24p is overrated

[Glenn Chan]

Along the same lines... I wonder if there is a scientific/natural reason why we might prefer one frame rate over another? I've heard that 60i is more like how our vision actually works. Perhaps this is why video has "real" feel to it. Anyone have any scientific/physiological info on this?

One thing you should watch out for is what you are watching the images on. On a TV or a computer monitor (CRT), motion looks different. For example, when you watch a thin 1-pixe/scanline horizontal line on a TV set, you will see it flicker. On the large screen you don't see that happen. This might be because the image is flashed 48 times a second versus 29.97.

On CRTs, you also perceive things differently because the electron beam that is hitting the monitor is moving really quickly. Your eye is more sensitive to flicker when the light source is moving. You can test this out on a computer CRT by setting the refresh rate to 60hz and then 72hz. You should be able to tell the difference (60hz likely causes eye strain). What's interesting is that a computer screen flashes an image 60 times a second and you can see that it looks bad, but film flashes an image 48 times a second and it looks fine.

"According to psychology, people can only notice so many things at once. A quick proof of this is to visit the following website and see if you can spot the real penny out of 16 drawings."

[...]
All the penny test proves is that most people don't commit the configuration of coin engravings to memory.

It's evidence that people can only notice so many things at once (assuming that to remember something, you have to pay attention to it). Suppose the opposite was true: People notice many/inifinite things at once. If that were true, you'd be able to spot the real penny drawing.

And, as for only being able to "notice so many things at once," I would argue that what people "notice" (i.e., consciously perceive) is not very much as significant as what they perceive subconsciously

You know... it shouldn't be hard to do an experiment comparing 24p versus 30p/60i. You could measure the effect of frame rate on viewer's interpretations of the footage (i.e. how good the movie is, does it look like film or video, does it look surreal/dreamy or realistic, etc.).

I've haven't tried that myself. A double blind A/B comparison would be a reasonable test/experiment.

[Robert Knecht Schmidt]

"You know... it shouldn't be hard to do an experiment comparing 24p versus 30p/60i. You could measure the effect of frame rate on viewer's interpretations of the footage (i.e. how good the movie is, does it look like film or video, does it look surreal/dreamy or realistic, etc.)."

IMO the experiment would have to be framed differently, since the questions you propose polling demand superliminal conscious notice and evaluation. A more fruitful test would be to record and analyze the EEGs of a variety of test subjects over different periods of watching projected movies in theaters, watching CRT televisions, LCD displays, etc. for a broad range of content.

I'm sure there's a paper or two out there in the literature, but Google doesn't find it easily.

Your argument seems not to be willing to acknowledge that that our sensory input can affect us without us noticing; that most of our processing is done extraconsciously, most especially, that part which constitutes our emotional core and which psychologists sometimes refer to as "blind affectivity."

[Glenn Chan]

I do agree that our senses can affect us without "noticing" (noticing as in being consciously aware of it). However, we should only be concerned with relevant, real world things. The experiment you propose may be of interest to academics, but to filmmakers it is not very useful. It would be useful to see if frame rate affects the audience's interpretation/perception of the movie for things like surrealness/dreaminess vs real looking, how good the movie is, etc. These things can be relevant to filmmakers.

It might be that watching movies in 24p vs 60i puts you in a different state of mind/consciousness that watching a movie on a TV set does (in the kind of way that drugs, hypnosis, etc. put you in a different state of mind/consciousness). But even in that case, we should be trying to find useful information out of that. i.e. what effect alcohol, caffeine, and/or LSD have on your enjoyment of a movie.

There are also others things that can affect you without you being consciously aware of it. i.e. You may see going to a cinema to see a film to be an activity where you can get away from life. Or if the film is a comedy, you may like it more when everyone around you is laughing (this is the argument for laugh tracks for sitcoms).

2- Going back to the original topic (24p is overrated), perhaps we should ask ourselves why we want to shoot 24p before going ahead and doing it.

Suppose the goal is to make a movie more "cinematic", dream-like, or immersive. Things you may want to consider are:
A- Does shooting 24p help you reach your goal. Some people may find that the motion is disturbing when the camera is panning and the footage viewed on a TV set. This may draw you out of the movie. For most shots, most people may have a hard time telling the difference between 24p and 30p and 60i. I personally find I have a difficult time telling the difference unless I'm specifically looking for telltale signs and the shot has lots of motion in it. If people cannot perceive the different then this probably isn't very effective. With research it shouldn't be that hard to answer this.
B- If you are limited by budget, perhaps there are more effective ways to reach your goal.
Better lighting
Soft focus
Shooting with slow shutters. With certain motion blur plug-ins, you can create unnaturally high amounts of motion blur- which might work well.
Turning down excessive edge sharpening and dealing with video artifacts.
shallow depth of field
shooting 16:9 (also overrated IMO)
controlling colours (i.e. The movie Amelie is a great example of this, although the effect may be expensive to achieve. I believe the actors had their faces painted white so it would be easier to color correct to get the right look. Also, a lot of graffiti was digitally removed.)

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Obviously, all this interesting conversation has forgot a couple of few points about 24p:

Better quality DVD's (less frames to compress, better bit-rates).

Better compatability with progressive scan DVD players and TV's (which expect 24fps with pulldown).

Faster CGI, mattes, composites and 3D elements (less frames, big deal for 3D renders and post work)

Better motion blur (1/24 and 1/48th shutters are natural, not electonic slow shutter.

[Michael Sinclair]

I am a newbie. I am just beginning to learn about all of the various film techniques and styles. Is there a good online glossary? I just ordered an Optura 300 since it got good reviews for an amatuer camera. I know that it is not a 24P camera but I should have fun with the kids, the camera and some good editing programs. I have Adobe Premiere and am dying to learn how to use it.

[Andreas Winkler]

I really don't understand the hype around 24p.

Everytime when I sit in a cinema and watch a movie it's so terrible to see a fast panning scene or huge objects passing by. All this stumbling, no smooth motion...
Then I just wish that movie makers and cinemas would go with time and not stand still at techniques used decades ago! IMAX 48fps is a good step forward!

I hope at least the upcoming generation of HDTV equipment will change the "24p-thinking". A 30p/60p/60i movie would solve many problems, anyway, perhaps create new ones too.

I just say be happy with your smooth 50 or 60Hz interlaced footage, as probably more than 95% of DV video material will be shown on ordinary TV sets only! And they are PAL or NTSC... 50i/60i.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Andreas:

While they day may come that people think 50i/60i is narrative film language, we are a long way from that.

Plus, interlaced is just plain ugly and resolution eater and pain to deal with in post.

A better world might be 30p or 50p or 60p - but right now audiences dont' respond to 60p like they do 24p. Showscan experiments by Douglas Trumball revealed this.

Of course things change, but this one will be gradual. And 24fps is the standard of all film distribution in the world right now. That will take a very long time to change. PAL/NTSC will have to go away to make that change happen.

[Andreas Winkler]

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren :

Plus, interlaced is just plain ugly and resolution eater and pain to deal with in post.

A better world might be 30p or 50p or 60p - but right now audiences dont' respond to 60p like they do 24p. Showscan experiments by Douglas Trumball revealed this. -->>>

Oh, how much I'd like to take part in such experiments!! ;)
It must be great to experience 60p on big screen.

I disagree that interlaced footage is "plain ugly" and "resolution eater". I like the smoother picture flow for now, as there in no alternative. Of course 50p/60p would be.
OK, agreed, some issues in post are really pain.

Let's HDTV take over this world quickly and PAL/NTSC "go away"!

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Let me clarify 60i vs 60p - 60i is just plain ugly compared to true progressive scan. I don't of anyone who would chose 60i over 60p unless the needed the look of 60i for some purpose.

[Andreas Winkler]

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren : Let me clarify 60i vs 60p - 60i is just plain ugly compared to true progressive scan. I don't of anyone who would chose 60i over 60p unless the needed the look of 60i for some purpose. -->>>

Yes, of course 60p is much better than 60i if you could choose between these!
But can you? Which "normal priced" equipment does 60p these days?? Not even real progressive 30fps is easy to find!
So that's why I say I still prefer 50/60i over 25/30p.

[Dennis Vogel]

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Sinclair : I am a newbie. I am just beginning to learn about all of the various film techniques and styles. Is there a good online glossary? -->>>

http://www.imdb.com/Glossary/

Good luck.

Dennis Vogel