48 fps! — Page 2

Yes, very interesting post zombie. I've never thought of it before, but that does make sense, now that I think about it. 

So, yeah, if I decide that I still prefer 24 fps, I'll own up to it and say that it's because I'm used to it. 

There's really only one argument that I can pose as to why less realistic might be better. If you were to watch a movie, shown at a very high framerate, and in 3D, I would assume that it would almost look like it was right there, like it wasn't actually a picture. While I think it's cool that an effect like that could be achieved, that's not always what I want when I'm watching a film. When I watch a film, I'm watching a story. It's not real. Movies aren't real, they're make believe. So, to me, watching a film at 24 fps kind of keeps that storytelling aspect in check. I'm trying to think of a good analogy, but I can't really at the moment. I hope you understand my meaning anyway.

Thanks, yeah, that's kind of what I meant.

Why shoot colour, when you can shoot black and white?

But no one does this. I love black and white, and hoarded a lot of Kodak's 35mm bw stock when they were getting rid of it. Films like The Man Who Wasn't There show that you can shoot good black and white films today.

They just aren't realistic. They are self-consciously stylized. And they aren't popular.

I feel like that is how "flat" films (non 3D) or "blurry" films (24fps) will be seen in the future. Much like we have "silent" films. Isn't that label judgemental? Why call them silent, when we should really be calling all the rest "talkies", since those came second? But that's the way the progression goes.

DominicCobb said:

Yes, very interesting post zombie. I've never thought of it before, but that does make sense, now that I think about it. 

So, yeah, if I decide that I still prefer 24 fps, I'll own up to it and say that it's because I'm used to it. 

There's really only one argument that I can pose as to why less realistic might be better. If you were to watch a movie, shown at a very high framerate, and in 3D, I would assume that it would almost look like it was right there, like it wasn't actually a picture. While I think it's cool that an effect like that could be achieved, that's not always what I want when I'm watching a film. When I watch a film, I'm watching a story. It's not real. Movies aren't real, they're make believe. So, to me, watching a film at 24 fps kind of keeps that storytelling aspect in check. I'm trying to think of a good analogy, but I can't really at the moment. I hope you understand my meaning anyway.

You would probably object to 14 FPS, silent black and white films being made all the time though. I mean, if it suited the film sure. But what kind of story is suited to that? It's hard to pin down. When you dream, it's in colour, has depth and runs at over-24fps, just like real life. It also has more resolution than 16mm.

This is another thing. Why was 35mm chosen as the standard? You guessed it. Money. If there was no money involved, everyone would be shooting at 65mm. But they aren't, 35mm became the standard for the same reason 24FPS became the standard--it was realistic enough, but also cheap enough. If you wanted to get cheap you could film in 16mm, but until the indie scene this was not an option, and that 16mm indie scene only last 25 years anyway before digital options surpassed it.

We all want a heightened realism in our movies. But the standards we have--whether sound, picture resolution, frame rate, or anything else--film sets aren't realistic, but we accept them as cost solutions--are always a trade off between cost and effect. With CG, we have gotten rid of a lot of the physical set limitations. We can also create sound that isn't there. We added colour to black and white emulsions. And now we are finally achieving that extra depth--three dimensions and real life motion. Movies will still be larger than life and unrealistic, they will just be more believable, more inherantly acceptable. Unless you want to make a statement--like The Artist did.

1990osu said:

^^Here's a good analogy: Why do a painting when you can just take the same picture with an HD camera?

This is a great point. Photography killed the painting industry. It still survives, but instead of owning the entire visual medium, now it is only one part--an expensive, specialty part. Have you ever bought a painting from an artist? Not a lithograph--that's just a reproduction, and applies equally to film, or illustration or painting. You could buy a $1200 painting--or buy a $200 litho. Almost everyone alive does not own any orginal paintings. If they own anything it is a lithograph--a photograph of a painting. The reason being, once photography came around there was no point. Why spend a month's paycheque when you can get a photo or a litho for a fraction of the price? So it became a speciality collectors thing that almost no one today truely supports.

So I guess what you're trying to say is, whether we like it or not, 24 fps is going away?

Well, that's too bad. Really a shame too. Black and white is a good example. I absolutely love black and white cinematography, and I hate that studios avoid it like the plague.

It's not going away, forever. It just will no longer be the standard. Eventually.

I love film. I was a cameraman in the International Cinematographer's Guild. I'm also very young--I was always "the kid" on set--and I made a name for myself as a film guy. Not a video guy, but a young guy who knew about film. When I was working it was the turnover between film and digital and I hated video, because it wasn't ready. It is now, so my opinion has changed. But I still love, love film. I have a whole box full of 16mm and 35mm raw stock short-ends that I was saving for my own projects that have now become expired, but I never had the heart to throw them out. And I love black and white. I worked as a lighting cameraman, and I saw thing in light and shadow, not colour, and would light that way. That's why I love a lot of films from the 1920s like Sunrise. That's also why I hoarded a lot of Kodak b&w film when they were phasing it out. I still buy issues of Black and White Photography, but many of the examples aren't on film--and it doesn't matter. That both pains and joys me. Digital photography today is essentially indistinguishable. So what are we mourning? Our emotional attachment. And no one was more attached to that than me. I still have reels of undeveloped black and white 35mm motion picture 400 foot spools that will never be used, because I am old fashioned.

But I also recognize that being old fashioned is not an excuse to get in the way of improving the medium. 35mm photography may remain a niche hobby for the time being, but it's purely an emotional thing, and therefore to me "highly illogical." If there is no distinguishable difference between the digital equivalent, then what are we holding on to? It was kind of a sad day when I realized that--but it was also so overwhelming exciting, that for a fraction of the cost anyone could anywhere do the same thing that was concentrated in the hands of a few elite--that I couldn't help but tell film to fuck right off and not to look back, emotional as it was. It still has its uses--archival, for example, since digital storage is still rocky--but in terms of pure photography? No. Sorry. Film is a dinosaur. And I never, ever thought I'd be saying that in the year 2012. 2020, maybe. But things have progressed so fast that really, it has increasingly little use, unless you have unlimited millions of dollars to throw at it--and even then, maybe not.

1990osu said:

zombie84 said:

The reason being, once photography came around there was no point.

*sigh* [(TM) warbler]

zombie84 said:

Why spend a month's paycheque when you can get a photo or a litho for a fraction of the price?

Because the painting is objectively better?  Because it has texture and it looks differently depending on the lighting in the room because different light reflects off of the texture in different ways- you don't just get one sterile, perfect experience that is standardized for everyone.  Just like movies on film-every showing is a unique event that requires people in the audience, a skilled projectionist, etc. If there's considered no difference between paintings and photos, why go to an art gallery at all?  If there's considered no difference between viewing film and watching the digital movie on your cell phone, why go to the movies at all?  Isn't this a massive mistake?

Digital cell-phone? Sure. But the difference between a high end digital motion picture camera and a 35mm motion picture camera is practically non-existant. Usually if there is a difference, it's a deliberate one--digital could look the same as film, and often does, but when it doesn't it's because they don't care to replicate that look exactly. High-end digital looks truer to real life in 2012, and while in the past we resisted that because it looked "different" than film, now that we are used to it, it is being used more openly.

It's a false analogy to compare oil paints to photography. Movies are photography, it's the exact same device and quality between your 1980s photos of the family vacation and a Hollywood movie at the time. But no film, anywhere has looked like an oil painting. Even Waking Life. Let's compare apples to apples. It's like saying, does Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo look like the original swedish version of the film? Because that was shot on 35mm film. There are stylistic decisions. But it would be idiotic to say the Swedish version looks like an oil painting and Fincher's looks like a digital still. Quite the opposite--I would say Fincher's was more painterly and beautiful. These are the types of emotional-based arguments that don't make much sense and only serve to underline the point I am making. Digital looks like film if you want it to, but increasingly people have been making the choice to abandon that option and instead make it look more realistic--and also just as beautiful.

Well, I added this bit before you responded:

"It's a false analogy to compare oil paints to photography. Movies are photography, it's the exact same device and quality between your 1980s photos of the family vacation and a Hollywood movie at the time. But no film, anywhere has looked like an oil painting. Even Waking Life. Let's compare apples to apples. It's like saying, does Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo look like the original swedish version of the film? Because that was shot on 35mm film. There are stylistic decisions. But it would be idiotic to say the Swedish version looks like an oil painting and Fincher's looks like a digital still. Quite the opposite--I would say Fincher's was more painterly and beautiful. These are the types of emotional-based arguments that don't make much sense and only serve to underline the point I am making. Digital looks like film if you want it to, but increasingly people have been making the choice to abandon that option and instead make it look more realistic--and also just as beautiful."

And no. Sorry. Raiders could be shot 90% the same looking with a digital camera today--if they wanted to. But people don't. You could achieve the same effect. It's not the technology--it's a matter of taste. Crystal Skull was shot on 35mm film and look how that looked! That alone proves the matter overstated.

You are right. They haven't used the same lights, and lenses.

But if they did, you would be fooled. They don't so, it looks similar--but not the same. This is not a limit of digital optics. This is a practical limit of how far people are going to go to faithful recapture that. And the answer is: not far enough. But if they wanted to, they could.

Also: yes, that sucks that "star wars" might be thought of a "flat" or "blurry". But does it not bother you that Nosferatu and Sunrise are thought of as "silent" and "black and white"? If not, then it should. Otherwise you are calling the kettle black. Change sometimes is a bitch. But hey, fucking Star Wars is now called A New Hope, so we should be well adjusted to that.