View Full Version : Say goodbye to 24fps?

12-11-2012, 02:12 AM
It is real interesting.


Not sure if you have to sign up to see this, so my apology if so.

Just food for thought. Interesting how tech is always pushing forward. I do wonder though, if 24 fps will eventually be reduced to a small group of cine-enthusiasts who refuse to watch anything digital much less more than 24 frms and can be found at the same social clubs with still photographers who still process their own B&W prints in the garage.

It could happen.

But more important. How long will it take before these technologies impact the content we are required to produce?

I am not sure if we are ready or willing to accept how fast this may happen at the rate things are going.

And clearly, this will be argued till the end of time from all of the angles.

12-11-2012, 02:19 AM
so far, I'm not impressed with high frame rates in films. Sports, its ace.

The main thing is with tech in films, if your story is ***, then it doesnt matter how many bells and whistles you put on there. I'd rather watch an amazing narraitve, compelling characters and master ful storytelling on super 8 film at 15fps than Avatar again (thats a dig at 3d rather than high fps as it took 7 years to write THAT story).


So, I don't 24fps will be left for nerds. It has a soft, dreamy quality that helps in escapism.

12-11-2012, 06:12 AM
lol on the Avitar thing. Love that. Exactly my reaction, really, to just about every point - when I first saw the film. But we as 3D artists will have to embrace that which is demanded of us, be it HD, 4K hfr, whatever.

And this is a situation I think to look out for and watch. Because things are not stopping for us to sit back and enjoy the fact that we can finally push HD frames across the desktop in real time, and have enough CPU and or GPU, RAM and so on to render frames without a farm - finally. Because the envelope will always be pushed.

I think we are in a very unique time where this new technology is going to start spinning out of control. It till take time. But you sit back and rest on it, it will move fast beyond what you have prepared for.

Just take an example. Say you are a producer planning to go into production on a 3D animated feature. It will take you 3 years to complete. Modestly, assuming you have all the elements in place to get a green light. Now you have to watch this carefully. What will the technical expectations be in 3 years from now? It is a factor to watch I think. And it may have more of an impact than you plan.

Of course none of this has anything to do with story. But film distribution is a fickle business. And if exhibitors and distributors start seeing the numbers on people coming out to see new technology, this could dramatically impact the distribution of your final work.

Now assuming you are not a producer and work as a freelancer for productions or in any capacity in FX. This can all trickle down to even you. I don't know. I just think you have to watch and look for trends no matter what.

12-11-2012, 05:31 PM
Interesting article, and no sign-up necessary here.

All envelopes will always be pushed. So 48 fps is probably an eventual certainty in some quarters. Personally, I despise 30fps, as it looks like "video" to me. I still like 24 fps, probably mostly because it looks like "film," and for me, the render times are already horrific, so ... LOL! 48 will only happen here when it becomes a necessity. Conversely, remember BetaMax, as opposed to its crippled cousin, VHS? The infrastructure and investment required for even 48 to become ubiquitous will be significant. As the Western economy continues to crumble, only time will tell what is affordable, and what becomes "necessary" for survival. Lack of resources can be as much a "disruptive technology" as higher frame rates.

However, the "detail" aspect of Rob Engle's observation about The Hobbit could really push the theater experience farther toward "being there." -- 48-fps GAMES, anyone? :D

It's a timely subject. Thanks for posting.

12-12-2012, 10:15 AM
BetaMax died for two reason.
1) Sony tried to keep full control of it, not allowing other manufacturers of the media or devices which kept the price of the systems and media artificially high
2) Like the Bluray vs HDDVD competition... BetaMax didn't let p0rn onto their media (just like HDDVD) and, well, I guess that kills a huge amount of possible business... heheh.

12-12-2012, 10:30 AM
2) Like the Bluray vs HDDVD competition... BetaMax didn't let p0rn onto their media (just like HDDVD) and, well, I guess that kills a huge amount of possible business... heheh.

This actually is a sore point with me. Not the porn part, but the BluRay "winning" over HDDVD. I was pulling for HDDVD because it had STANDARDS. Every player could play every disk, to my knowledge. BluRay on the other hand, when introduced to the market, could only be guaranteed to play on the PS2. WTF? The "best" BluRay player on the market wasn't a dedicated BluRay player but a game console?

BluRay didn't provide anything superior in image quality only a bigger number when talking about disk capacity. And movies even in HD didn't fill up the smaller HDDVD disks. The rest is just that "BluRay Live" crap and similar tripe. Too few disks are packed with awesome interesting content. They dredge up a bunch of "filler".

Truth is HDDVD was going toe-to-toe with BluRay and didn't lose as a standard as much as they got out manuvered in market alliances. HDDVD "died" the day Wal Mart said they were discontiuing sales. Had Wal Mart held out, HDDVD could have become the next VHS as it would have been sold in massive numbers to lower income families.

Trust me, even though I have a respectable BluRay collection, I still see red whenever I have to do a firmware update because they keep changing the standards for th disks.

BUT, Back on topic. I think I have said pretty much all I have to say about frame rates vs. resolution in the thread about 4K. Higher resolutions and faster frame rates mean more data. Data that I don't believe can be accomodated in the current infrastructure of communications. To shoe horn this much content into the system will require compression. And, to me, this defeats the intent which is to improve the experience.

I don't know that the major companies can justify replacing their entire systems without HUGE price increases that the market will not likely bear. Would you pay double your cable bill to see 4K or HFR content on your 500 channels?

12-12-2012, 11:58 AM
It is an interesting article!
Although i am not convinced by the idea of high frame rates in films!

12-12-2012, 12:19 PM
Haven't some people been reporting nausea after watching 48fps?

12-12-2012, 12:50 PM
Haven't some people been reporting nausea after watching 48fps?

I think that has more to do with conditioning. It's motion sickness. Same kind of thing happened when motion pictures first came out. Same thing when IMax first rolled around. Same with this I'm sure. Hyper-realism combined with camera moves is bound to result in this kind of thing to those that are prone to car-sickness and whatnot.

It isn't like the headaches people reported after 3D however. I'm reasonably sure that has to with your eyes and the percieved depth vs actual depth discrepancy.

12-14-2012, 11:09 AM

4K resolution coming!!!!!

48 frames per second!!!!

3D twice frame rendering!!!!

No matter how fast processors are, we will always need renderfams!

12-14-2012, 01:36 PM
As technology advances, the demands placed on it just keep growing. Net result, no real change in time spent doing the things (movies don't get made faster, research papers take as long to gather data, etc...)

12-14-2012, 02:52 PM
I think this is a move by the hard drive manufacturers. :)

BTW, back in the film days I'd sometimes crank the film very fast, and it definitely acquired a certain depth and immediacy it didn't have at 24fps. Very odd to see, almost 3D.

I bet 48fps FILM looks scrumptious. 48fps video, ehhh, not so much I'd wager. And it's ALL 'video' now. :(

12-14-2012, 03:09 PM
I say it's about freaking time. 24fps seems so arbitrary... In the digital age we should have a nice even number, like 60fps. Games have been shooting for that for a long time.

12-14-2012, 04:06 PM
You konw that game cinematics have been made at 60fps? Because I find this doubtful. (Sorry) And 60frames refresh rates for gameplay don't count.

24 frames may seem arbitrary but testing was done to find the lowest acceptable frame rate. Why the lowest? To keep production and distribution costs at a minimum. I think the US early on was using 24 but Europe was using 20.

Similarly, 48 frames is not an arbitrary number. It is a number that is a compromise between the 60frames Showscan level of realism but is easily translated backwards to 24 frames for global distribution. Not everyone in the world is using digital projectors yet and movies are a global concern. In some cases movies foreign markets may be the salvation of a movie that bombs in the US (like JOHN CARTER).

The argument about film vs video frame rates doesn't make any sense to me. When you speed film up and it loses the motion blur of 24fps people say it begins to look like "video". But people watch 24frames video now and don't know they aren't watching film. The look of film is tied to frame rate, resolution, color gamut, the fact that it is light being passed through celluloid, the strength of the lamp in relation to the distance between the projector and screen....

Even Trumbull says that light levels on these digital projection systems aren't bright enough to complete the look. Can't even get some theaters to take the 3D lenses off when they are showing 2D films. Which is cutting the light levels in half of what they should be.

Nothing about this movement is arbitrary or "willy-nilly". But the first steps will scrutinized to compare profit and public acceptance to see if this will become the de-facto standard or just another gimmic.

12-18-2012, 04:04 AM
Another article on the subject:


12-19-2012, 11:40 AM
a Hobbit 48fps review >

12-19-2012, 01:08 PM
but but but.... won't that just come out in the usual YTube 15fps?