimes watching a movie.

[@anorbet2514]

I have this to. Panning shots, and action shots, feels choppy and jerky and it makes my eyes/head hurt after a while. It is one of the reasons I rarely go to the cinema anymore. It reduces my enjoyment and make me feel like I am trying to play a game on a computer that can't render at at good or steady frame rate.

[@TheUAoB]

The panning issues are probably due to display persistence. A 144Hz monitor will have very low persistence so psychovisual effects become very apparent. 24fps always feels uncomfortable to me, but it is much better with slower presentation technology.

[@matheus5230]

@@anorbet2514 What about hand-drawn animation? It often triumphs with limitation, posing and abrupt actions for effect

[@matheus5230]

Did you see the comparison of the panning shots of The Shining in 18:45 of the video? The right side looks perfectly fine to me. I wouldn't be surprised if many theaters are incompetent

[@johnmartin7781]

Shaky cam action actually looks worse in HFR than in 24FPS, the excessive movement makes people motion-sick. It's why even in gaming, you get motion blur of fast moving parts that do not affect your gameplay, or you would feel a headache from so much motion.

[@MrMartin2187]

I’m a teacher of film sound and I just LOVE your videos! Wow you nail every subject you attack, and it’s awesome when you get pissed off. Keep up the good work! All the best from Sweden!

[@techsavvydaddy5616]

You nailed it with the Wine / Grape Juice comparison!!! Hopefully, this will get it straight. for these people. Thank you!

[@mickael486]

Filmmaker IQ, was The Blair Witch Project and/or the Paranormal Activity movies shot in 30fps before being presented in 24fps in theaters? would that even make a difference since the film is going through the projector at 24fps like any other movie? When I watched BWP on DVD at home, it felt/looked different but I can't remember why. it looked better in the theater. I don't think it was just because of a larger screen. idk. I am looking forward to your video on the psychological effects of watching different frame rates. I find this topic very interesting.

[@XtianApi]

everybody needs to turn off they're smooth motion on their TVs. That crap that adds fake frames. It makes things look terrible

[@michaelterrazas1325]

I dislike 24 fps because being in a dark theater using it gives me headaches. I have to wait for films to come out in other forms to make it worth watching. I actually see the flicker on the edges of the screen away from where my focus is. As I have talked about not going to theaters with others, I have found that there is a sizable population of people who do not like films because they get headaches at the theater. I wanted HFR so I could go to the movies with my wife. Very few movies are worth the pain.

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

Maybe the projector was out of focus, but the last movie I saw in a theatre looked too blurry.

[@MrGlasspider]

Not everything that higher in numbers is an improvement. There is a reason a book look like a book for hundreds of years. 60 fps should be used where it works best (not in movies).

[@JasperJanssen]

Fucking codex reading youngsters. What’s wrong with the scroll that we’ve been using for centuries? It just doesn’t feel like a book if you’re not unrolling the next page every so often. Binding loose pages into a stack, bah, newfangled humbug. I mean, sure it makes it easier to use and especially easier to flip back and forth, but that’s not the true bibliophilic experience. (The fact that I had to go back to the scroll to codex transition which happened in, like... I don’t know, somewhere between 0 and 1000, look it up if you want... sure supports your point)

[@JB-ym4up]

@@JasperJanssen I absolutely love that I had to scroll to read this whole message. Damn new fangled pocket computer thingy.

[@FireRat]

Comparing Increased Resolution I also do not believe is comparable to increasing frame rate, Making things clearer to see is not going to be objected by most people unless it is for some specific purpose.

[@jaywolfenstien]

When DVDs first came out, I started really getting into cinema (as opposed to being average casual viewer) and I remember renting a made for TV movie and thinking something was wrong and I actually stopped the viewing to rewatch the same scene on different TVs/computer moniters/DVD players trying to diagnose what it was. It was exactly this. A higher frame rate and it didn't look right. It wasn't cinematic. Smoother, yes, but it didn't feel like a movie. This wasn't a side-by-side comparison or even back to back comparison. It was coming home from work and popping in a DVD cold. This was before I knew anything about frame rates, and it was still that jarring and suspension of disbelief-shattering.

[@vwestlife]

TV sitcoms were not always 24fps. Originally all TV shows were done live (and thus natively at 60i or 50i), and any copies made for distribution or preservation were done using poor-quality kinescope equipment. "I Love Lucy" was the first to be shot directly on film, but it used 24fps for the convenience of TV stations being able to play it on their existing film chains, not for any aesthetic purpose. But in the '60s to '80s, almost all sitcoms were recorded using 60i (or 50i) video cameras and videotape, except for some opening sequences and outdoor scenes ("Monty Python" did a sketch joking about the switch from videotape indoors to film outdoors -- "we're surrounded by film!"). "Friends" was the first big sitcom to switch back to using film entirely, but was still transferred to 60i videotape for editing (which breaks the 3:2 pulldown cadence at scene/camera changes!). If you see sitcoms from this era entirely at 24fps today, that's a result of modern re-editing, just like the awful cropping from 4:3 down to 16:9.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I Love Lucy invented the TV sitcom. The shows that were done live were not necessarily sitcoms. Some sitcoms (lower budget) were shot to tape which have a 60i frame rate though it's not as ubiquitous as you make it out to be. Gilligan's Island, Brady Bunch, Mary Tyler Moore, Cheers, all shot on film. Yes they used 3:2 to up it to a broadcast 60i but they were shot at 24 fps. Part of this was because video editing would not become sophisticated enough until the 80s.

[@pawned79]

I sure hope they standardize the filmmaker mode, because if I’m watching a blu-ray vs playing a game, I have to jump through so many hoops to switch between 24 and 120 on my TV+console+receiver, that I’ve given up for the most part.

[@GTXDash]

My sister got a new TV a year ago, and movies looked so wrong. I had to go into the settings to fix it. This really is a big problem. I hope filmmaker mode becomes a thing

[@Saphir3000]

What do you mean exactly? Shouldn't your TV be set to "Game" mode anyway when you play a game? It's usually the mode that gives you the least input lag and also disables all the other picture processing crap so I use it for anything else too. I can't imagine the "Filmmaker mode" being much different from that.

[@pawned79]

Saphir3000 valid question! I’ve settled on: Sony Bravia: picture mode Game, auto picture mode: auto (24p sync). The Pro is set to auto across the board. I’ve been doing it so often, I don’t even remember what setting combination looked best in the end. Btw Bravia Game mode is separate from HDR mode. I need to load HZD to double check to see if it makes a difference. I can tell there’s a difference on the pro desktop

[@pawned79]

Auto (24p sync) says it will prefer 24p when receiving 24 Hz data. All other times it’s in auto

[@GTXDash]

@@Saphir3000 I also set it to Game mode but a few other stuff needed adjusting as well. I think the real purpose of filmmaker mode is that it is a standard that TV manufactures conform to that is enabled by default, unlike game mode which is hidden behind a wall of menus that most non tech-savvy people aren't even aware of. Plus, to my knowledge, Game mode doesn't readjust the refresh rate to 24fps (24Hz) Although that isnt a big deal since (as stated in the video) 3/2 pulldown is fairly adequate.

[@rainesonfilm]

John, you are an absolute wealth of researched information and this video was pure joy. I hope you do more videos like this because you are absolutely at your best when your passion bursts through your didactism.

[@chengong388]

24fps look bad on those monitors probably because they have such low ghosting. CRT and normal slow LCD both have some ghosting going on where as OLED and fast switching LCD can just skip to the next frame instantly so it looks more jittery.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I think this is the start of a theory but it's not enough to explain what's happening. This detail hit me when I was watching JoJo Rabbit in the movie theater that had a similar sequence and it looked PERFECT. And there's no ghosting in the theater.. I've tested all kinds of things like video size, switching to different refresh rates like 120 or 60 or even 48... Sometimes it goes away some times it doesn't... But the older 60i monitor for the most part shows the motion better. So ghosting maybe one explanation but there's probably a lot of other factors that I just don't know enough about that affected it.

[@chengong388]

@@FilmmakerIQ Some of these high refresh monitors and TV also have interleaving black frames to reduce motion blur, never understood why people would want that, kind of the inverse of smoother motion but it used to be a big point to advertise.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I think the black frame insertion might help... I know my cheap monitor doesn't have it. I think the theory is by inserting a black frame is you let the persistence of vision hold in the mind for second before switching to the next frame. Switching from frame to frame is getting so fast that the persistence of vision carries over and stutters. At least that's my half baked idea right now.

[@LaggyKar]

@@FilmmakerIQ I've tried playing around with black frame insertion, and with mpvs interpolation, which does frame blending (no motion interpolation), but none of that gets rid of the judder. At best it alleviates it slightly. And I do notice judder in the cinema as well, it's quite noticeable once you start paying attention to it, and quite distracting at times.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Some judder is characteristic, its the alcohol that makes it wine and not grape juice

[@gpwgpw555]

With 982 comments, at 70 I'm to old to read them all. But I will tell you that as a kid I could not understand why the wheels on a stagecoach would turn backwards. Now I enjoy those same movies and pay no attention to the wheels. Love Your work.

[@fhajji]

I couldn't understand that either, until I studied digital signal processing in college (aliasing). Only then did it really make sense. And yes, this lovely effect contributed greatly to the charm of those movies.

[@v0ldy54]

A thing that still bothers me about "the FPS war" is that there has never been a GOOD proper lenght movie shot with that technique , so it's hard to judge properly if it's a matter of the technique or if people are just refusing it because nobody ever used it on something good.

[@Lance_todd]

My theory is that cinematic language needs to be adapted to the medium of HFR. Like in 24FPS there are certain things you should normally avoid because it won't look good. In different types of cameras, there are different color, contrast, and skin profiles. Between film and digital, the same camera movements can have totally different feelings of momentum. Movement within the frame can feel different as well. A good filmmaking is considering all of these factors when making something. So why does it seem like Peter Jackson and Ang Lee just shot their last films the exact same way they would have shot it in 24FPS? I recently shot a feature film in 60FPS. I was going for a living photo/theatre aesthetic so the camera doesn't move. The effect is all the movement within the still frame is heightened. Now combine this with LONG takes and you're basically hypnotizing the audience. That's my hope at least. But I think the future of 60FPS is going to rely on indie filmmakers trying new things with cinematic language and learning to adapt to the nuances of the medium. James Cameron has already abandoned it. He couldn't figure it out. I think he might be using variable frame rates for action scenes? So we'll see how that goes up against filmmakerIQ's suggestion that it's bad for action scenes.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

There's been five proper length movies, and like 50 years of soap operas dramas. You don't need a "Good" film to judge that aspect... Part of being a Filmmaker is the ability to evaluate individual elements of a production. HFR is simply not the tool you think it is.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Sounds like you're acknowledging the issue Lance - the problem though is you kind of have to abandon cinema technique in order for it to work... therefore it's not really cinema anymore...

[@Lance_todd]

​@@FilmmakerIQ I don't think you have to abandon cinematic technique, I think you just need to learn the limitations of HFR, like you would any of other variants of recording. I think there are also plenty of filmmakers whose techniques would translate well if they tried HFR. (Roy Andersson, Fincher, Vilenueve) If someone figures out how to use 60FPS in a cool way that benefits their story, does it matter what we call it? The audio-visual projected experience with characters and a story I saw in a theatre is not cinema? I'm just not sure defining an expansion or rejection of modern cinematic language as "not cinema" is useful to the concept of cinema. But this all subjective anyway. I think certain youtube vloggers are making cinema right now. I can feel your eyes roll. I know.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I'll be totally honest Lance, I watched your film trailer in 60fps and was not impressed. It really looks like an amateur acting project.

[@SpongeSebastian]

I remember a lot of HBO comedies including the one you mentioned would be 24fps in their "real world" and 60fps for stuff that was shown on a TV. It was an interesting effect that probably wouldn't be supported by most modern-day streaming services. I'm guessing another big reason why 24fps has become so standard is because it's compatible with all platforms and your audience doesn't need insanely fast Internet bandwidth to stream it. (BTW, thanks for captioning your videos!)

[@gunnaryoung]

Thank you, I've been looking for the toupee fallacy for a while

[@timbeaton5045]

That's kind of related to the "Better Alligator Trap" fallacy. The man who in London tells me has can sell me his new, patented, better alligator trap, and the proof is.."Look. How many alligators do you see in London!?"

[@gunnaryoung]

@@timbeaton5045 , thank you, I always love to learn about logical fallacies I don't know!

[@MattMcIrvin]

Here's an interesting counterfactual question: do you think that we would psychologically react to high-frame-rate movies in the same way if we *hadn't* had decades of exposure to 50/60-fields-per-second television, which, for most of its history, was a lower-budget, daily-background-noise medium? (And that cheaper TV productions tended to be the ones shot directly on video, or shown live?) Is the feeling that HFR seems kind of shoddy primarily something independent of the association with TV (e. g. the way, as you said, it exposes the artifices of acting and cinematography by giving the audience *too much* of a you-are-there feeling)? Or is the soap-opera effect more driven by the fact that we've all seen soap operas? (I certainly don't think I know the answer.)

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I think there is some psychophysical effect of low framerate that isn't present with higher numbers. This May have something to do with something called ocular micro tremors that jiggle the eye to make us seem more information than our biological eyeball can physically see. Now had the filmmakers originally chosen 30 FPS or even if television shows to go with 24... Things would absolutely be different today. But such things are kind of like asking what if we decide to call a dog a cat and a cat a dog... It's not what ended up happening...

[@hardyr]

There's a good chance you're the first person in history to use the phrase "cast aspersions on grape juice."

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Pliny the Elder beat me to it when he used the exact phrase in his Naturalis Historia.

[@hardyr]

@@FilmmakerIQ Interesting. I made sure to search for the exact phrase before posting that comment.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I'm joking :P

[@hardyr]

@@FilmmakerIQ Nice, you had me on a deep Google Books dive!

[@skitsandjiggles7286]

People assume that HFR is new technology. It has been around for a very long time and people know what it looks like. Some people prefer it while many people have always rejected it in cinema. Think about how long 3D has been available. It's good for certain movies and certain contexts, but the masses have never clamored for it to replace the standard cinematic experience.

[@woooweee]

Film is an artistic impression of reality, the idea that vision is being simulated is a non argument, it never was, high framerate or not, its not how we actually see. 24 fps was just a fortunate accident, reality is overrated, the Instagram filter hammers home this truth.

[@janisir4529]

Don't trust the opinion of people who use Instagram.

[@johnopalko5223]

Cinema is not video and video is not cinema. They both have their place and they serve different functions. Why is it so hard for people to understand that? John, you're absolutely correct, but, don't forget: the common attitude around here seems to be, "My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with facts."

[@C4Fernandez]

I feel like I may have had something to do with the “okay boomer” reference... 😅 completely agree with you on 24fps tho!

[@tomservo5007]

but the host isn't in the boomer generation, his parents are

[@isaaclee5123]

Tom Servo ok boomer

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I'm literally the oldest crop of Millennials

[@IMRROcom]

12:26 . . . I think I lost 10 years on the wayback machine

[@jones1618]

I commend you for reentering the fray and addressing most of the major counter-arguments for HFR in precise and impassioned detail. I'm sure this video will stand as the definitive word on the subject. However, all you have to do to find flaws in some (just a few) of your arguments is flip them and see if they apply equally if you were arguing FOR (not against) HFR. Two of these stand out: 1) Wine vs. Grape Juice. You might as well be saying you like the sweetness of 24fps grape juice because your tastes aren't adapted to the richness and layered, adult flavors of the HFR Marlot. Not a strong argument (even though I agree with your tastes). And 2) Disproving your own point by quoting Director Jean Renoir declaring "when the technique is perfected everything is ugly except things created by artists who are ingenious enough to overcome the technique." That would seem to fully endorse the possibility that HFR, while technically perfected years ago, has not yet been tamed by an "artist ingenious enough." Anyway, you have definitively, persuasively proved that producing "art" in HFR will be very, very difficult but I hope we can agree (as you said) that the only proof that matters is an "artist ingenious enough" showing us an HFR film that works artistically. After all, it's OK to be deeply skeptical that unicorns exist (you should be) until narwhals appear at your shore and you allow yourself to see them as an equally wondrous fulfillment of the supposed myth.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I don't believe any artist can make HFR work. It's inherently flawed for the cinematic medium.

[@jones1618]

​@@FilmmakerIQ Yes, we got it! You dedicated 5000 thoughtful words saying so. I wholeheartedly respect how you methodically picked through the bones of the HFR-cinema unicorn and sanely, scientifically declared it to be a mythical creature. Very sensible. You made it clear that you won't believe otherwise until someone brings you an actual specimen of HFR art. Fair enough. I'm completely, utterly OK with that. I concede that unicorns don't exist in all the territories you've mapped so meticulously. It is just unfortunate that you feel the need to scrawl "There might be dragons" on the map with such absolute certainty just to cover your blind spots and discourage curiosity. That's OK. Some un-sensible sailor (not you, not me) will sail into that uncharted creative sea anyway. They might not ever find an HFR narwhal that vividly suspends your disbelief but the adventure might just extend the art in ways you don't expect.

[@NormansWorldMovies]

Man, who would have thought that the internet would get so worked up over 24 FPS?

[@SeanBarkerNegaScott128]

Re: the "pans look terrible" argument Honestly, I think it's more to do with the uneven cadence that comes when displaying 24fps content on a 60hz display. I've seen some slower pans that look absolutely godawful on my TV which doesn't support proper 24fps display with even frame persistence. I actually think the wider adoption of 120hz TVs will do a lot to help dispel this myth, since at 120hz every frame in a 24fps video will be shown for 5 frames, thus eliminating the inconsistent frame cadence and thus the stutter.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

My experience showed Pans looked better on the uneven cadence of 60hz than they do in the even cadence of 144... That's counter you're point.

[@SeanBarkerNegaScott128]

@@FilmmakerIQ Yeah, but like you said, the display was of fairly poor quality, so maybe that had something to do with it. I don't know your setup, but it's possible that your computer might've had issues displaying a full 144hz alongside whatever video source you were using.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

That's the kicker there's a lot of factors at play. But I do think it was refreshing at 144 Hertz because you can tell by the mouse trails. I think the dangerous thing is people go searching for a monitor just solely on refresh rate and not considering all the other factors that can determine the look of the monitor... I mean Tom's hardware gave it four and a half stars and I wouldn't put it past maybe three even at the price...

[@CharcharoExplorer]

@@FilmmakerIQ Tom's Hardware are morons. Anandtech is better but for monitors you need to go to TFT central. I hope this helps in the future.

[@sting0072007]

wow, i thought this was just going to be a podcast, not a highly edited 42 minute professional production. nice work

[@StockAvuryah]

Conclusion : go make films people

[@ClaytonOrgles]

As a filmmaker who has experimented with HFR in the past (and ultimately chose to release the final product in a standard frame rate), I have a simple theory on the psychological effects of frame rates. I think they exist on a spectrum from artificial to natural: 1. Still image - Artificially freeze a moment in time 2. 12fps - Handcrafted animation (also makes horror move monsters feel more 'unnerving' and 'unnatural'). 3. 24 / 25fps - Balance between artificial and natural 4. 48 / 50 / 60fps - A replication of reality High frame rates create the effect that what the viewer is watching is real. This means that cinematic projects will feel more like behind the scenes videos, where the audience is watching what their eyes see as 'reality', so they see through the not-completely-realistic storytelling short hand used by writers and actors, and therefore don't believe what they are seeing. Standard cinematic frame rates match these shorthand techniques by meeting the viewer at the balance between artificial and natural, which helps to suspend disbelief. I believe that film as a medium has now been solidified, and general technique will never change. Many innovations have come about in recent years, including 4K and HDR - but both of these are used to bring digital and home video closer to the experience of film projection in a theatre. LED lighting is a safety and efficiency improvement, but it doesn't fundamentally change the artistic lighting of shots. Plus virtual sets are essentially a much better version of rear projection, which has the ability to produce a better effect than green screen if used in the right context. HFR doesn't fit here, because it isn't an innovation - it's inappropriately applying principles from one medium to another. If the goal is to replicate reality, such as in a documentary, video game, or vlog, then HFR is more than appropriate. But if the goal is to convey a theme using scripted scenes, then standard frame rates are a much better choice imo. Additionally, I want to mention that the motion smoothing used on TVs wasn't created because there is a benefit in HFR itself. It was done due to limitations in display technologies - LCD and OLED use a display method called 'sample and hold' which holds a frame on screen for an entire refresh cycle. This creates motion blur to our eyes in a similar way a 360 degree shutter might. This wasn't a problem on CRT displays, because they flicker to interrupt the constant stream of light, and therefore reproduce maximum temporal detail. The manufacturer solution to this is to increase the refresh rate, which created the problem of introducing more judder, which lead to them introducing frame interpolation to fix it. Recent manufacturers have also started to introduce 'black frame insertion' to replicate the effect of a CRT flickering, which has improved things significantly, but the flickering can also cause headache in some people.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Great post. I intend to eventually do a video about black frame insertion because I really do see an amazing improvement in the visual experience when using it. I think the flicker headaches go away once you get the black frame frequency up high enough

[@Albanez39]

I'm a passionate and young film student, but if more directors start shooting HFR, I'm going to kill myself. That is not the filmmaking I signed up for!!!

[@TheUlitamateStunt]

As someone who is currently studying and working in film, I can definitely concur that this is a complex issue that is far beyond "the next technological step". You've really done the subject justice giving it so much time. Of course the practicality aspect comes in (the fact 60fps will always be twice as hard to process as 24fps, etc) but there's something to be said for the way we engage with film. I think sometimes there is such a thing as too much clarity. The "film look" is actually one of slightly squashed blacks and unsharpnss. Just as a book invokes images in the mind, emotions, a film takes on a vicsral transformation as we view it. There's imagination at play as we fill in the gaps or explore tiny elements in great detail. That is precisely where HFR can become uncanny, in that it's a little too real, too much, to closed-off. Some of the most beautiful cinematography loses its touch when you smooth it out. There's a fine line here. I remember when consoles went from 30fps to 60fps and some people said things like "60fps is too smooth, motion sickness" and stuff like that. But I think the film argument is a bit different. This idea of separation from reality is really prevelant - in the medium of photography, we frame images and often put them through filters that obscure detail. Sometimes I think less is more. There are exceptions to this of course. I have no issue with films being released in HFR if that is what filmmakers wanted. Sometimes I make films at 30fps or 12fps. One film that really needed to be HFR was Hardcore Henry. It just comes down to the kind of aesthetic rulebook that the director wants to explore. It's much the same thing a director choosing B/W for creative reasons. A film made specifically with HFR in mind will benefit from HFR. Things do get tricky though in the sense that films only have so much freedom. Not everything can be abstract and self-serving. In some sense, the film still needs a lot of 'sitting around talking'. That's where you loose the wow of HFR, the depth of 3D - and yet, B/W will bring mystery to these shallow scenes. How much of cinematics is hiding? Most. In my courses we have covered this concept of "total cinema", this idea that the ultimate form of film is essentially all-encompassing VR. Is that then not just life? What then would be entertaining about it? I guess this all brings me back the simple sentiment that this is not an issue of technology, but aesthetics.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Such a great comment. You hit a point that I think gets buried. It's all about intent... What is the intent of the Filmmaker? The funny thing about Hardcore Henry was it was shot in 48fps. The Biting Elbows music video that it was based on was shown in 30... So somewhere they must have made the choice to go to 24. This is really why I encourage HFR devotees to actually make films because I think the more you understand the process, The more you appreciate the aesthetics as you put it.

[@OhBoysBoy]

60fps looks just fake in feature films, especially in sci-fi movies where HFR reveals every single imperfecion of CGI (and plastic costumes too). And even if filmmakers "are used to" 24fps, they won't adopt to HFR just because of that. As a creator or artist I would definitely choose a technique that makes my movie (or any piece of art) good looking, not shame-looking.

[@Hagledesperado]

I have no idea why I found myself watching this video, but you convinced me that you're probably right.

[@Raken531]

This was great. I would add one thing though that you didn't touch on, and that is shutter speed/angle. Shooting in a HFR means you remove a lot of motion blur, this is partly what makes films look real, and can be a tool in adding a specific look to the film. The standard motion blur in 24fps (1/48th of a second or 180 degrees) is very close to how we perceive motion blur. Filmmakers can play with this shutter speed, usually going higher but occasionally slower, to evoke certain emotions or feelings. Shooting at HFR especially 120 removes that creative tool because everything has little motion blur. It also then looks a little faker because we perceive motion blur in real life.

[@Undy1]

Well that's a common myth honestly, and one that's only partly true. Yes it's true that 24fps footage has more motion blur than let's say 120fps. But what's not true is that 120fps looks fake because it lacks motion blur that we perceive in real life. 120fps can have the same amount of motion blur as 24fps. It's just that in case of 120fps the blur happens in your eyes instead on the screen. Hear me out on this: Motion blur is an artifact of persistence of vision. When anything moves in front of you and you don't follow it with your eyes it will be blurred out because the image of where the object was just a moment ago persists on your retina and slowly fades away. So it's essentially like a trail behind any moving object that you don' track. But the moment you start tracking an object it becomes 100% sharp and instead the stationary background becomes blurred by motion. But if you're watching a 24fps movie it works differently - the motion blur that you would see in real life is already in the footage and you can't change it. When you start tracking an object it won't become any sharper because it's blurry on the footage. It's a different story for HFR. If there are enough frames, there is little motion blur. And if there's little to no motion blur then everything is sharp as it would be in reality. Then it works essentially the same way as if you were watching reality so if you don't track a moving object it will appear blurred, but when you do it will become sharp and you will be able to track it well. Obviously the higher the framerate the closer you are to "reality". I estimate that it would take around 5000fps to completely fool your eyes in every possible scenario, and 240FPS should be good enough for 95% of cases. Also what i didn't mention was that your eyes are naturally drawn to moving objects - they want to track them, but to do that the object must be moving continually which isn't the case for 24fps - sometimes fast moving objects will just "skip" large distances on screen so you get no chance to track them because there is no actual movement in between these points, whereas in HFR there is. Now before anyone jumps at me here's what I think about HFR: Do I think that every movie ever should be done in HFR? -No Do I think that some movies could benefit from using HFR? -Absolutely Do I think that HFR will at some point become "the standard" in Holywood? -In the near future - no. In the far future - maybe. So to summarize: if you say that HFR doesn't look cinematic or that it feels off or something then that's okay, but don't try to quote some bogus science in order to prove your point. If you say that that it removes the creative tool of choosing whether the footage has less or more motion blur then yes, kinda, but you could also add more motion blur to the HFR footage (more than possible to capture in camera) to essentially achieve similar result. I don't know if that would look any good, but maybe?

[@whaleguy]

I come back to this video and the defense of 24 fps one every couple of months, and it's always funny reading the new comments that just keep rehashing the same old arguments. There's no way I'll ever shot *anything* ever in 30p/60p, unless I'm being paid to do so. I'm actually glad my phone camera has a 24p option. I have it set to 24p permanently. There's a practical reason for this too. Phone cameras in general don't do well in low light, and 24p is extremely helpful in those circumstances.

[@JoePlomo]

Why go to film school? This guy just taught us everything we “historycally” need to know

[@Albanez39]

We don't need VFR for artistic purposes. Spielberg and other directors have proved that variable shutter angle/speed can be used for such purposes, without completely ruining the experience and making the film look like a news broadcast...

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Exactly. Variable shutter is much more of an artistic tool than frame rate

[@ParanormalBanana]

Ah, man, as always I absolutely agree with you, i hate the soap opera effect, I love film look, and everything... But... 24 fps is so arbitrary and does fit everyone. In fact, i experimented on myself, and yes, i can see the difference between 24 and 26, and i can see it al the way to 200+. But i am absolutely sure that the soap opera effect absolutely disappears everytime when i get under 36. I believe this is just me and that everyone might have a different limit, but nevertheless, for me it's not 24 fps that is unequivocally looking like film, it's a range between 20 and 35. And about the fact that high framerates make action worse that is absolutely true, it actually makes a whole lot of stuff look worse.But to me, 36 doesnt. It might still make cars look slower and actors act worse, but it makes pan look better and a lot of other camera movement. Also, you don't believe variable is rigHt but it's done all the time in a lot of your beloved films. Today, most slow motion is shot at a higher framerate to be able to be seen in 24, but actually a whole lot more has been and is still being shot normally and slowed down by using a slower framers which is clearly easy to see and I personally think it oftens gives a great effect, but domestics i prefer the modern slow motions... I really believe that frame rates can be a cinematic technique which can create amazing effects when used right

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Slow motion is not variable frame rate. And the number that people keep bouncing around is around 40. Also I'd be careful about what you think is 200 frames per second... You may be noticing effects of pull down rather than the actual frame rate

[@ParanormalBanana]

When slow motion shows a great amount of judges because of repeated frames, yes, it is variable frame rate, as i said it's not the case when the camera actually took more frames in order to keep 24 per second at projection. After all 24 frames per second has actually been 72 at some point with frame repetition, what modern TVs might be calling black frame insertion today, but it was because of judder induced by real world camera projectors limitations at the time

[@VariTimo]

Steve Yedlin doesn’t argue that there is no need for viewing at higher resolutions than 4K he proves it! And I’d actually like you to pick the topic up and spread the word.

[@radiozelaza]

"vulgar realism" - what a great term. Contrast it with 'heroic realism' of the Golden Era...

[@-ion]

I don't subscribe to pretty much any of the arguments you responded to, and I'm not demanding movie creators to do something they don't want to. My only issue is that 24 FPS panning/tilting shots in movie theaters look so choppy that they break my immersion, which is annoying.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

They don't look choppy to me. Either you're exaggerating, remembering only the worst offenders which has more to do with artistic intent rather than the medium, or you're very rare breed of person that has a problem with it. In the very last case I'm sorry but there's nothing we can do for you.

[@raremevprod]

Damn, he said film is art. I love it

[@joelbrown2782]

I don't think that you can really distribute a film in any higher frame rate than 24fps, anything else in terms of Film looks strange. What people need to understand that with HFR, everything needs to be reworked, it results in the costs being more. This is because HFR shows up every error clearly, where as you can hide it with 24fps. Also, Sound was rejected by a few, mainly actors that couldn't adjust to sound, that was the only rejection to sound. I once watched The Passion of Joan of Arc in 20fps and 24fps, and you can tell the difference between them, even though it's only 4fps different. Jumping from 24fps to anything higher, is going to look strange to the eyes. I think we should make films in 24fps, so I am with you on this one.

[@TheJaredtheJaredlong]

This is just like when the Luddites tried to destroy steam powered looms!

[@FilmmakerIQ]

HFR folks are closer to Flat Earthers than they care to admit.

[@LEXPIX]

Sing it brother. Appreciate the time and effort you put into your videos.

[@ValentinPasseraH]

I support you. Also let's put in jail people who use intelligent motion option on their TV

[@DisgruntledDoomer]

To play the devil's advocate here; many TVs come with that option turned 'on' by default, and that means lots of (or maybe even most?) consumers don't even know it exists (and what it does). So I'd actually put the blame on the TV manufacturers on this one. THEY are the ones actively confusing many people.

[@nicholasmcenerney4310]

Very good argument, and well presented... Being from from the UK, I am very grateful for the existence of 24fps TV production, as it not only suits NTSC 60hz,( albeit via 3:2 pulldown ), but also the rest of us, the majority of which are 50hz From The Adams Family to Starsky and Hutch, monochrome to colour/color, it had that filmic quality that you just couldn't put your finger on? I guess, over here at least, the main benefit was/is its progressive nature, ( one film frame = 2 fields = 1 TVframe ), as apposed to interlaced video look. From what I understand, even with NTSC pulldown, you get the same aesthetic film look. If 24fps still works, from its aesthetics to its world wide compatibility, then why rid of it?

[@MarkusAT]

mp3 is the best audio format, because I’ve always listened it. No other format sound like real music

[@JustWasted3HoursHere]

When Peter Jackson filmed "The Hobbit" at 48fps, we all thought that was going to be the future. But when audiences saw it in theater at that rate (if your theater supported it: Not many did), they said that it looked "fake" and "unnatural". James Cameron has been talking about filming the Avatar sequels at 60fps or more, so we'll have to wait and see how that goes and whether or not it's worth the extra "film", cost and effort.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Peter Jackson no longer films in 48 FPS and James Cameron has pulled way back on HFR collider.com/avatar-sequels-no-hfr-james-cameron/

[@alonsojett]

"The industry itself never rejected color" Explain why Speed Racer bombed then. :(

[@FilmmakerIQ]

They didn't reject color They just rejected Speed Racer :P

[@thumbwarriordx]

There's honestly something wonderful about that movie. Maybe not the broadest appeal tho.

[@doctordothraki4378]

They didn't reject color, if anything the rejected super saturated colors in favor of "normal" ones (whatever "normal" is).

[@clurkroberts2650]

Great video, well thought out. The Corridor Crew had an interesting argument, they felt that the stunt work didn’t look real with the high frame rate. Unconvincing fights, with pulled punches. Cinema is an art, and the high frame rate presents images which might provide too much visual data that destroys the cinematic varnish of storytelling needed for the suspension of disbelief.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Corridor crew knows what they're talking about ;)

[@matheus5230]

Agreed. HFR has an Uncanny Valley effect. I think that's the best way to explain why it's off-putting.

[@bogdanpopescu8406]

The argumentation was BRILLIANT ! The real demand of HFR in cinema is close to zero...

[@AngelzBloomzWinx451]

35:32 everyone from the film/ video production industry forever hates that argument.

[@BlighterProductions]

People uploading 24 fps clips in 30 fps streams to the internet always gets me in a special pit of my stomach.

[@zep909]

88 miles per hour, 1.21 gigawatts, 24 frames per second.

[@pg245091]

About Jean Renoir (at 36:58)... Here would be a great topic for a technical expert like you though: how on Earth did Renoir manage to do the cinematography on Rules of the Game? The blocking, deep focus, camera moves, etc. on that movie never cease to astonish me. Maybe you could break down a scene for us and explain how it could be done.

[@TomGrigat]

Every Film or even a daily soap you watch on TV with some sort of frameblending (enabling higher frame rate) looks as if you're at a rehearsal! The nearly "natural" fps let everything looks like it happens in front of you. This is the exat opposit to the storytelling a movie or a series is intended to. I think the little frame rate stop is important for the narrativ. You need to see it as a fast slide show to come into the feeling.

[@chrisrosenkreuz23]

Love your content and delivery, keep it up! Cheers

[@matheus5230]

On what you said about not every frame actually being a painting, and how we need motion blur, I agree with all of that. But I would like to take the opportunity to highlight the film director whose films would most closely fit the bill of "every frame is a painting": Yasujiro Ozu. He is the director that comes the closest to fit the idea of "every frame is a painting". He rarely moved the camera, his shots are meticulously symetric and beautiful visual compositions with every object in its place (hence why he avoided pans, to not ruin the beautiful painting-like and photography-like nature of his visual compositions, and also why he avoided putting anything out of focus, his shots are always layered and fully focused on everything in the frame), the acting is very restrained, subtle and naturalistic. His films are slices-of-life in the average japanese middle-class family in the 50s, they are beautiful and poignant, and they explore the beauty in the mundane things in life, and the melancholy at the loss of these beautiful simple things that we take for granted. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZoPEYat7hp2sl7c kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHiaoJivhNiZick

[@ChrisTNoir]

Thank you so much for all the effort. In the future it might be interesting to talk about all that fuss about the properties, or "properties" of nitrate base film and and its "qualities". Keep it up, Chris

[@FilmmakerIQ]

They don't make that stuff anymore for good reason haha

[@lawdawgmon6901]

I love your videos, and I learn something new with each one. Thank you.

[@Seras99]

The only thing that I'm evolutionizing throughout is how much resolution that I can render upon. Like 8K to 12K to whatever-K. Not frame rates at all. Besides, frame rates in cinema will always be at my heart at 24FPS.

[@jjk-9]

I watched the Hobbit at the cinema in high frame rate and for me it felt like it was running faster, making the actors sometimes glide unnaturally across the screen yet I knew it was at the correct speed due to the sound not sounding fast.

[@RudeGamer1988]

I think they also don't realise that increasing the framerate doesn't just affect live action but also animation.

[@peterxyz3541]

I LOVE THIS CHANNEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Educate & enlighten the masses!