A Defense of 24 FPS and Why It's Here to Stay for Cinema

Please consider supporting us by becoming a Patron on Patreon: / filmmakeriq
In this #IQBiTS video, John responds to 7 myths that are commonly brought up by folks on our Frame Rate Video who hate 24 FPS. He further give 2 concrete objective arguments on why 24 FPS is here to stay.
If you dig the music, check out our music library at Artlist.io using our affiliate link: artlist.io/artlist-70446/?art...
Also since some of you might not see the merch store below the video - here's a direct link to the shirt if you want to pick one up: teespring.com/livin-life-24-f...
#FrameRate

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Please enjoy this news segment on the revolution of HFR from 1984: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jpi8m2h6bLWhi80 No need to explain interframe compression. That particular portion I was talking about interframe and I was sloppy with the words. That doesn't diminish the point though. As you peruse the negative comments that I engage with (oh the therapy bills will be excessive this month), notice a good majority of them recycle Myth #2: Modern Advancements in Tech have made 24 Obsolete (3:04). No one recognizes that TV has been in the public eye for 70 years and streaming images at 60i. Been getting a lot of comments confused about refresh rate and frames per second. Remind yourself that hertz is NOT quite the same as frames per second. Even film was flashed on the screen more times than the actual frame rate. Folks saying they can see 144 fps are missing the point of my argument... but what's new? Next I'll have to defend the use of shallow depth of field because games don't have depth of field! One day I will expand on this 144 hz. Only three sentences in this one triggered a ton of people, it needs a whole video on its own to infuriate them even more. Oh well... I've neglected my responsibilities in trying to answer as many comments as I can. I will still be around but at this point it really feels like I'm just repeating myself - plus, I kinda made a 22 minute video saying what I wanted to say and most of my responses are just rehashing what I said in the video. I'll be around... Keep debating, keep it civil!

[@David-ud9ju]

I can tell from your intro that you're just stubborn and stuck in your ways. There's no way that anyone could convince you to get rid of 24fps, because you're not open to change. There is absolutely no reason to not use higher frame rates and they look better.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

@@fellowcitizen you okay? Are you having a stroke? Do you need me to call an ambulance?

[@RobLocksley]

I love my 24 but I tend to use interpolation methods when watching 3D movies on my projector, with the LCD shutterglasses I use it induces less eyestrain for me and so makes the movie easier to watch - but I would rather watch a movie in the framerate it was shot in; so if it where shot and intended for 48-60 I would rather watch it in that if it where the filmmakers intent.

[@1BlessEdYou]

Video enumerates several practical objective reasons (More than triple costs for storage/Higher bandwidth equipment being particularly unimpeachable) 'There is absolutely no reason to not use higher frame rates and they look better.' Oooh-kayyyy...

[@fellowcitizen]

Perhaps my after midnight humour missed the mark :/ Enjoyed the video and how you anticipated/handled the comments :)

[@mewyattt]

When I was a kid and found a Playboy magazine it produced a high physiological effect on me. I think the frame rate was around 1 page per 5 minutes

[@mattwolf7698]

.2 FPM MASTER RACE!

[@rvtrmedia]

@@mattwolf7698 FPM = Faps Per Minute

[@TimeoutMegagameplays]

Pornography in 60fps produces lots higher physiological effects on you for sure.

[@budthecyborg4575]

Irony. Studio portraits are normally done at 1/250th shutter speed with a high power flash... To Avoid Motion Blur.

[@christopherbedford9897]

@@budthecyborg4575 ...because they are *portraits*. Where's the irony, pray tell?

[@wunderkind56]

24p is fine until someone pans across a landscape a hair too fast and then you have to watch the visual mush that ensues.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

That's why so many movies don't use pans as establishing shots.

[@mckseal]

Which is a shame to me. Seeing interesting camera movement at 60fps (so clear) is gorgeous and it does make 24fps feel outdated. The entire rest of the film can be at 24fps and I'll love it, but it is a shame that it acts as a limiting factor to interesting techniques.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I've seen plenty of great camera moves at 24. Motion blur is not a conspiracy, it's a fact of life.

[@Frisenette]

It’s a matter of setting the shutter to be more open, giving more motion blur when panning. Remember the staccato, almost 60fps feel of the Omaha beach sequence in Saving Private Ryan? That’s the result of the opposite. A very closed shutter.

[@uzefulvideos3440]

Motion blur is not natural if your eye can follow the thing that is moving. So if I sit in the cinema and my eyes try to follow the environment while the camera is moving, my brain expects a clear image without motion blur. I think there should be way more movies in higher framerates.

[@DrGH201]

Agree, disagree, or don’t care, THIS was a well-articulated and rational explanation of an argument. Honestly one of the best I’ve seen in this medium.

[@nashole23]

definitely! but what about the part where he says "you can't see 144hz" I don't think he fully believes that. He seems to be fairly well informed and very intelligent, and through. so maybe you can notice the lack of input lag, if you can't see the difference between 120fps and 144... but I would think that over 80% of high end PC gamers (which I am not. even though I own the hardware) can spot the difference. (I run at 120hz, because I use a 55" curved TV for a monitor) now I'm off to watch Dune at 24fps and see if it doesn't suck.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Have you ever heard of black frame insertion? That's basic proof that even gamers don't see 144 FRAMES per second. Sure any one can tell the difference between 144hz and 60hz by dragging a mouse around. But the point is you don't see in frame rate.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

It's proof that you don't actually see extremely high frame rates. All these people saying you can see 144frames a second are making egregious errors. You can black out every other frame and it makes the image BETTER. That's proof you don't see 144 frames a second. The reason bfi doesn't exist on a CRT is because the scan effectively does the same thing

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Just going to address the first of your comment just looks pointlessly combative... There are literally dozens of comments on this video chiding me and claiming that yes you do see each frame of 144hz. (In this very comment that itself) I'm not going to address anything else you wrote because I'm probably more in agreement with you than you think. But BFI is proof you don't actually SEE 144 frames per second.

[@FAKEtrailers2]

im waiting for the 1024fps standard in 200 years

[@scortexfire]

nVidia has already made the prototypes. 1kfps is obviously the future. But in near future, like 2 years, I don't think Netflix/Amazon Prime are gonna release anything less than 60fps.

[@YouWhatMate_Official]

More like 20 with the rate we're progressing

[@colbyfrancoeur3549]

That amount of frames is completely unnecessary and will lower the performance of the device your using with no noticeable improvements

[@majorphysics3669]

TRYHARD HUNTER but at some point our eyes won’t perceive any more frames, so what’s the point?

[@majorphysics3669]

TRYHARD HUNTER yea, but after a certain point it’s not gonna matter. 1k refresh rate is just bonkers. People are still having arguments whether 144hz is noticeable to 60hz. I’d say once you get past 300 to 400hz, it’s not going to matter how much faster you go, you physically won’t be able to perceive the difference.

[@arnewei7872]

As a Gaffer, when it comes to the technical aspects, the first three questions I ask a DoP are: What camera are you shooting on? What standard / max ISO are you going for? What standard / max FPS do you want to use? The reference setting used for digital film is usually 800 ISO @ 24fps. So let's say we shoot on an Arri Alexa with 800 ISO but we want to do the whole movie in 48 or 50 fps. Since double the frame rate means half the time the sensor has to expose a frame, we need twice as much light than with 24fps. So a 2,000W Tungsten lamp now has to be a 5,000W lamp, since there is no regular 4,000W Tungsten fixture. A 1,800W HMI now becomes a 4,000W HMI. Not only are the lamps itself more expensive than the low power ones, we'll need a high power supply and distribution. At 100fps, our 2,000W Tungsten is now a 10,000W lamp. The HMI now has 9,000W instead of 1,800W. We'll need a even bigger power supply, different distribution and, the most expensive part, more people to do all the work. That's the moment the producer likes to tell you that the budget is tight and the schedule even more so. So the financial problems of higher frame rates is not so much storage or post-production workflow but the equipment and the personnel you need on set. This is written from a european point of view (mains power 230V / 16A) so you may have different lamps with different power ratings available. The problems stay the same.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Pretty much the same lamp ratings on the American side of the Atlantic..

[@davidhunt240]

I had a play with the Alexa LF, impressive EI of 800 with a 4500x3100 detector, meant sharp, colorful imaging, silky smooth frame rates, no discernible noise and from the couple of DoPs that were also trying it, they agreed it gave them many more choices. I work in optics; mainly industrial imaging, where 1000fps is quite common and a xenon arc lamp provides the illumination, we did laugh at the amount of light required for the 150fps mode of the LF, one of the DoPs recounted his mentor whose father worked on Disney's Wizard of Oz - they had trouble getting the balance between enough light and torching the set/poaching the actors. Another brought up Stanley Kubrick's demand for MUCH MORE LIGHT for The Shining, so much light, that it burnt the set and studio, to the ground. The ARRI chap wasn't seeing the funny side :P

[@TaranVH]

Tell me if this is dumb, but... If you're wanting to shoot 48fps, but you don't want the hassle of adding extra lights, can't you just increase your shutter angle from 180 degrees, to 360 degrees? There will be just as much motion blur as there was before, but there will still be extra frames and it will still look smoother. Eh? EEEEhhhh??

[@FilmmakerIQ]

You can increase the shutter when shooting 24 to 360 and also get a smoother motion... It's got more blur but it will retain the 24 cadence and be smoother. Hobbit was shot with 360 shutter and it didn't help...

[@arnewei7872]

@@davidhunt240 Alexa is always a pleasure. Makes work way easier. And safer! :)

[@cavalrycome]

12:30 "24 fps is objectively less than 60 fps. Therefore it is cheaper in every way..." That's true, but it's not really a complete argument. All of what you say here about needing increased storage, card data rates, bandwidth, editing hardware performance, and so on, apply equally to the introduction of 4K video, but 4K is happening because the industry and audiences think the extra investment is ultimately worth it. That's the part that is missing from the HFR argument.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Yes absolutely! Great point!

[@OMA2k]

I don't think audiences think 4K is really worth it. For most people 1080p FullHD is just "good enough". You also need a huge TV to see any difference from 1080p.

[@AirBRUH]

@@OMA2k Yeah pretty much, but they're still pushing for it, since it's a way to make money

[@colemin2]

The Hobbit was filmed correctly, objectively speaking.

[@utubekullanicisi]

He also mentioned in the video how even though Black & Whit video was cheaper it was rendered obsolete because people thought the extra inventment for colors was worth it. The same thing applies to 1080p -> 4K. Maybe it'll even apply to 4K -> 8K (maybe).

[@Monafide3305]

As someone who plays countless hours of high framerate games I'd be lying if I said I don't prefer 60 on anything I watch, but this video was super helpful in understanding the purpose and appeal of 24 fps for most video. I don't feel like a lower framerate does much for me in terms of aesthetic, but it's completely understandable as a cost cutting measure.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

The cost cutting measure isn't the real reason but it sure is a nice bonus.

[@Monafide3305]

@@FilmmakerIQ Yeah, I get that. I guess it's just the part of it I can appreciate the most on a personal basis lol

[@matheus5230]

60fps just looks hyper-realistic, it falls into uncanny valley. I love games too, but I want films and TV shows to be 24FPS. Leave HFR to videogames, they are the one artistic medium that actually needs high frame-rates because you need the controls to be as instantaneously responsive as possible.

[@cablefeed3738]

@@matheus5230 There is no such thing as hyper realistic when it comes to frame rate you could have a frame rate of infinite and you would notice as much as you were going to notice if you had a frame rate of 500. That is not true though if you go in the other direction and you do notice a difference when you go from 60 to 24 frame per second. Is real life hyper realistic you could say it has infinite frames per second and it doesn't look hyperrealistic to you it looks like real life because frame rate doesn't matter matter when talking about looking hyperrealistic.

[@matheus5230]

@@cablefeed3738 My point is that cinema does not need more than 24FPS. Have you watched Lawrence of Arabia? One of the most epic, grandest experiences in cinema history. Look for the video The Beauty Of Lawrence Of Arabia. Knowing it's a film doesn't ruin the immersion. Great films immerse you like books do too. The problem with HFR is that it actually reveals that what you are watching is fake, not a true film, but the cold reality. You realize you are just seeing sets with unnatural lighting and colors, and actors reciting lines. You realize you are just seeing images flashed in a screen, it's deeply uncomfortable for most people. It's truly an uncanny valley effect (in fact, I don’t like HFR even in live TV, it looks almost smoother than real life). HFR would severely limit the range of cinema: acting would either have to be extremely realistic and naturalistic, or blatantly over-the-top and stylized. There is simply no reason to switch to another frame rate in cinema, no one actually demands it or wants it. There is no outcry for HFR like it happened with sound. You can count on one hand the amount of HFR films ever made in cinema history! And any serious TV drama uses 24FPS too, specially in our modern days when shows want to be more cinematic than ever! There is nothing wrong with motion blur, you just gotta know how and when to move the camera, how fast your shutter speed should be, and so on. The old Golden Age Hollywood films are beautifully shot and smooth. Modern action films are plagued by badly shot fights and action scenes, with incomprehensible coreography, and you can't follow anything. HFR wouldn't suddenly fix that, it would actually make those fights look even worse and more dizzying to watch! Even good action scenes can look worse because the loss of motion blur removes some of the sense of speed. Also, we see motion blur in real life, there is nothing wrong with films having motion blur (same thing for why films often leave the background out of focus, to not distract and not overload your mind with unnecessary motion, our brain does this too). To illustrate all I'm saying: I'm a huge fan of animation, and one of the biggest developments in the history of the medium was exactly how to emulate some type of motion blur, like the use of smear frames. Why? Because animators realized that the characters' movements without motion blur looked really unnatural and unsettling, because that's not how we perceive motion in real life (try shaking your hand, it becomes a complete blur). Unrealistic types of motion blur are often used to enhance scenes, look at the amazing racing scenes in Akira, or the comedic fast drinking in The Dover Boys. Of course, there are artistic choices the other way too. It's not rare in stop-motion animation, for example, to ignore motion blur altogether for the purposes of horror, of a creepy mood. Stop-motion aesthetic often actively seeks to be choppy. Animation is my favorite artform, and it's certainly less realistic than live-action, but that's not a demerit. Art shouldn't simply pursue vulgar realism. Even in the most realistic aesthetics, you have to look for the beauty there. Like the films of 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

[@benjaminvlz]

I'm so used to seeing movies at 24 FPS that anything higher just looks off-putting to me. A movie at 60 FPS looks too realistic to me, like a live sporting event or reality show. There's just something about the look of movies at 24 FPS that gives them a "cinematic" feel.

[@spyro440]

Yeah, it's called stuttering.

[@marhensa]

24fps snob detected

[@wariolandgoldpiramid]

I emember watching Hobbit 1 in the cinema. The IMAX experience was incredible, and I think 48 FPS actually helped with that. But on a TV, it does look kind of uncanny - too real.

[@ThatFalseHat]

I watched this vid on x2 speed to get rock solid 60 fps! jk

[@daj1078]

LOL!

[@sustainshots]

Hahahaha

[@ThatFalseHat]

@@doctordothraki4378 good to know, thanks man.

[@erelsappir900]

I actually did watch most of it around 2.5x lol.

[@Andysfishing]

You mean 2.5x ha ha

[@asicerik]

Not sure if this has been covered elsewhere, but you are a little off on the compression side. Video compression uses spatial and temporal compression. Temporal compression is compressing the differences in time between frames. Thus, as the frame rate increases, the changes per frame are less. This means the compression becomes more efficient. So, 60fps is not going to be 2.5X more than 24 unless you have ridiculously fast motion. This does not change the conclusion, it will still be more bits, just not that much more. Great video.

[@kaitlyn__L]

I was going to bring this up, just because it's the same reason that interlacing is dead, which he brought up earlier. The RAW is still going to be more, but spacetime-compensated compressed footage (which Netflix uses) is not going to be much bigger at all, if the keyframe interval gets increased proportionally. Of course, that could be slightly less motion resolution in certain situations, but Netflix doesn't care about that anyway with the small bitrates.

[@trulahn]

@@kaitlyn__L Compression only matters at the release stage of a film though. The final product that goes to the movie theaters to be projected can be compressed, fine. But no movie production would want to work from a compressed video instead of the raw data. It's like professional photographers take digital pictures using raw images rather than Jpeg compressed ones. So for most of the production cycle and post production cycle, compression is useless.

[@kaitlyn__L]

@@trulahn Yes, that's what I said, when I brought up not being relevant for the raw files. Of course production uses the highest quality source files, just like in audio they'll use 24bit integer or 32bit float even though 16bit integer is more than adequate for release formats.

[@eldrago19]

Sorry this is long, thank-you for reading in advance. Now I don't know anything about movie making beyond basic screen recording, basic video editing and turning a slideshow into a video but at the same time, he mentioned that the camera equipment was cheaper while earlier he said something about it taking a long time for 24fps cameras to become available. Further, I would say that a movie company may well use 60 FPS in their raw files even if they transmit it at 24 just in case they wanted to do something else with their film. While I am bemoaning this I will point out that showing people a film at 24 FPS *IS* a control group when you are comparing it to 60 FPS. I don't know much about film production but I have read multiple books on medical research and am friends with people with PhDs in biology. Also, his recording options seem bizarre, I can't think of what 8-bit is referring to unless it's the Color depth in which case he's making a retro video game. Additionally you appear recording in 4k which research has indicated is less important than 60 FPS in video games, increase your RAW file sizes by 4 times, isn't widely supported (unlike 60fps I might add), and if you just increase the frame size without increasing the frame rate you reach a point where you just get high res images of blur so if you really want to reduce the size of your RAW file I'd start there. That said, I don't believe either 4k or 60 FPS makes a big difference and I am inclined to agree that 24 vs 60 is a matter of opinion. Though I'll add that I've watched KZbin videos in 60 FPS and didn't suffer a panic attack or have my internet grind to a halt. On the contrary, I quite enjoyed it.

[@eldrago19]

PS if you're willing to count the 'TV movies' then they are in 60i as is much of the digitally generated footage uploaded to KZbin. However, I completely agree that virtually all movies are 24 fps.

[@uneek35]

I don't think 24 fps will ever go away and it's pretty ridiculous that anyone would argue otherwise, but I think the pursuit of making a narrative HFR film is worthy simply because I think experimentation in art is always a worthy cause. It's hard to see how it would work just because there's never been a real need for it, but there's no harm in the pursuit.

[@uneek35]

I will say that it's entirely possible that it'll never happen because we might have perfected narrative cinema with 24 fps, but I don't think there's been enough attempts to be absolutely sure.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

The experiments have already happened as tons of filmmakers have shot on video for years prior to the advent of digital cameras capable of shooting 24.

[@uneek35]

@@FilmmakerIQ Fair enough.

[@TheSwartz]

I wonder, if the Uncanny Valley effect applies here. Where 24 fps sits at that blip where the effect isn't quite real, but is very attractive to human perception. Then, when you go past that, the attractiveness dips as it closer approximates (but don't quite achieve) "reality".

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Yes it sort of does apply ;)

[@bighuge1060]

A personal observation: I watched the first Hobbit movie in HFR and 24P in the theater and 24P creates a buffer that distances the viewer from reality and make what the audience is watching seem like it's existing in its own reality. When I saw the same movie with the high frame rate, what previously was a Hobbit and Dwarves in Middle Earth became actors in makeup on a set. That hyper-reality erases that buffer and makes everything on the screen seem to exist in our own reality. I once saw this with a friend's television set where the movie she was watching on Turner Classic Movies lose its depth and look like something shot on video.

[@bighuge1060]

Off of HFR for a moment but an odd similar reaction to another projection method, I saw The Wizard of Oz converted to 3D and surprisingly, all the prosthetic makeup on the actors became more noticeable. The poorly blended latex seams were noticeable on the witch's nose and chin and the munchkins' hairline bald caps. I don't know why but it did.

[@don4476]

The first time I saw 60 was an x man movie and it looked like Hugh Jackman pretending to be Wolverine on a movie set. Very, very creepy and I struggle to understand the pro 60 argument. Strange analogy alert. Many years ago I went to a Maynard Ferguson concert. During the sound check the drummer came out and played a bit. His drums sounded horrible. Thin. No sustain. No pitch. As if he was hitting cardboard boxes. Just terrible. I thought "this concert is going to be disaster". Right at that moment the sound man turned on the drum mics and suddenly the drums sounded just absolutely magnificent. Like a high quality recording. Beautiful, deep and perfect. The point is this. Real isn't necessarily better. Acoustic drums frankly, for the most part, do not sound good. In fact, if you heard the real sound of your favorite band's drummer you'd say, "what is this $%#@". Yes, it would be real and it would suck.

[@Frikgeek]

People can see the difference between 60 and 120 and even 120 and 144. Obviously you don't "see" in frames but those who have enough experience with the tech can instantly recognize the increase in perceived "smoothness" as framerate goes up. There are plenty of blind tests between 60, 120, and 144 Hz monitors which prove this. For people who don't watch a lot of cinema 24fps starts looking choppy and blurry, especially during fast pans or zooms. It's possible that the association of high frame rates with cheap video will die out with time. If that happens though it will have to happen naturally, you can't just force people to change their likes and dislikes. Also, with intraframe compression anything that makes 60p footage smaller will make 24p footage smaller proportionately. But with interframe compression you'll get a higher compression ratio on higher framerates, though obviously this can't ever make 60p footage file sizes as small as 24p.

[@NetAndyCz]

I can see the choppiness of 24fps in my peripheral vision and I hate it! I have very much adopted to my 120Hz monitor and high speed footage I get from my camera and movies are just blurry flickering mess now.

[@necroflounder]

You can see what you look for. The point is that its not about that, people have been bending over backwards to explain why something "obviously better" seems cheap. This wasn't the case with stereo or cd digital audio, people heard that and it was obviously better. The mistake people make is thinking that film is about reproduction of reality, the way sound is, no, its an impression of reality, this is why film is inherently unrealistic, the colors are often muted or enhanced, filtered, this is called color timing, most obvious with the green/grey tinge since at least the matrix film. Why does something look cheap in video color vs color timed unrealism? The artistic impression matters more than any attempt to reproduce "reality", because reality isn't video of any type, our eyes aren't static, but hyper erratic if you've ever seen the results of eye tracking, and most of our field of view isn't even in focus. So the rules of 24fps and color timing and the look of film maybe just a happy accident which lets films work their magic. I play fps games as well, so I know about high frame rates, but it only matters because its a feed back loop so you can control with as low latency as possible, this just doesn't apply to film.

[@oBCHANo]

Wave your hand in front of your face and notice ther motion blur, that's all that needs to be said, end of argument. 60 fps looks unnatural.

[@NetAndyCz]

@@oBCHANo It does, you need much higher refresh rate to make it more realistic.

[@oBCHANo]

@NetAndyCz A higher refresh rate won't change anything. I'm currently using a 240hz monitor and when I move the mouse around there's no motion blur, and no human can see past 240hz, in fact most can't even't see past 120. Screens are flashing still images into your eye, there is no constant trail of light coming off things moving on the screen so the refresh rate is irrelevant, the technologically fundamentally can't produce motion blur. Also, why do you think 60hz wouldn't produce motion blur when your brain sees motion at like 18hz, 60 is overkill.

[@belovedconsole]

at 19:30 the "dreamy" 24 - I remember how watching the Hobbit at 48, that dream was broken because I was now watching actors; it was like watching a live play.

[@dieppat]

I also saw the Hobbit in theaters at HFR. Hated it

[@UxCANxDOxIT]

Vishnu Kalluri You want a cookie?

[@justspaztik]

When I watch a movie, I want it to look dreamy… if it looks realistic, it’s boring because that’s what I see every day. I wanna be immersed in the story, not feel like I’m watching a live play.

[@bjugler]

It's interesting that you say this. I've always felt the opposite. Real life has motion blur. Higher frame rates that eliminate motion blur that the film crew personally witnessed while it was actually happening looks less real to me and more like a computer game.

[@haydenstout2347]

I can’t be immersed if it’s not similar to reality

[@sagredsv2332]

Only thing I dislike about 24 FPS in movies is that panning shots are often pretty nauseating. Lord of the Rings has a lot of beautiful panning shots but to me it always feels like the camera is teleporting between frames instead of moving smoothly.

[@alexesteh]

Panning shots look way worse in digital than in film, I've wondered why. Is it because of the resolution? Is 4K going to solve it?

[@markus19999]

Exactly!

[@jsward96]

rolling shutter maybe?

[@uzefulvideos3440]

Panning shots look worse if the content was animated at only 24 fps. You don't get any natural motion blur in animation, so artificial motionblur has to be calculated which doesn't come close to natural motion blur. It is that artificial motion blur that looks bad to you. There are two ways to solve this: 1. Produce and show these animated scenes at higher framerates. 2. Produce all animations in a higher framerate (in a multiple of 24 fps) and use these extra frames to create artificial motion blur that looks much more natural.

[@alisterchapman]

Film and video pans at lower frame rates look different because the pixels in a video camera are always in the same place so there is none of the very subtle randomness that film grain adds to motion. It's a subtle but important effect.

[@dangerouslytalented]

I think it is completely aesthetic : if you want it to look like a sports game or a computer game, shoot in 60. If you want it to look mainstream, shoot in 24. If you want it to look ancient, shoot in 18 or 11 or something. Temporal resolution is no longer technologically restrained

[@FilmmakerIQ]

The fast people who love 60p really don't love movies. Even James Cameron is walking back his statements about higher frame rate being needed only in certain occasions.

[@RevRaptor898]

I think you hit the nail right on the head dude. People who have never watched cheap soap operas won't make that connection and will like 60 fps more than someone used to seeing quality movies in 24 and cheap crap in 60. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I quite like 60 but I totally understand why some people don't. It's like when you get a new sound system, it's still the same music you always listen to but it's not quite right something just seems a bit off, it's just not what you are used to :)

[@firaxolegirein9816]

@@RevRaptor898 , it's just because they watch soap operas Yup

[@rhettorical]

You're exactly right! As long as there's a justification for it, I'm all for it! Watch "Into the Spider-verse" if you haven't already seen it, where they mix frame rates for artistic reasons and it looks great. I would happily watch a film that jumped around between low and high frame rates for artistic reasons.

[@Tudemir3]

Looking like... LIFE.

[@commodore84]

Was googling the "soap opera effect" and came across this video (and your channel) for the first time. Really top-notch stuff - from the writing to the overall presentation, you had my attention the entire time. Glad to have found you, mate. Subscribed!

[@simeonshaffar982]

Im pretty sure that every argument except the fact that you can't see past 60 fps was different ways to say the exact same thing that isn't even an actual argument. "It's better" isn't an argument, "I would like to be more immersed in the movie and be able to see what is going on more clearly" Is an actual argument that you didn't come close to actually responding to.

[@simeonshaffar982]

I'm also very confused at why you spent over a minute complaining about how it would be harder to do... its a multi billion dollar industry, they can get it done, and having a version at 24 and a version at 60 on Netflix it couldn't hurt. If most most movie producers didn't already have versions of their movies at 60 I would be shocked because for the sake of more freedoms in editing it makes much more sense to shoot at 60, then to downscale to 24 at the very end of production.

[@hythlodaeus9944]

@@simeonshaffar982 only disagree with u that it will be harder.. it won't. But will be more expensive and they don't care to spend more for the viewers benefits. If they all agree to do 24fps then we as viewers don't have a choice when watching big films.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

If it actually looked better then Hollywood producers would actually spend money on it. What you guys failed to realize is it doesn't actually look better, it looks worse, and is LESS immersive.

[@fotoschopro1230]

​@@FilmmakerIQ Maybe for you. Not for me. This is something we like to call motion blur plebery in gaming. See, higher framerate means more information, less motion blur is necessary. Instead fast motion naturally creates motion blur, as it is supposed to, as it happens in real life. Higher framerates make movies look more like real life. Is the only real reason that you don't like high framerates, that you associate them with crap tv? Because I don't. It's subjective and not an argument. About the "You can't see 144hz"... In a way you are right, you do not see in 144hz, but you will notice significant differences between 60hz and 144hz. In fact, in gaming we are currently on a path to 360hz monitors with many people already having 144hz/165hz and 240hz monitors. It is smoother and it allows you to react quicker, simply because you have more information available to you. I'd love to have more life-like and extra smooth movies.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

That's why you're not a Filmmaker ;)

[@cavalrycome]

6:39 "MYTH 3: But... Motion Blur..." Just to expand on what John said, the motion blur that you see when you pause a video is not strictly-speaking due to the frame rate. It's due to the shutter speed (i.e., the length of time each frame is exposed). Film shot at 24 fps is generally shot with a shutter speed of 1/48 of a second (the 180 degree shutter rule) because that has just the right amount of motion blur to make the motion look fluid. If you expose each frame for a shorter period than this, each individual frame will look less blurry, but in motion, the film starts to look choppy. This can be a desired effect if you want the disorientation that goes along with it, which is why Spielberg shot the beach landing scene of Saving Private Ryan with a higher shutter speed, but in general, motion blur is a feature not a bug because it adheres each frame to the next. It is still desirable to have some motion blur even in HFR video, but each frame will necessarily have less of it because the maximum length of time that each frame can be exposed will be shorter. Among other things, this means that a film shot at 60 fps will have the wrong amount of motion blur when played back at lower frame rates like 24, 25, or 30 fps, giving it a choppy feel.

[@DysnomiaFilms]

cavalrycome With digital it's perfectly easy to have a standard 1/48 shutter speed if you desire it, not that I think such a strict shutter speed is necessary for fluid looking motion.

[@cavalrycome]

DysnomiaFilms I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but you can't shoot with a shutter speed of 1/48 of a second when your frame rate is higher than 48 fps. I'm also not claiming that there is something special about 1/48 of a second. The standard convention in the industry is to shoot using a shutter speed that is one over double the shooting frame rate, so if shooting at 30 fps, the camera would be set to a shutter speed of 1/60 of a second. If shooting at 60 fps, the camera would be set to 1/120 of a second, and so on. The same applies to slow motion. The convention is to use a shutter speed that is one over double the _shooting_ frame rate, even if it will be played back at a lower frame rate to slow it down. 1/48 of a second is just the shutter speed that gives the conventionally favored amount of blur when shooting at 24 fps.

[@DysnomiaFilms]

cavalrycome What I meant to say is 60fps is one thing, but you can shoot at 48fps and still get 1/48 shutter speed so you could get the same result but without issues like the "choppiness" of many 24fps pans. And the other thing I was saying is that I don't feel that, say, 1/60 or even 1/100 shutter speed looks nearly as unnatural as many suggest.I feel like the 180 degree shutter requirement is a little arbitrary. I dunno, Ive shot music videos in 50fps with 180 shutter for slow motion, then played back mostly at full speed 25fps and it doesnt feel choppy to me.

[@cavalrycome]

DysnomiaFilms "Ive shot music videos in 50fps with 180 shutter for slow motion, then played back mostly at full speed 25fps and it doesnt feel choppy to me." According to the convention, that's exactly how you should shoot it so that it doesn't feel choppy, that is, using the 180 shutter rule. The idea is just to expose each frame for half the time it represents (50 fps so each is exposed for 1/100 of a second). Whether you then play it back at the original speed of 50 fps or slow it down to 25 fps is irrelevant. However, if you wanted to play it back at the original speed but skip every second frame to conform to 25 fps, then it will look choppier because now the length of the exposure for each frame will only represent a quarter of the time between frames (25 fps with each exposed for 1/100 of a second).

[@DysnomiaFilms]

cavalrycome Your latter description IS what I was saying I did

[@alexgrebench2186]

The only thing I dislike about 24fps is pan stutter - whenever the camera pans it seems like the entire screen is shaking uncontrollably. Beyond that I don’t care

[@AbigailGonzalezbigui1964]

me too

[@robmausser]

This can be fixed by changing things like shutter speed on a camera, so the shutter speed matches the frame rate better. Digital cameras at 24fps dont do this as much as the shutter and framerate are much more accurate.

[@AbigailGonzalezbigui1964]

Neb6 When I pan my camera, I use 60 fps and is ok. watch this kzbin.info/www/bejne/iZvYopyIapeDj7c

[@colourberry]

Your shutter speed needs to be double the frame rate and it will be smooth. Shoot at 24fps and your shutter speed will need to be 50.

[@BetamaxFlippy]

Simon since when 50 is the double of 24?

[@NickBair316]

When your voice goes up, I can't help but hear Wallace Shawn.

[@briancherry8088]

Whoah! Haven't seen one of your videos in years John! They are the best film history and theory I've seen. That's an easy subscribe right there.

[@Kickproof]

TL;DW -I like 24 fps because I prefer it -60 fps costs more -If you don't like it go make movies yourself

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Your listening comprehension must suck if that's all you got. Sad really

[@remopini]

I think one of the more objective arguments that could be used to justify the continuous use of 24FPS would be that all HFR movies that have been shown in Cinemas to date have met with overwhelming disapproval at the box office. So if you look at movies as an industry, nobody is going to make HFR movies if they already know that the vast majority of their target audience doesn't seem to want it.

[@michaelbeckerman7532]

Exactly. It's not just about the cost structure. That's only half of the equation in Hollywood. It's ultimately all about the return on investment (ROI). You ONLY do something that is more expensive IF you can get a resulting boost in revenue and RETURN on the investment. If you can't, then you have no (justifiable) reason to do it.

[@gettingbeyondjohn3442]

very much enjoyed this video,,, I stumbled across it while searching videos that have been upscaled to 60 frames from 24 and was very much informed from an aspect I did not have before. I do still prefer 60 frames but I completely understand why that's not the standard, now anyways lol. My biggest gripe as of late is that I'm a sucker for clickbait on informative videos or education based meaning " Nasa's brand new discovery" and then it's a video about something in 2013 or "scientists are terrified of"... So I compliment you on being very specific with your contacts and avoiding the pitfalls that is the KZbin comments

[@DeyvsonMoutinhoCaliman]

Each media works well in their own way. Like, most gamers hate motion blur in games, because it not only decrease performance, but decrease sharpness also, but they keep adding it to make games look like movies, even using lens effects, which is not necessary. Now gamers think movies are the ones that should conform to the standards of games.

[@AZREDFERN]

I personally perfer 24 FPS for a majority of media I watch, mainly because of the “soap opera effect”, and it creates a more natural buttery smooth motion. There’s also this thing in all forms of art called obscurity, not every detail has to be there, and art is generally more captivating if there’s some gaps left for your imagination to work. But when it comes to high movement or action scenes, 60fps looks more pleasing, and can help convey the mood of action to the viewer, making them excited or nervous. When it comes to the production team’s perspective, I perfer 24 FPS a majority of the time again for a stack of very minor reasons. When you’re on a budget and dealing with cheaper equipment, it’s 1.5 stops more exposure to work with. When dealing with an average computer and storage budget, 24 is a lower bitrate and file size, making production faster and storage cheaper. Lastly, you don’t have to be nearly as perfect with 24, because of that obscurity. All very minor advantages that you wouldn’t care about individually, but they all add up to one major advantage in most senerios.

[@rustile306]

The "too realistic" look of 60fps may have been long associated with cheap soap operas, but I believe this will be changing as new generations watch much less television and much more media such as KZbin, video games, and even the interfaces of phones and other devices, which all tend to have frame rates of 60 or higher. I don't believe people naturally find lower frames to be preferable, but since 24fps has been the standard for so long, the look of it becomes the norm and anything else can look weird. In fact, studies have shown that younger viewers prefer 48 or 60 frames over 24. You can find them by googling "film frame rate study". Perhaps the extra expense for relatively small benefits isn't attractive to Hollywood, but I believe higher frame rates will eventually become at least an occasional stylistic choice in major films, especially once costs are driven down even further.

[@The36th]

I disagree. It will not change because new generations are still going to cinema and like everyone they don't like paying more for movies. Like He said 60fps requires more resources. Someone must pay for it and on the market the customer is always paying for everything. It's not like all major producers will reach to their pockets for spare money and use it. It's like with video games - especially cRPG. Older RPGs has less content, in terms of storylines, because it would be much more costly to animate, draw all textures, make all models, records all sounds to make all of the content. Publishers don't want to try patient of gamers with asking for 70+$ so they gradually decrease single-player campaigns length with the increase of textures / 3d model quality and other technologies.

[@ModernForerunner]

The reason we still go to the cinema and still watch in 24p is because there is no 60p. Paying for extra is wrong also. I watch primarily IMAX which is more expensive than standard 2D and so do many others. If you give me IMAX 60p I will pay double. Video games example is also wrong. You are looking at the likes of EA and you might want to check the fiasco that was Battlefront II. Even Ubisoft is still making primarily single player games. Also check The Witcher III and how much sales and praise it got. It is a single player ONLY game.

[@PrettyTony414]

I concur

[@The36th]

_@ModernForerunner_ 1. You're not center of the world. Do not confuse your opinion with global trends. Global trends are simple. People like to watch movies and they don't like to spend more than they have to. 60fps would lose with 24fps just like 3D movies are losing with 2D. 2. Also I'm not wrong about video games. You just decided to use example foEA - publisher that do not publish too many cRPG , to counter my point about cRPG... Where is logic in that? I didn't say anything abut any specific publisher. I just present very simple logic of gradual increase of required manpower and time to produce assets for modern games. 3. Example of Witcher is also bad. Witcher was primarily made in my country - Poland. In Poland our currency is worth less that western currencies. At the same time purchasing power of PLN, even in our capital city of Warszawa, is better than western currencies. For Polish CD Projekt selling one game on euro, dollar or sterling is like selling two or three copies on thier local polish market. It's pure profit. Especially if you add other factors like far more business-friendly taxes in Poland in comparison to the location of western publishing companies. If you want other publishers to be as cool as CD Projekt then you must force them to relocated into western, post-soviet bloc countries and leave thousands of western IT guys unemployed. Or vote for political option that will cut taxes or something. In present situation no-one in the west can follow CD Projekt strategy because they would go out of business.

[@ModernForerunner]

@@The36th I agree i am not the center of the world but every IMAX projection is packed. All of the big movies also show on IMAX first and then they go to regular 3d or 2d. Also just looking at the schedule of my local cinema I can see many 3d projections and 2d is either lower budget movies or high budget movies that were released more than two weeks ago(ant man). I am not wrong about games either this is the old complaint of no single player games. Assassin's creed, Elder scrolls, Fallout, Mass effect, GTA, Red Dead Redemption, God of war, Tomb raider, Horizon zero dawn and many other all of them western games. I used the witcher because its the best example and the game would still be a commercial success even if it was created in a western country.

[@Will-lr6vm]

I feel sorry for the people capturing their old home videos with software that automatically converts it down from 50/60 fps (look) to 25/30 fps. They don't even realise the 'feeling of the time' they've lost.

[@mrlightwriter]

So you're saying that for home videos is best to shoot at 60fps? I've been doing that, but I want to hear everyone's opinions.

[@prl105]

Hi John I did wonder where you were heading with this video. Pretty much nailed it, with all spec aspects that most 'I wanna's' have no clue about to start with. Just the facts of needing additional light will dent the argument in the cinematic world. Good job on this one.

[@JoshSJoshingWithYa]

I'm a traditional animator, and I'm just sitting here like, "You want me to draw 24 frames per second?! Richard Williams tried that and had The Thief and the Cobbler taken away from him after decades of work! I'll stick with animating on twos, thank you! ...Wait, 60?!"

[@mozardthebest]

To be fair, how many drawings you make for each frame often does fluctuate. You see this in traditionally animated Disney movies, there are parts that are drawn on one's, two's, or three's. It's all about the animation principle of timing. But yeah, 60fps for animation is ridiculous.

[@mrchips23711]

The anime One Piece has been "traditionally" animated at 30 FPS for a few years - though clearly on the threes or fours - so the character animation looks like any other anime but the pans and camera movements are unusually smooth; unfortunately most releases outside of the DVD/BDs convert it to 24p and it looks juddery as hell.

[@JoshSJoshingWithYa]

What would they even call 60 fps animation? 12 fps is animating on "twos," and 60 ÷ 12 = 5, so would 60 fps be animating on "two fifths"? (24 ÷ 1 {ones} = 24; 24 ÷ 2 {twos} = 12; 24 ÷ 0.4 {two fifths} = 60)

[@gabe_s_videos]

Richard Williams had Thief and The Cobbler taken away from him after decades of work because he signed a contract with the last people willing to give him money to finish it that said he'd meet the deadline and stay on budget, then proceeded to do neither. The reason he spent 30 years on it was because he wouldn't stick to any sort of script, so the whole thing was basically made up as he went along, which is hard enough for 90 minutes of animation, but he also wanted it to be technically perfect in the most literal sense, so he was obsessing over details for a project which had basically no foundation. Personally, I thought Thief was the most aimless and agonizingly-paced film I've ever sat through. It's a glorified tech demo with a wafer-thin plot, disposable characters and multiple scenes that feel like they go on for hours because Williams would NOT. STOP. ADDING. UNNECESSARY. SHIT. The polo match felt like forever. The Thief pole-vaulting felt like forever. I FELL ASLEEP during the war machine scene! Personally, I think Williams would've been better off making a handful of shorts out of some of the better scenes, like the MC Escher-inspired scene, because there's brilliant work in it, but its buried under too much spectacle and ego. Williams is an exceptionally talented artist who gave a lot of my favorite animators their first jobs and worked them harder than they'd ever been worked, but I feel no sympathy for him with regards to Thief.

[@gabe_s_videos]

Glen Keane's short "Duet" was animated at 60 fps. Personally I think that's how long I can look at 2D animation *that* fluid. It's also why I like Keane's work better than Williams': I get lost in the beauty of Keane's characters and acting, as well as his stellar draftsmanship. Williams' animation just looks like grueling work (which it is, but it shouldn't feel like it).

[@theagg]

'Dreamy quality' ? This sentiment reminds me of the late Leslie Halliwell, a well known film critic of his time, who expressed similar sentiment about black and white cinema and the use of the 'Academy Ratio'. He was rather negative by contrast about colour cinema and the wider screen ratios used in cinema from the late 50's onward. Basically he felt these 'modern' additions and changes to movie making, colour and widescreen, robbed the cinematic experience of much of its quality. In one or more of his essays in his regular film guide books, from memory he did say words to the effect that colour added too much realism to a medium that didn't need it (so in effect much like the 'more fps adds too much realism' argument.) Still holding that view up until he died in the late 80's.. The argument that expense is one of the primary reasons against adoption of higher frame rates, of course, is an argument that could have been used against the adoption of colour film stock, way more expensive than BW stock. Add to this the difference between watching 24fps at a cinema, versus watching 24fps on a home cinema and this is where 24fps does began to have real drawbacks. Cinema projectors effectively doubled up on the frame rate, with the 24fps content actually having a black frame between each exposed frame because of how the shutter works. Home cinema doesn't have this, so we get the naked 24fps and as such motion judder is markedly worse, even on progressive scan. Panned shots at 24fps on home cinema look far worse and the bigger the screen gets, the worse it gets...

[@vanquish421]

Waiting for his reply to this...

[@DMSG1981]

And wasn't he right? I mean, color sucked at the beginning. Of course it got better over time. But why rush into new areas, when the technology isn't yet capable to deliver? Remember SEGA Virtua Fighter, the Beat 'em Up Game where each character was rendered with very few triangles? I thought even at the time, it looked shitty, much more so than other games that were released YEARS before that. But those were in 2D, not 3D. What good is that when technology can't deliver what's needed for your "dream product"? Anyway, I digressed... Black and White definitely has its own special charm (technically it's greyscale because there are more than just two luminance values, but whatever), which is why it's still used for certain movies/movie scenes. "Schindler's List", "Sin City", "Nebraska", "Memento", "Pi", "Pleasantville", or even the CGI movie "Frankenweenie" are a few examples.

[@theagg]

Early colour stock yes, uneven and dodgy from can to can. Problem with Halliwell was though that his negative view of colour cinema pretty much persisted for cinema from the mid 60's onward to the 80's. Again, he simply felt colour film 'aped reality' in a way that went against his preferred dreamy soft nature of 'classic' black and white cinema. Fun reading his reviews and his film guides were always good to have on the bookshelf but yes, certainly a man set in the past..

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I'll have to look up his reviews. I read he was a scheduler of movies for the BBC. He sounds interesting... But my opinion about 24 is significantly different then just it's what they use in the past. My opinion of 24 is backed by the fact that in the last 14 years I seen a huge movement towards 24 not away from it. Technology has enabled small producers like myself the ability to shoot 24 and now it's more ubiquitous than ever (even on KZbin... Check what frame rate Casey Neistat shoots at). Plus it has been 6 years since The Hobbit debacle where article after article promised that filmmakers were moving away from 24. And in those 6 years you can only to find one Non-Hobbit HFR movie in the roughly 3500 movies released by Hollywood... and Billy Flynn in 120fps was a disaster. In those same six years we've seen 4K acquisition mature and now we're moving on to 8K and high dynamic range so it's not like technology just totally stagnated there. And yet there's a segment of the internet that thinks that high frame rate is inevitable. Why? What evidence is there that it's inevitable when everything is pointing the opposite direction? It's not about being stuck in the past, it's about looking at the reality and history and seeing the momentum.

[@helsinkirenaissance]

Some critics seem to hold mimetic art and verisimilitude as some sort of master values whereas others think of them as vulgar pursuits. That's kind of an apples and oranges debate, but since you opened the door don't you think that just like noone can really say that one aspect ratio is better than another or more advanced than another why should the frame rate question be any different? Cinema is all about making an impact on the audience and there isn't any automatic cause and effect that any one technique is guaranteed to have so why insist on the necessity of some new hierarchies? I think Kurosawa's earlier academy ratio works have a greater vitality to them and the later scope films made for more dour heavy set experiences. I don't want Tarantino or Zhang Yimou to start shooting in full frame, but I refuse to consider scope automatically the best. What about telephoto or wide angle lenses which of them is progress and which of them is what reactionaries favor? Wide angle certainly brings that 'dream quality,' but why are we repeating these words 'dream quality' as if it's some sort of a decission point rather than just one facet of the situation? I want freedom to shoot in whatever colors, aspect ratios, lenses or frame rates and the industries will pick the cheapest, most profitable and most common as their standards. The rest is our personal preferences. As to your point about the switch to color: Decades ago the more expensive color film could be invested in if the color photography could be marketed as a special event in such a way as to make it profitable. Do you seriously think that the higher frame rate is at all analogous to that early marketing coup? With Peter Jackson, look at how the more classical Lord of The Rings fared with the audiences versus the more experimental Hobbit films. You seem to lose money with the modern gimmicks thus far whereas the last thing Wyler's Ben Hur remake or another epic like The Robe did was paint themselves into a financial corner with their colors. Profit is fleeing cinema and higher frame rates won't check that trend so the extra expenses make little sense as some sort of a "latest evolution" that picks us up where we belong. They talked of the anti-3D crowd as a bunch of grumpy old men who want silent films when Avatar was released, can all of you at least own that that was all novelty masquarading as progress?

[@Matthew-.-]

It's not just motion blur when you freeze the frame though, it's everywhere. And I get that you want some for a cinematic effect and you still do get some motion blur with 60p, but it's not the gross smear that is in 24p films. It probably just boils down to personal preference. I've not been disappointed with a single high fps film I've seen in terms of visuals and I often find myself wondering why movies aren't made that way more often when watching them. They just look so much better to me. But then again for the past couple of years I've spent my time watching 60fps KZbin videos and playing video games at high refresh rates, not watching TV and going to the movies a ton.

[@numbersix9477]

I'm a fan of higher than 24 fps video. People complain about "the soap opera effect" but i think much of the kickback has more to do with poor lighting, poor color grading and limited out of focus blur on the typical "soap operas" than it does the frame rate. Prime time video that is shot at 4K 60p and/or 60i can look spectacular - when lit and graded correctly.. For example, I love the look of some of the best shot FBI and NCIS type shows. I have no objection to 24 fps when the display can actually display 24 fps but I enjoy 30 and 60 fps footage too, ...

[@UnusedChar]

20:29 that bleeped out word in the Closed Captions 😂

[@jangxx]

I agree on all points. One slight correction: The part about compression (15:10 onwards) is a bit incorrect. Modern compression (like h264 and h265) do not scale linearly with higher framerates. If the motion is sampled at a higher rate, the P- and B-Frames get smaller, so you can save storage space. Simple example: A video where the whole screen is just one color and the color changes every second. With 24 frames you just store every 24th frame and 23 "change nothing" frames behind it, while at 60 fps you store every 60th frame with 59 "change nothing" frames behind it. These "change nothing" frames are a lot smaller when compressed and therefore the 60fps video is not 2.5 times larger. Obviously, real video is not that simple, but the same principle applies. Otherwise great video though!

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Good point.

[@SirCutRy]

@@briantw Storage and computational capability is relatively cheap today. It won't break the bank to get proper equipment that can handle high frame rate video.

[@TheHandOfFear]

jangxx: That's not how compression works. The P and B frames DO NOT get smaller at higher frame rates. You should read up on how "difference" is actually stored during compression. It has nothing to do with the length of time between frames.

[@Kermitt_Frog]

I think, what he wanted to say is, that usually, because of the higher frame rate, between each picture the changes are smaller, so they can be more compressed. Like that the compression without a loss of information can be higher on 60fps than on 24fps which in the end will result in a better rate than 2.5. So the logic, whatever you do at 60fps will also improve the same on 24fps is not correct in all cases.

[@TheHandOfFear]

Willem Lampe: I'm aware. That's an incorrect assumption. To simplify greatly it's the percentage of features in the image that change that affects the bitrate needed. So 1/120 vs. 1/48 of a second exposures might mean an object doesn't move as far across the screen, but in the vast majority of frames the percentage of features in the image isn't much different. Again, people asserting there is a bitrate savings per frame don't understand how compression actually works.

[@Grim2]

Over here in the Balkans, Fox Movies shows this odd version of original Total Recall with boosted frame rate. It makes the sets looks so unbelievably cheap. It's like being on the set watching the movie being filmed - completely takes you out.

[@wwsvs]

Gladiator has the same problem during the fight scenes. Great for stills but It gives you a headache to watch it on video.

[@Rexvideowow]

Yep. I've noticed a higher frame rate on cable TV sitcoms and films as well. The first time I saw it, I immediately felt like something was off. It looks like someone is out there shooting these things with just a phone camera or something. It REALLY takes you out of the immersion.

[@adamjohnsonstudio7910]

I noticed the soap opera effect long before I knew about frame rate, especially in British television. I understand where 60fps people are coming from, but my eyes still aren't used to seeing that in movies, it's almost unsettling

[@conmagnew5542]

you will get used to it.

[@octap79]

@@conmagnew5542 which means what; He will forget all about how a movie was intended to look? How the creator intended his creation to be presented to the viewer? This is the saddest thing of all. People buy new TVs that have by default enabled in the settings the " smooth motion". For a couple of hours, if they watch a movie they feel something is wrong but after that they get used to it. It doesn't mean that they get used to a new way of viewing a film, they just loose the chance to have the real experience of a movie. Everything looks like soap operas. People do not have the knowledge to know what's until they are carried away to the soap experience, and go with that.

[@azathoz]

@Vishnu Kalluri to me it looks like crap when we are talking about movies and series, and I'll never get used to it, nor I want to.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I spent years making broadcast television at 60i. I'm used to look of 60 fps. I'm also used to the look of 24 FPS. They don't look alike... so the argument that you'll get used to it is stupid. Why get used to something that's wrong and not what the filmmakers intended?

[@RolandAyala]

I can objectively say that I found this video very entertaining and informative. Thank you!

[@tasosjw]

Also shooting in slow motion makes lower frame rate playback even more viable. For example, if you record a video in 240fps and you replay it at 60fps it will be 4 times slower. But if you replay it at 24fps it will be 10 times slower. That makes the scene much more dramatic without the need of very expensive gear.

[@leftaroundabout]

Then just replay it at 30 fps and interpolate the frames between for that shot. Unless you're capturing something like an artillery shell, the 240fps footage will be so crisp that nothing is lost in interpolation (provided you use a proper motion-tracking algorithm).

[@tasosjw]

leftaroundabout i will return to the argument said in the video several times. The same can also be done in 24fps.

[@leftaroundabout]

Sure, for slow slow-mo 24p is perfectly fine. The problem is that 24p _forces_ you to make such choices as super slow-mo, or else losing all the motion detail. With 60p you can use super slow-mo just as well if you want that extra drama, but you _can_ also opt for only slight slow-mo, or no slow-mo at all. It becomes an artistic choice: if a scene benefits from more realism then you can make it faster, or you can choose not to, but the medium doesn't restrict you anymore to either choice like 24p does.

[@UnreasonableSteve]

If you're trying to look at this logically, you haven't quite hit the mark. Myth 1: 24fps is outdated. - This isn't a myth, it's true. 24fps video is not an up-to-date technology. Sure, maybe it "works fine," but so did film before everyone went to digital. Making the statement that it "works fine" isn't an argument *against* an improvement. You've combined this myth with a cost analysis - but as you did in the video, we'll get into that later... Myth 2: Modern technology has made 24fps obsolete -- isn't this the same as myth 1? 24fps is outdated vs 24fps is obsolete? From a purely objective standpoint, yes, we have the technology to make a more realistic recording of the real world than previous 24fps - 1/48shutter video allowed. Whether you subjectively want it to be more realistic is one point for/against "I like it." Myth 3: Motion blur during freeze frames -- yes, there's motion blur during freezeframe, that's a fact. This is clearly not a myth... your counter to this "myth" is to just not freeze-frame, but the real point anyone makes with motion blur in lowfps is that it's *noticeable* without freezeframing. So is your argument to that just "don't notice it, like I do"? If so, can't I say "don't notice the soap opera effect, like I do" for HFR? Myth 4: HFR has been proven to have health benefits -- I haven't found anything regarding this, so I'll leave it alone as being a myth. Myth 5: "I can see 144 frames per second" -- Your response to this is just arguing that we don't see in a quantized frames-per-second analogy, which is of course true. That's not a counter to the statement, though. Just like if someone said they can see 4k resolution vs 720p - would your response to that also be "no, we don't see in pixels?" Of course not, that wouldn't make sense as an argument, and neither does your current argument against this. People can, of course, see the difference between 12,24,30,48,60,and120/144 fps video. Myth 6: You just don't like it because you're not used to it -- That's not much of a myth, nor is your counter to it really much of an argument, so let's leave that with myth 2 "I like it" subjectivity. Myth 7: 60FPS is objectively better than 24FPS in every way -- I won't argue this one, there's too much subjectivity within "better than 24fps in every way" to call it objectively true. Now for your "objective reasons" 1) 24 is less than 60 and is therefore cheaper in every way. You should know that "only a sith speaks in absolutes" ;) specifically pure uncompressed video frames yes, 24 is going to be cheaper than 60. With (even lossless) compression, that difference can be quite minor, as ideally only the changes between frames are stored. This saves more space with HFR footage as (hypothetically) fewer changes will be made between frames. 60 will still take more storage than 24, but it's not as significant as a direct 2.5x multiple. When it comes to editing, 24 FPS video doesn't divide evenly into the 59 or 60 FPS displays on any modern computer, so you start dealing with 3:2 pulldown and other hacks to get your video playing properly on screens that were never intended for it. Same in many cases for final display outside of a dedicated theater. Yes, HFR will have slightly higher costs in general, but not "in every way." 2) "Look at all the movies that are already shot in 24fps" - this isn't a logical argument against using HFR, it's just saying "We have used 24fps for a long time almost universally." That doesn't mean it's perfect or shouldn't be improved on. If I asked you to name your 5 favorite people and then declared all of those 5 people lived less than 123 years (literally every person) and that was plenty of time, it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to improve lifespans anyway. 3) Filmmaking is hard work, you want your movies to have "that look" -- You want your movie to look like everyone else's? none of this is an argument against HFR or for LFR outside of the subjective "I like it" again. "Make movies yourself in HFR" -- That's a fair point, but imagine making the choice of framerate as an amateur filmmaker attempting to be taken seriously by the established community, say in a film festival. Are you going to shoot in what you think looks better - 60fps - even when you know that reviews are going to be written by film connoisseurs... bad reviews from which means your art isn't going to reach the audience it otherwise would/should? When you've seen other 60fps films get joked about as looking "soap-opera-y"? That's a question of artistic integrity, and it shouldn't be. High framerate cinema should be looked at without so much bias because of your "all other GOOD content has been shot at 24." In my opinion, that's a toxic attitude that the filmmaking community could do with less of. So far the only good reasons you've given for content being shot at 24 is that it's cheaper, and "I like it." All I'm saying is make content in the framerate you want to, but don't dismiss audiences asking to see a different framerate, and please don't dismiss artistic content just because the creator shot it at a framerate or shutter speed that isn't the same as what "everyone else always uses".

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I've addressed most of these points in other comments. There is a major difference between myth 1 and 2 and I would suggest you actually watch what is being said because you completely missed the point of myth 2. Re Myth 5: I would absolutely *NOT* tell people that they see in 4k or any kind of pixel resolution: that is just as false as saying you see a particular frame rate. I'm sure Vsauce has a video on this somewhere... I agree with you that you are completely within your own right to make whatever frame rate content you want. However 24 is the language of Cinema. And if you want to speak that language, you need to speak in 24. That would absolutely be my advice to any novice filmmaker attempting to make films. If however you do want to be an agent of change go right ahead and try...

[@UnreasonableSteve]

"I would absolutely NOT tell people that they see in 4k ... that is just as false as saying you see a particular frame rate" I'm afraid you've misread that portion, I'm saying exactly that it is the same analogy. Nobody sees in 4k or 480p, but what the original "myth" was saying was that you absolutely can determine the difference between framerates as with resolution. No you're never going to "match" analog eye response, but the more samples, the better approximation of real motion you get. I sincerely disagree that 24 is the "language" of cinema. It's simply the status quo, one that's aching to be changed, but with over a century of inertia behind it, change is extremely slow.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Do you make movies?

[@UnreasonableSteve]

I have been involved in the production of several shorts; not that it matters. The argument should stand on its own, without "you're not Steven Spielberg"-style attempts to discredit it.

[@cavalrycome]

"People can, of course, see the difference between 12,24,30,48,60,and120/144 fps video." Pointing out that human beings lack infinite potential is never a popular move, but the fact is that there are absolute physical limits to the scales at which our visual systems can discern both spatial and temporal changes. The 'of course' in your sentence perhaps reflects something positive about your outlook on life, but the fact is that very few people have actually seen films, television programs or online videos played back at higher than 60 fps, so it isn't obvious that people can discern differences above those rates at all. I would bet that the vast majority of people cannot even distinguish 24 fps from 30 fps (at least consciously). Video games are a different story. Given that they involve rendering animations in real time, they often don't render motion blur in a natural way, so you can expect games rendered without proper motion blur at the lower frame rates that are typical of film production to look choppy compared to higher ones, and ugly for that reason, and that is very noticeable. Render the motion blur properly, as they do in animated films, and traditional frame rates look fine. I suspect that a large proportion of the people who are advocating for higher frame rate video are leaning on their experiences with gaming, a context where it does make a lot more sense.

[@Onpex]

Every time I see another of this channel's videos, I respect much more, the work you all do here!. Specially because of what john said at min 20:31 segs,...Yes,..it takes A F**K LOAD OF PASSION to make a movie in this industry!. Keep it up guys!. This is a F***ING AWESOME channel!

[@MrSomeDonkus]

Im guessing that makes me a 12 frames per second kinda guy because I pretty much only watch animated movies. Although Akira was animated in 24 frames per second and that shit was so fuckin beautiful it made me cry. Id love to see the absolute mad lads who would try and make a 2d animated film in 60 frames per second though.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

There are people out there who run that run that algorithm that turns anime into 60fps.. Then KZbin commenters say they can't see a difference when most of the scenes are actually just static shots lol

[@seancollett6]

Anyone who doesn’t like 24fps has never had to do any rotoscoping!

[@JJpowerjj]

HAHAHAh i have and get ya.

[@chrisbaker8533]

amen

[@thisisaloadofbarnacles921]

This is a freaking amazing comment

[@LeoCoot]

i never tried making a 60 fps mask, i hope ill never have too, it will be a nightmare!

[@Zeffarian]

That's why I prefer 6fps.

[@Lurker1979]

24 frames is a style choice. As such it won't go anywhere. For the same reason Oil painting still exists today. When its easier to paint digitally or with other kinds of paints.

[@TheHandOfFear]

Yeah, 100 years is just a flash in the pan, it's totally not going anywhere.

[@uzefulvideos3440]

It's not easier to paint digitally. Most people find it a lot harder. But it is much more useful in many cases, because you have a clean digital image as a result.

[@gabe_s_videos]

I keep saying the same thing about traditional animation and nobody listens to me. :(

[@samhyde6395]

It's not easier to transfer from regular painting style to digital but if you start with digital art it can be easier for you than traditional painting styles. It's also cheaper cause once you have the software and equipment you don't have to buy more for each piece of art. That's why most cartoons are digitally animated now.

[@RemixedVoice]

Your comment really resonated with me. New art forms are not meant to replace old ones. All forms of art old and new will inevitably coexist, so long as there are artists.

[@sarahwhitlock6100]

Excellent comparison/contrast. As a science buff, thank you for making clear the difference between subjective and objective.

[@pootietang6137]

I'm with you 100%! I tried watching one of the hobbit films at a faster frame rate and it looked like a TV soap opera. Give me 24fps for film anytime. I was actually at a screening of Doug Trumbull's Showscan back in the mid 80's. And while phenomenal in resolution, everyone agreed it's primary use would be to fool the audience into thinking they are seeing reality and not a movie.

[@AirBRUH]

You probably would get used to it if you used it a bit more, try watching it a few more times. If you still don't like it then I guess you can't like it.

[@Kreilo2412]

As I have heard, this is sort of the same point people tried to make when they wanted to go from black and white to colors. It is safe to say that the majority of people today prefer color movies, and I am pretty sure people will get used to and favour higher fps if it was used more.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

not really...

[@kaisersoymilk6912]

This is subjective, I feel that you people watch too much soap operas, you know why to me 60fps doesn't look like a soap opera? Because I don't watch soap operas!

[@FilmmakerIQ]

@@kaisersoymilk6912 we dont watch soap operas, we can just immediately recognize that 60 fps looks like a soap opera and NOT a movie.

[@pirobot668beta]

Visual persistence. Each frame imprints an image on your retina, and based on how bright that image is, it will persist for some time. These 'burned in' images fade in about 1/20th of a second...hey, that's real close to Cinema frames rates! You know Cinema, right? The act of watching movies in a relatively dark room where our eyes at at peak sensitivity? These frame rates were no accident.

[@bottledwaterprod]

I half expected you to say at the end that this video was shot at 24fps. Btw- I love the warm and familar look of your show! Reminds me of late night TV in the 90s. Good set design and lighting.

[@danscava]

Great video. Recently I got my new TV that had motion interpolation turned on by default. When I started watching my first movie I was like: "Oh God, whats is wrong with this TV?", Then I found the option to turn off the motion interpolation, and never turned it back on.

[@TomMakeHere]

Oh thank you, I can now watch my TV without it looking wrong! I didn't know it was a thing, it looked too smooth

[@lirpa5]

I'm excited to see what new techniques future experimental filmmakers will use when we do eventually move beyondd 24fps. I'm optimistic directors, cinematography and such will evolve with the tech.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

There's no need to move beyond because the tech isn't what's limiting us. It literally never has. 24 isn't going anywhere.

[@bjugler]

"Didn't you even watch the show?"

[@Zack_Darce]

This is an amazing video... I bet it was shot at 23.976

[@doctordothraki4378]

The video was certainly mastered around 24fps according to the Stats for Nerds tab

[@bulversteher]

It's all down to us being used 24 fps / 180° shutter at cinema for all or our life. 24 fps has been set ages ago as a balance between acceptable motion reproduction and technical or economical considerations. And as you say, it turned into an industry standard, so it just won't go away. Said restrictions don't really exist anymore, so we're stuck with the "cinematic look" (= not used to anything else) argument. I don't say it's any different for me personally. HFR feels strange to be me as well. But at the same time I just can't pretend to be fine with the stroboscopic mess 24 fps causes more often then not, which gets far worse with larger screens. BTW most 4K projectors and TV sets on sale today have turned on frame rate interpolation by default (personally I'd rather turn it off because it's too inconsistent for me). But you can bet this will have a huge impact on what the general audience demands footage to look like. And it won't be your beloved 24 fps.

[@diman4010]

"I just can't pretend to be fine with the stroboscopic mess 24 fps causes more often then not" and that's why 30 fps should be considered as pretty close to cinematic 24 fps, but looks much much better than 24 fps strobin mess.

[@soylentgreenb]

Pull of the bandaid and go to 120. I would much rather have more frames than marginally better looking frames; stop wasting computing power and it won’t cost so much.

[@NIGHTWULF]

+On Wheels No, we are used to it, we are used to 60fps in video games, documentaries, some tv shows, sports, youtube videos, there are many things that use 60fps in this day and age, so it's not that "we are not used to it" that's a horrible argument, many people have tried making movies in higher framerate to no avail, like the hobbit film, it just won't catch on, because most people don't prefer it when it comes to movies, simple as that

[@bulversteher]

I am strictly talking about movies. And a huge chunk of them are watched on frame rate interpolating TV sets these days.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

This is kind of messed up bizarre logic... If people don't care enough to turn off the motion interpolation, and they probably don't care much about frame rate in the first place. It's unlikely that they'll demand anything.

[@PapaP86]

I'm down with this. I've always thought 24fps used in cinema comes across more "realistic" than 60fps or even more. 60fps and up come across as very artificial IMO. As said, fine and preferred for video games, VR, and possibly various sporting events, but for movies/TV shows I'd still generally prefer 24fps.

[@EricRosenwaldPhotography]

I’m so happy I found FilmmakerIQ. Rarely do you come across an expert who is so well-verses in the art and science of a given subject. The writing is perfect. None of the hackneyed attempts at comedy that are so common on KZbin educational channels

[@Stintfang]

you are so right. I once bought a bluRay with an old John Wayne western movie which promised that it was re-coded and "brought up to speed" (so to say). I was completely pulled out of the movie when all scenes shot in a studio immediately looked like a daily soap set. I compared it with an old recording of the same movie and I didn't get that impression from that. I want my motion blur! As an animator using a consumer product called "iClone" i am furious that I can't change the framerate of 30 fps to 25 (PAL in Germany) or even 24 fps. Rendering fewer images could only mean that I spare lots of hours rendering time.

[@FloydPink23]

As far as I'm aware there's never been a Blu Ray with motion interpolation applied to it?

[@FloydPink23]

what? blu rays are natively 24p

[@teutorixaleria918]

The motion blur is a product of the camera used to record the footage. A digital remaster wouldn't and couldn't remove that blur.

[@michaelcooney9368]

The 24fps preference reminds me of anamorphic and why 2x scope lenses are still highly desired today. If thinking seriously with sensor crop, contrast loss and resolution loss from unsqueeze, anamorphic is a terrible idea for using on digital, but even big budget digital films still use them. Anamorphic was actually called poor mans 65mm and top movies in 50s and 60s were large format. 65mm fell out of favor in the 70s, and panavision had a monopoly patent on prisms so their lenses were much clearer than other CinemaScope lenses. For decades they had those exclusive lenses which in the blockbuster era they made artificially scarce and could be only rented. Of several hundred productions per year, only handful of top blockbusters and Oscar baits helmed by a single digit tier of filmmakers got to have the gold standard "filmed in panavision" logo on their credits. So people still use them because its subliminally cinematic. Ameteurs deliberately put blue streaks on their videos thinking people see that as "class".

[@SomeHarbourBastard]

It's probably true. Both films I know were shot in 65mm. Looking at the technical specs on IMDb, it says they both used a Mitchell FC 65. I'd say there's a good chance they were given the same camera. It's not uncommon, the Death Star attack in "Star Wars" (1977) was shot with the same VistaVision camera that was used to shoot the parting of the Red Sea in "The Ten Commandments" (1956), twenty years earlier.

[@valkiron11]

6:39 - If motion blur bothers them so much, then they should watch a film shot using a fast shutter speed/angle, like Saving Private Ryan or Crank. Movies like those were shot in 24 fps but have little to no motion blur.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Ha, you assume those critics of 24 actually watch movies...

[@pikgears]

I'm going to use 24 fps for my future projects because when it takes an hour per frame to render, you're going to want to try and cut down the number of frames you have to have. Edit: spoke too soon, you cover that later in the video.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Cue the gamers to mock you and say your hardware isn't as sophisticated as what they use to run Fortnite 😂

[@pikgears]

Sounds about right

[@ReverendNillerz]

Some good arguments, I think that it is likely that as the costs involved go down, we're going to see more content being produced in 60 FPS and beyond. Many KZbin videos are being released at 60 FPS, so that indicates to me that people are getting over the "weirdness" in appearance (soap-opera effect) and might be quicker to embrace it in the future. I can definitely see it being used in certain artistic applications, for instance it might make a scene more realistic appearing and it might be necessary to use in, perhaps, a war scene. If the directors intent is to make the scene *less* dreamlike and make the impact of the death of a character in the scene more engrossing or disturbing in some way, it might make sense for them to opt for 60 FPS. I also think that directors might be using both in movies, something that should be possible already in various digital codecs. If they can choose to use 60 FPS for a particular scene and 24 for the others, they could, in theory, optimize the framerate of the movie while keeping costs low.

[@radioshowsradiohour2280]

When it comes down to it 24fps is just artistically pleasing. I'm with you.. I enjoy 60fps for games, sports, and so on... but when it comes down to cinema... 24fps for life! 24fps is like experiencing a Rembrandt ;)

[@arddel]

Personally, I find 60p better conveys the reality of what is shot. The problem is, most movies are not supposed to convey that reality. Fantasy is you are onboard the Star Trek Enterprise, wizzing through space with your vulcan science officer. Reality is you are on a cheap plywood set with an actor wearing plastic ears. The Hobbit, shot in both 24p and 48p, clearly demostrated that effect to me.

[@nimbulan2020]

The Hobbit was actually only shot at 48 fps, and just removed half the frames (with some motion blur processing of course) for the 24 fps version. If I remember right they used a non-standard shutter angle as a compromise so that would be possible so it wasn't an ideal setup.

[@kaisersoymilk6912]

So, you watch Start Trek constantly thinking they're on a plywood set, with zero suspension of disbelief. I could not watch a fantasy movie without the illusion of it being real. The worst damaged movies from this attitude would be horror movies: what's the point in watching them if you'll never get scared?

[@jeffk1722]

24 FPS looks great as a presentation frame rate. However, I think they should shoot everything with fast shutter-speeds and fast frame rates (as high as possible while retaining quality), to capture as much of reality as possible. It would also give film editors the option of making cuts at a more precise/exact moment. Then afterward, it's quite easy to convert to 24 FPS and even create a natural motion blur, blending the in-between frames as needed.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Shooting higher frame rate for motion capture is done a lot actually. For that use case it makes sense. But for editors to have a more precise point to cut is absurdly overkill and then you're tacking on more rendering time in the backend. So very minimal gain for lots and lots more overhead... Not a good idea.

[@nimbulan2020]

@@doctordothraki4378 If I remember correctly they split the difference with a 270 degree shutter for The Hobbit so that it would look decent at both 48 fps and 24 fps. I don't recall anything looking abnormal at 24 fps but never got to see the high framerate version, unfortunately.

[@snortymcgout]

24 fps omits enough information from your brain so that the absurd fantasy can look believable, 60fps gives your brain enough info that you can easily tell it's bullshit and that isn't good for movies.

[@Sin-Cal559]

You are a debating Beast Sir. I loved this video, and that shirt is fire, got gotta get one to rock at my next shoot. Keep'em coming and I'll stay tuned.🤙

[@rogerw9840]

Damn, I just can't resist commenting... As a small kid I had migraine alot. Still do, but not as often. One thing that triggered it that was TV if I watched it more than an hour or so, but going to the cinema was a horrid experience. I lasted maybe 20 minutes without puking and then I was sick for about a day afterwards. Needless to say I didn't go to the cinema all that often. It wasn't until the first 100Hz TVs (just a frame doubler to remove the flicker) came out in the 90s that I could watch TV normally. On modern screens this is not a problem, but I can still easily tell 24fps from 50-60 (or higher). This video for example, I experience your hand movements and even head movements as having a strobe effect. You might think that this is fine, but it's all subjective. Your eyes and brain might be used to seeing this and interprets it as normal (or perhaps not being able to see this at all?). Mine doesn't. Probably since I couldn't watch films like that growing up and thus not getting used to it. So... I truly hate 24fps. Thank God for modern processing that can digitally process and "guess" what those missing frames should look like so I can watch whatever I want nowadays without the strobe effect fucking up my movie experience as soon as something moves on screen.

[@Nineteen1900Hundred]

Many videogames today on consoles like Xbox and PS4 run at 30fps and after hours of play, I have headaches, migraines. I changed to PC where I get 60fps and its just soooo smooth and crisp, it doesn't hurt my eyes!

[@mathyoooo2]

@@Nineteen1900Hundred games are even worse than film because you only have faked or no motion blur at all.

[@Nineteen1900Hundred]

I don't understand your statement. We were not talking about motion blur.

[@Roxor128]

Roger W - If you were getting headaches from low-refresh-rate displays, I have to wonder if you have some form of epilepsy. I've definitely got it and have issues with flickering displays, too.

[@mathyoooo2]

@@Nineteen1900Hundred my point was no motion blur exaggerates the headache inducing 'slideshow' feel. At least for me

[@lstrk4390]

"Every frame is not a painting" Every Frame a Painting channel: And I took that personally

[@avantgardetattooandartgall977]

Great video tnx. And also you need to consider how HFR needs more time to render vfx. So it also augments working time on movie.

[@smallmoneysalvia]

Old man yells at frame rates

[@justarandomguywantingtostu6539]

And me, young guy (17 years old) say 60 FPS looks awful in cinema. So real you actually notice the unnatural gestures and camera movement. It feels cheap

[@GrosTabarnak]

Objectively, your arguments are better. :-p Seriously, I love your videos. You do make a lot of sense and explain your point of views in a very clear manner. Personally, I hate interlace video. Frame rate conversion (which are difficult to avoid) are a nightmare with interlace, on top of which de-interlacing often means you loose half your resolution. When I started shooting video, I quickly realized 24 fps was much easier to work with. It allowed me to use longer expositions if I wanted/needed to, which gave me better control over depth of field, without increasing the noise level. Plus, using similar bitrates (bps) as I would use for 30fps, I was gaining a significant amout of bits per frame, which reduced compression artifacts.One point you missed (or maybe you did point it out while my wife was running the blender in the kitchen?) is that during post production, VFX often means having people manually rotoscope every frame in a sequence in order to layer elements. Not only does higher frame rates means longuer computer VFX processing times, but more human work too! This consumes both TIME and MONEY. To me, more than double the work is not worth it, and does not bring any relevant value to the production.Cheers!

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I just touched VFX and rotoscoping it but absolutely a valid point!

[@Schuschinus]

Once I watched TV at my grandma´s, and wondered, why it looked so weird. Couldn´t tell, what it was, but I didn´t like it, it looked cheap and dizzy. After I learned about framerate Interpolation, I turned it off, next time I visited her. The experience was immediately much better.

[@bjugler]

If you want to talk about something that seriously needs to go, it's that. Frame interpolation MUST DIE!

[@Nemesis_T_Type]

Well it's been years now and we haven't seen a good HFR movie yet. So you are right 24 fps is here to stay. And for the kids that disagree: Start making movies now and prove to us that HFR movies are good.

[@totheknee]

Even worse, people play shows on HFR TVs and they look horrible!

[@sir_john_hammond]

When I first watched the Hobbit, it was in 48 fps, and it felt all wrong. I remember it feeling like watching a bunch of actors doing practice takes, rather than seeing a final product. The reason, I speculated at the time, was that the 24 fps standard due to interpolation (our brain fills in some information) adds the "magic", we see less of the little awkward twitches in facial expression and movement, people seem almost superhuman in some way. Oddly, it's like a glue that allows us to buy into the fiction. And this may have been entirely accidental, we can argue it's just nostalgia but I think it's a real psychological effect which exploits the way the human brain works. And it's not as if it wasn't noted back then. They saw that magic, saw that it worked and so they kept it, even if they didn't understand what was going on exactly. Now the other major observation I had upon watching this particular film was the CG. Not only did the CG feel more plastic, but it also clearly did not move correctly with the live action all the time. Two instances where this stood out was the ring falling onto Bilbo's finger, and Radagast's hare sled bobbing around the screen. It occurs to me that 1. any mocap/tracking would have many more errors, and 2. any manual fixing (or manual animation) would involve twice the amount of frames, that's 24 more frames to work on PER SECOND, meaning extremely exhausted CG artists who are much more likely to leave some things looking slightly odd because they're too tired to notice, bother, or out of time altogether, as they often were.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Totally agree! Sorry about your park.

[@sir_john_hammond]

So am I.

[@jcp1984again]

I agree completely. The closer we get to "real sighting" (by having more and more resolution and frames per second) in non-interactive visual media, the less we actually feel the story. A cinematic experience isn't meant to be like real sighting!

[@mathyoooo2]

The way you feel is the way most people feel, but I actually prefer the hfr version

[@bighuge1060]

Dagnabbit, Sir John: Once again I needed only scroll through the comment section to see if anyone posted what I was going to write so I don't become redundant. That is exactly how I felt about when I saw that movie in HFR.

[@MexlycanFilmico]

Peter Jackson tried to experiment with 48fps with the Hobbit and it failed. looks like a soap opera.

[@mattwolf7698]

I never noticed a difference. Those movies had a ton of filler which annoyed me though.

[@davidhunt240]

LOL yeah, it did look smoother, but my god was it padded out, it could have done with 24 of those 48 fps taking out. I was getting annoyed and uncomfortable and wanting to do something else about an hour into the first Hobbit film, it dawned on me that I had 109 minutes to go... Recently I was given the trilogy on Bluray, I had to bite my hand when I read the sleeve notes... Peter Jackson managed to stretch out another 15 minutes onto each, already wafer thin, films :o At least with home cinema, I can stop/pause and do something else when I get bored and even try and pin my eyes open aka A Clockwork Orange and try and sit through it :P

[@owlstead]

Yep, and we heard the same argument over 4K, and see where we are now. Yes, there is a difference, and yes, people will notice. But I think everybody agrees that it was not just the picture quality that made it look like a soap opera. Actually, I just saw an old B/W movie with Charly Chaplin that was really fun to watch. Now you can argue a lot, but lets just agree that the horrible technology at the time was at least worse than the 48 FPS of the Hobbit, right?

[@Carewolf]

It was shit movies. Not due to the frame-rate though, they were bad at any frame rate. The pans looks a lot better though.

[@OmeBlues]

I came to your channel because I was just interested in cinema and cinematic techniques and during the course of this video I found that you are also a very critical thinker. YES.

[@gnneves]

....and I think you took a light approach man! Perfect! Thanks!

[@MrTBoneSF]

This also gave me a flashback to about 20 years ago when the first digital projections were taking place (pushed by George Lucas) and you had prominent folks like Roger Ebert making some of the same arguments you were making about how impractical digital projection would be because films needed to be "trucked in" on "stacks of hard drives' and it would be a tremendous cost to switch over. Ebert I guess didn't realize that 1) a stack of hard drives for a film even in 1999 was a fraction of the weight of the film cannisters 3) Digital transmission 3) Moore's Law . If you're main argument is 60FPS takes 2.5 the processing power and memory- wait a year. Problem solved. BTW, when Ebert proclaimed digital would never fly he also predicted "I have seen the future of film and it is Maxivsion!" You know what Maxivision was? 48FPS film hack. Look it up!

[@FilmmakerIQ]

This argument comes up over and over again but it's so ridiculously easy to counter: If I wait a year for processing power to catch up with 60 FPS, then the gains made in that year will apply just as much to 24 FPS. Technology will scale for both of them - and 24 will ALWAYS be smaller than 60 at every level. And to counter Moore's Law, there is something called Blinn's Law which states regardless of the gains in processing power, render times remain the same. The faster our processors, the more we ask of them to do. Such will keep 24 fps always ahead of 60 fps. As for Ebert... I've disagreed with Ebert on a ton of stuff, the technical stuff was never Ebert's forte.

[@TheJamieRamone]

Um, Moore's "law" is just an observation he made decades ago and is no longer true. Or did u not notice micro processor and GPU dies getting substantially bigger in the last 20 years, and not surpassing the 4 GHz clock rate?

[@MrTBoneSF]

Um did you not notice Nvidia presentation today? While CPU's clockspeeds haven't changed much, GPUs have completely smashed Moore's Law by about a factor of ten. Moore's Law says that for the same money, processing power (and storage) doubles every eighteen months. It doesn't say "clockspeed". We've been getting more cores, more operations per second, etc. for the same money. And in the case of GPUs, they've exceeded Moore's Law (which is more of an observation). And everyone keeps saying "We're almost at the end of Moore's Law. They can't keep increasing processing power at this rate" The problem is I've heard that for over 20 years.

[@MrTBoneSF]

Ah but you could apply your same exact argument to ANY aspect of film production. Heck, in 1992 were you picketing SMPTE saying "HD won't fly! It takes up NINE TIMES the space. SD is here to stay because it will ALWAYS be cheaper"? Or in 2002, were you shouting "Hey, Chris Nolan! You can't shoot large format movies! Don't you know you will QUADRUPLE your production costs! Besides, 2002 Chris Nolan, none of your favorite films were shot in Imax! It will NEVER catch on". Given it took DECADES before the number of color films produced (hey, those take THREE TIMES the storage!) to overtake black and white, why write off HFR after less than ten years since the first real experiments? Seems incredibly short-sighted. And again, what is so magical about 24FPS that it and it alone is set in stone? Why can we progress to color (black-and-white is "magical" too), sound, stereo sound, 5.1 sound, Dolby Atmos sound, large format films, but 24FPS can never change? Why go from 35mm to 70mm (4x increase in SPATIAL resolution) but TEMPORAL resolution can never change? Why is 48 or 72 or 120 FPS too big change for you to accept but you don't object to Imax? Shouldn't that be just as "foreign"? Shouldn't it be "too detailed" when you can't see the "warmth' of film grain?

[@FilmmakerIQ]

10 years of experiments? Try 70+ years of differentiating between film cadence and television. In every step of the evolution of film/television there has to have been a justification of extra costs. Those that have added will stick around. Those that haven't have gone by the wayside. Simply put, HFR has shown nothing to add to the experience of film watching to justify it's additional costs. It's a dead end and your technological fetishising of it won't bring it to reality when it has failed over and over again.

[@icemachine79]

Libido is the first thing to go. But luckily, as you said, we don't remember it.

[@krane15]

Libido is irrelevant. However, the hormones that initiate it have significant physical and psychological advantages.

[@charlestrudel8308]

Awesome video man, keep up the good work and your project.

[@vrsgng]

what about directors shooting different scenes in different framerates? directors could take the framerate as another variable of the camera (like shutter speed, aperture, ISO etc.) and use different configurations depending on the scene and effect they want to create. for instance they would shoot the parts that should be "dreamy" in 24, and they would use 60 in the scenes where less motion blur or more crispness is more advantageous.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

It's been tried and it doesn't really work that way. Higher frame rate simply invoke a medium switch. Basically a film stops looking like a film at anything higher than 24.

[@davidhicks5645]

another of the arguments for cost would be effects. CG at 60fps would cost a ton more more frames = more time and more money. people no longer understand that a movie that looks like it was all shot in camera has thousands of little digital tweaks sometimes edited manually on each frame, just plain and simple more work.

[@my3dviews]

Computers can easily interpolate the extra frames that are needed. My TV can even do that as it plays a Blu-ray movie. The additional cost would be minimal. Just some extra computer processing time.

[@davidhicks5645]

i was talking about frame by frame re touches they can take hours/days per frame depending on complexity.

[@Jesujej]

last thing we need are fake frames Oh My God I hate that

[@my3dviews]

But if we are talking about CG (which is what the first comment is about) than all the frames are fake. True 48 fps, means shooting with the camera set at that frame rate. The added CGI is all fake whether made individually or interpolated. Much of digital animation is in fact interpolated between frames already. The animator draws on his/her computer a couple of frames, and the in between ones are drawn by the computer.

[@davidhicks5645]

no artist worth the term would use interpolation in animation. and the original comment was about manual retouches not interpolation done by computer I uses the term CG as a blanket term for generated on a computer not cells/paper not generated by a computer.

[@Bovineicide]

I'm kind of surprised you didn't go over the shortcomings with the Hobbit at 48hz. Special effects fall apart at high framerates. It's like the Mickey Mouse at Disneyland taking his head off in front of a bunch of kids. You break the magic.

[@flinx]

I watched the Hobbit trilogy in HFR and I'd say you have it backwards. Smaug and Gollum looked amazingly real because the "soap opera effect" reminds us of what things really are. Unfortunately it also exposed the fantasy costumes, sets, and makeup for what they were - fake. Sometimes it was more like watching a play with amazing, lifelike special effects. Which is why Jurassic World movies should be HFR. The setting will look real because it is. The dinosaurs will look like they're in the real world and will be more scary because of it. High budget sci-fi like Avatar should be and will be HFR because it has the budget for stunning settings, and because it's the future, we can't compare it as easily to the contemporary.

[@brett66]

I think something people have to keep in mind is that videgames often use artificial motion blur. The human eye tends to gravitate towards hastily sketched shapes as opposed to meticulously "drawn" ones. I think the question at the core of the debate is often "have we simply been trained by movie history to prefer a lower frame rate?" And for me the answer is a pretty confident no. The lack of "information" between frames is what provides an overall cohesive "image", even if that image is technically in motion. If there's too much visual information I find myself frequently diverted to individual elements within a given frame, regardless of whether that's the intended point of focus. So, I don't think it's necessarily the technology itself, but the resulting effect of one versus another. But then again, I've watched a fair share of movies with other people who didn't even notice or care that the flatscreen had the motion smoothing setting on. I'll mention it and maybe get a mild "oh, yeah, that's kinda weird"... so, who knows.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I disagree.. We have absolutely been trained. Perhaps the first question most young filmmakers shooting 6l30 or 60 video ask is why their videos don't look cinematic... Because part of the cinematic look involves 24 fps.

[@jnvqc]

I 100% agree with you. I just want to clarify something. Frame rates in gaming work differently than in tv/movies, as it is a interactive medium, a two way street, hand eye coordination. A gamer performs an action and expects a reaction. Gaming with a keyboard/mouse at 30 fps after getting used to 60fps is painful, literally physically. The same is not true for video. That's where 120hz comes in play, for "competitive" gaming all else being equal a higher hz screen is an advantage, for the average player perhaps not so much. Linus tech tips has an unfortunately badly produced/edited video on the topic.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I agree 100% with the idea that gaming needs higher frame rate. So does VR, live sports... Do you think that gamers who tell me that movies need to be shot at a higher frame rate would understand my frustration if I in turn told them they need to game at 24fps?

[@JamesLewis2]

@@FilmmakerIQ IMO, speedrunners tend to enjoy games with lower framerates, because that makes frame-perfect tricks easier to perform; also, there are many tricks that involve making the game slow down, introducing "lag frames".

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Yes, I'm sure that weird caveat is exactly how all the CS:GO players feel about high frame rate...

[@JamesLewis2]

@@FilmmakerIQ I just have an unusual perspective: Of course competitive online gaming benefits from high frame-rates.

[@enscroggs]

6:44 In animation it's artificial motion blur which lends verisimilitude to the sequence. Try this experiment - use a digital camera to make a stop-motion animation sequence making sure to keep every shot in perfect focus (you can use Flash or any other amination app). Now play it back. It's jerky, right? It won't matter how high the frame rate you use the presentation of perfect focus in every frame to the eye makes the animation less realistic, not more realistic. One thing that Ray Harryhausen learned early in his career as an animator was the contribution of motion blur to realism. Since all of his work involved what were essentially pose-able sculptures he needed some means to introduce motion blur to a scene without actual motion. In "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" Harryhausen used a fine black thread to move his Rhedosaurus figure slightly while the camera shutter was open, making a slight blur. Get a digital copy of the film and watch the animation sequences frame by frame. You'll see Harryhausen's artificial motion blur, a technique he didn't reveal during his lifetime. Much later Disney released a movie called "Dragonslayer" which featured one of the best stop-motion monsters every filmed, Vermithrax Perjorative. This creation used a post-production digital technique called Go-Motion to introduce motion blur.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Great comment. Everyone bitching to me about motion blur ruining film doesn't realize that it's the glue that holds the illusion together.

[@returnsVoid]

at super-high frame rates like 240 fps on decent gaming monitors and hardware performing real-time transformations of geometry, biological persistence of vision creates that blur. so once you get to frame rates that update fast enough to cause persistence of vision to overlap frames, you can no longer see individual frames. so the argument really becomes invalid. also your brain fills in much of what you 'think' you are seeing. its like having discreet TOXIC software running constantly in your brain. There are people alive who experience the world as 7 temporal blurs per second. that would be too mad! you are 100% spot on for adding fake temporal blur to motion graphics at 60hz or less though. definately :)

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Yeah but you've got to get really high for persistence of vision to kick in and then it's not really motion blur (nothing is moving). But the individual frame limit is down about 12 fps - it's choppy but after 12 you can't pick out one frame for another.

[@sschaem]

its called exposure. The blur come from the infinite motion capture during the exposure time. at 24fps each frame capture the totality of the light exposed on the film/receptor for 1/24 of a second. stop motion / video game capture,render at 1/infinity of the light exposure. Both need trick to emulate the correct exposure for the frame rate at the target playback speed. Modern tricks involve motion vector estimation ... back on topic. 24fps is to long of an exposure to capture action / motion correctly. The result is a blurry mess.

[@TassieLorenzo]

Indeed, motion blur has to be *built in* to the actual frames. That's how it works.

[@GALtoonsAnimation]

"The Cinema is truth 24 times per second." Jean-Luc Godard

[@daj1078]

Only because films were shot at that speed rather than 48, 50, 60, or higher. If they had been shot at a standard 69 FPS, he would have said "The Cinema is truth 69 times per second."

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Yes... that's the point. But they aren't shot higher. That's also the point.

[@bradfield2266]

If films were shot at those speeds, Da J, they would’ve looked like ass and not film.

[@doctordothraki4378]

The one spec that never changes

[@Matt658]

Hi there, nice video! Quick question. What do you think about the stutter and judder on 24fps versus the cinemotion turned on which adds extra frames? I just got a Sony oled tv and it feels to me that the cinemotion turned on which eliminates the stutter and judder. Without it on, I feel like I’m trying to keep up on the content with my eyes which gives me eye fatigue.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Adding extra frames is bad. Instead I'm a fan of black frame insertion. On my Sony OLED I believe it is called "clearness". It's simulates the look of 24 fps when seen in the movie theater and older television sets.

[@Matt658]

@@FilmmakerIQ thank you. Do you put the clearness on? I didn’t really notice a difference with it on but it dimmed the picture.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Yes it dims the picture because it's adding a dark refresh. But there's two benefits. First that helps alleviate the stutter as you are no longer seeing the harsh edges between frames and secondly less bright images look less stuttery (like in a dark movie theater). You need to test it watching some heavy action in 24fps. It preserves the look of 24 while mitigating the artifacts of sample and hold.

[@DiegoVargasEnBici]

I guess this is the best video i've watched about this theme :D I'll keep filming in 24FPS and sometimes 60 for smooth slowmo :D

[@jeddr1]

It seems bizarre to me that everyone considers 24fps outdated. The hobbit released at 48fps clearly showed that people found it looked cheap and uncomfortable. The point of resolution is also a stupid argument, as it’s a well known fact that DoPs use diffusion to soften the image of 4K. With the introduction of 4K sets have had to get far better in quality, as before film or HD would soften out the imperfections, double the frame rate and your going too see a sharper image, thus showing those imperfections more. Film isn’t about capturing an image as clear as possible, it’s about creating an artistic image

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Good points all around. I think with 4K and beyond you also start running into limitations of the lens and motion blur. The moment something moves or is no longer in perfect focus all that resolution is wasted from a viewer's perspective. However there are some advantages in encoding in these higher resolutions.

[@SolarMechanic]

The reason The Hobbit looked "cheap and uncomfortable" wasn't because it was filmed in 48fps. The proof of that is that it still looks that way when viewed at 24fps. The reason for that is that the effects work, mainly the cgi, was of poor quality, considerably worse than the LOTR trillogy which relied more on practical effects. Now, the reason the CGI was so poor was partly, funnily enough, due to being filmed in 48fps. By doubling the ammount of frames being shown they doubled the ammount of frames that needed to be rendered, just short of doubling the time and money needed to do so. If they had upped the budget or relied more on practical effects, the film would have looked better, regardless of how fast it was played back. But due to the infamous issues surrounding the production of The Hobbit, it's entirely unfair to judge the merits of any aspect of cinema based solely on it, but in particular your argument is entirely mistaking correlation for causation. Now, as to your point about resolution... what? Yes, not every film or tv show needs to look perfectly crisp with HDR up the wazoo, but that's not the point. The point is that capturing at higher resolutions gives you more creative control of your image in post so that you can make it look how you want. I don't think you'ld find a filmmaker in the world who would agree with you that it's a shame they're being given more creative control over their productions. You sound like the people who rallied against the introduction of sound in movies back in the 30's. And I wouldn't get too excited that Filmmaker IQ responded to you. As this video and his comments have shown, he will agree with anything that confirms his bias, no matter how little thought has been put into it.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

"My bias" is based on actual experience working with 24 AND 60 (I've produced hours and hours of 60p in the past and 60i before that) with a fair perspective of history, current trends and critical thinking. Feel free to make your own video on the subject.

[@frankvee]

Thank you! Finally someone who understands. Film is art ... and 24 fps makes it look that way.

[@elchicovip01]

Jed Darlington-Roberts Art is not objective. This artistic argument is just not valid.

[@salvatronprime9882]

You could have saved 22 minutes and said "I like 24fps because I like it". There is no actual logic to its use.

[@mychalsimmons4177]

Salvatron Prime Well Said my friend

[@nutsandbolts432]

The logic behind 24 FPS was stated at the end of the video where he said that it comes down to “economics”, basically meaning that it is cheaper in every aspect to film at 24 FPS verses anything higher. Meaning, value / perceived motion is optimal.

[@helsinkirenaissance]

He did say that there's no reason why 24 frames is a better choice than 25 or 23, but the video isn't so much defending the standard of 24 as it is debunking the arguments that those who favor a newer standard would use against 24fps.

[@nutsandbolts432]

You are right, but he did say that 25 fps is used in Europe because their electricity is based on 50hz. He also mentioned that 2, 3, and 4 all go into 24, which might of had something to do with the standardization of 24fps instead of 23 or 22 or some other arbitrary number.

[@erikdumas9873]

While it's not _completely_ logical, there's certainly some logic to it. For one thing, it's a perfectly acceptable frame rate to to trick the mind into seeing smooth motion in most circumstances. For another, it's more economical than higher frame rates. Lastly, we're talking about entertainment. People's preferences impact how they feel about the films and videos they see. So the fact that most people tend to prefer cinematic experiences at 24 fps (regardless of why they may prefer it) is totally relevant to the discussion.

[@pedroarruda7878]

Thank you! Have a nice Xmas and a great New Year.

Kids that talk about high frame rate usually talk about gaming frame rate or frame rate of artificially generated images. And those DO need a high frame rate because they do not (out of the box) have temporal blurring. 1 movie frame at 24 fps actually is 1/24th of a second (hence the blur) 1 CG frame in a game engine (or in a stop motion movie) is usually 1/infinity 'th of a second (hence no blur at all). It is a picture that should not exist. It is a sample of a scene frozen in time. Higher frame rates in Games etc will make the motion smoother because the brain can now see a more uninterrupted motion. Some advanced CG engines do this effect in software already by applying some kind of temporal anti-aliasing by blurring objects based on their relative speed (usually by rendering the object multiple times across a frame at different positions, but without the overhead of re-rendering relatively static parts too) So depending on the source, one can see low frame rates in games but have no issues with low frame rates in a movie.

[@remo1366]

There is a reason Scorsese,Tarantino and Aptow fought to convince Kodak to keep making film so they could continue to shot through celluloid at 24fps. Thank you.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

If you don't shoot Celluloid, you're still shooting 24fps for Cinema and even scripted television

[@peterreynolds3207]

Doctor Strange. The matter folding in doctor strange had a reverse motion effect from the insufficient frame rate in the cinema. 24 is good for most things, but most things is often not good enough. You can also mimic lower frame rates with a higher frame rate machine. The technology IS objectively better. If Netflix cared about bandwidth they would offer resolution controls, the maybe fps. controls.

[@DanWaters73]

Netflix does indeed offer resolution controls in your account settings. It's easy to miss.

[@peterreynolds3207]

@@DanWaters73 i found it. Its just standard or high. Ty

[@TassieLorenzo]

But Netflix want to reduce the bandwidth required to the minimum, not increase it!

[@peterreynolds3207]

@@TassieLorenzo based on what ? It is not Netflix that bears the primary cost of the bandwidth. That is between the user and the ISP. I simply prefer the least amount of bandwidth that i benefit from (KZbin 480p on a phone). Because i share wifi.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

You're only paying for the last mile of internet service.

[@UlrichBeinert]

Thank you for your amazing videos! Another gem... and thanks for the insights into the plywood Enterprise!

[@thelifeofjools8384]

Fabulous tutorial, I learned a lot....thanks man !

[@theonly5001]

Since I haven't read it here before..... Adjusting your Framerate to the rate of your Electricyty Grid has some advantages. Like 30 fps for the US or 25 fps for Europe. Projectors with discharge lamps can adjust the framerate to the powercycle of the powergrid. Then they can get the max brightness of the lamp. That's just the projection side of things... If you look at the recording side, you can synchronize your camera to powergrid frequency and reduce flicker, especially with LED or Discharge lights.....

[@davidhunt240]

The projector runs a xenon arc lamp, it is run off a DC supply, if it is particularly shitty and only has a half-wave rectifier, then it would flicker at 50/60Hz, a full-wave, 100/120Hz or better still (which all projector lamps I've used in the last 20 years) a switch-mode PSU running at 40kHz - the projector lamp is solidly on large lamps use three-phase AC input anyway, so triple those numbers... On a traditional film projector, a shutter provides time for the film to move into position on a film projector, the film curls and snaps into frame very quickly, but this is hidden from the audience by the shutter. For a digital home projector, same applies, DC arc lamp or LED, nothing to do with power frequency, I don't understand your logic as to why the electricity transmission system has anything to do with it. Sounds like someone running a carbon arc lamp off a single phase AC transformer (or even a tungsten lamp - dull as dishwater) - something we haven't done since the late 70s.

[@theonly5001]

A tungsten lamp doesn't flicker nearly as much as a "Standart" Discharge Lamp. the "flicker" of a tunsgten lamp really only starts when you get to like 10 Hz or lower. Before that the temperature doesn't drop too much and you would only see a slight redshift due to the blackbody radiation curve. And if you're in the Live event Industry you see loads of metal-halide lamps and they don't have switching mode PSUs. They only have a rather cheap ballast. Therfore you need to film in the powergrid frequency or otherwise you're going to have rahter extreme amounts of flicker. And on traditional film projectors you have the shutter to assist with another problem not just the flicker from the switching of the frame.

[@flibber123]

My opinion is this is a cart/horse issue. People can't legitimately argue higher framerate is better until such time as movies or tv shows are made which look better in higher framerate than 24fps. The difficulty there is that filmmakers, even the youngest, all grew up consuming 24fps and their artistic eye is forever affected by that. Early movies looked like stage plays because early filmmakers only knew theater, so they made movies in that style. It wasn't until people started experimenting with non stage based techniques that movies became what they are now. I think high framerate is in that same spot. Right now there are no high framerate artists attempting to see what NEW things high framerate allows. All anyone is doing now is the same old thing, just at a higher framerate.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Exactly. Except I wouldn't say it's the same old thing. Because frame rate is not a tool for story telling, it's the medium of which to tell a story. Inside that medium there is an infinite number of stories to tell and we've just brushed the surface.

[@flibber123]

@@FilmmakerIQ By same old thing in this case I meant the same type of visuals. What I mean is, if The Godfather is an influential film to a new filmmaker and this filmmaker wanted to work with 60fps, this filmmaker would probably attempt to do the same kind of visual style just at a higher framerate. That would be a mistake. What filmmakers need to do is throw out everything they know from 24fps visually and start fresh. Figure out what 60fps allows that 24fps doesn't and then use that in their films.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

@@flibber123 Well if you throw everything out -it's not cinema anymore. It's whatever weird thing you create - video art or something. It's a platitude to say "throw everything out" but that doesn't simply doesn't work in the artform. And furthermore I think it basically ignores the true purpose of the artform - to tell stories that connect to the viewer. How many times do you hear people complain about too much cgi and not a good enough story. This focus on high frame rates is just like zeroing in on CGI. Frame rates do not help the viewer make a connection to the characters on the screen

[@mhamma6560]

@@FilmmakerIQ The issue w/ 24p is the lack of displays that can actually show it. Most screens found in homes cannot actually display 24p and it's up-converted to a faster frame rate. That causes various issues of which frames are duplicated. Most of the argument against 24p is because they're not actually viewing it at 24p and something is playing with the true frame rate.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Doesn't matter if you upscale it it is still 24fps

[@RealWolfmanDan]

The Grandpa Simpson quote at the end there totally sold this video for me