24 frames per second when resolution is now 1080p?

Easy.
The speed with which film moves through the gate is.........


TWENTY FOUR FRAMES PER SOCOND

TA-DA!

Many movies are still shot on film (much of Star Trek was).

Look here for how the standard came about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film

quote:

Originally posted by Consciousmess:
I don't understand why they don't record movies in higher frames per second - considering that 3D is the direction things are going in!

Hi,

to me, this really sounds like "we've done it this way for more than a century" etc. We have 600[hz] tv's now, so can't we juste upgrades the cameras?? If you can read french, have a look at James Cameron's point regarding this here. Basically, he's working with Samsung to make 60 frames per second a standard. Oh joy

There's more to it than that. The 24fps actually makes the moving image more "believable" when used for a movie. It contributes to the suspension of belief that is required for someone to really enjoy a work of fiction. If higher frame rates are used, the movie begins to look like a doumentary. I can't really explain the psychology of this, but movies look terrible at higher frame rates. Documentaries look OK, and can even be enhanced by higher rates.

Winky,

I have another point of view. To me, anything that stands between me and the story the directors tells me is disturbing, reminding me that it's only "artificial stuff" I'm watching. When I play a PC game, I like it running at a constant 60 fps (when possible) because I find it more immersive this way. Frame rate drops and stuttering are inexistant in real life after all! Although I enjoy watching movies in pure 24p mode (by fear of any video artifac created by upsampling etc), I know I'd really enjoy a native 60 (or 48 or 72) fps movie. It just seems more immersive to me.

Yep, there are aesthetic reasons for why 24fps is the standard for movies. We've all gotten used to 24fps representing quality and professionalism. It's also probably a good compromise between the amount of film they'd have to buy and transport for a movie, the film roll size older projectors could handle and a smooth image. Theater projectors actually refresh at 72fps but only change the image every three frames.

quote:

Originally posted by {OdS}:
Winky,

I have another point of view. To me, anything that stands between me and the story the directors tells me is disturbing, reminding me that it's only "artificial stuff" I'm watching. When I play a PC game, I like it running at a constant 60 fps (when possible) because I find it more immersive this way. Frame rate drops and stuttering are inexistant in real life after all! Although I enjoy watching movies in pure 24p mode (by fear of any video artifac created by upsampling etc), I know I'd really enjoy a native 60 (or 48 or 72) fps movie. It just seems more immersive to me.

Movies can definitely be "too real". At high frame rates the actors look like actors on a set; i.e. they look like what they REALLY are, not like the characters they are portraying. With movies, there is an underlying reality that you DON'T want to see. You want to see the story, not the moviemaking.

For video games, the nature of the images is different. They are real-time rendered CGI and don't (yet) look too real. There actually is no underlying reality to be masked. The blistering frame rates help by keeping everything together during fast paced panning and movement whilst playing. Having said that, 24fps is far from "stuttering". If you are really seeing frame rate drops or stuttering, I'd suggest that you are seeing far slower rates for brief periods, although your average frame rate may well be high. The 24fps in movies is ALWAYS 24fps with no variation.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
Movies can definitely be "too real". At high frame rates the actors look like actors on a set; i.e. they look like what they REALLY are, not like the characters they are portraying. With movies, there is an underlying reality that you DON'T want to see. You want to see the story, not the moviemaking.

Ok I see your point here! We are supposed to see the "avatar", not the actor himself. I'll agree on that, although, in a perfect world, acting and directing should completely mask the underlying reality, but that's another story I guess!

quote:

Having said that, 24fps is far from "stuttering". If you are really seeing frame rate drops or stuttering, I'd suggest that you are seeing far slower rates for brief periods, although your average frame rate may well be high. The 24fps in movies is ALWAYS 24fps with no variation.

Well, the frame rate may be constant, but not the effect. In fast moving scenes and in case of camera travelling, 24 fps is clearly limited, while it's good enough for static scenes. Therefore, the visual experience varies during the movie, limitating the immersion. But that's just my opinion of course

I've done some graphics and animation hand drawn and computer, 24 is a standard and hand drawn we had to click 2 frames for each image. I didn't on my first try and it just flashed past. I had really basic figures because the teacher said you have to draw a lot of them. Next week in class 2 numbnuts behind me were going over a complex Ninja figure one drew and I heard him realize "Oh no I have to draw this 24 times to get 2 seconds of motion? No way dude". It's a pisser when you don't pay attention and plan ahead. LOL

I used Muybridge's still figure studies, neat and already paced out. The teacher was all about hand done animation as better than "computer" done. Computer teachers were all about exploring new media and making it stylish. Both left out story and reason. I really enjoyed After Effects tho.

Human eye can see a lot of detail but when it comes to motion film you have to find some sort of medium where going beyond is too much overload. I know everyone is into high numbers and detail, computers can do so much more but how would you like to heft a 50# reel on a projector and have it last maybe 10 minutes.

Some day I'm sure there will be a true integration of 3D or an art installation in a museum where you basically walk thru a painting/sculpture projected, it's all blending now..... um I think I gotta get to the drawing board and surf that wave. MOCA show, Mudwolf Exhibition, then Tate, Berlin, Tokyo and last New York.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
Having said that, 24fps is far from "stuttering". If you are really seeing frame rate drops or stuttering, I'd suggest that you are seeing far slower rates for brief periods, although your average frame rate may well be high. The 24fps in movies is ALWAYS 24fps with no variation.

No no. 24fps is definitely stuttering. That's why movies are refreshed at 72fps. If they were truly 24fps, audiences would see horrible flicker, possibly get sick and leave the theater.

quote:

Originally posted by Naijeru:

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
Having said that, 24fps is far from "stuttering". If you are really seeing frame rate drops or stuttering, I'd suggest that you are seeing far slower rates for brief periods, although your average frame rate may well be high. The 24fps in movies is ALWAYS 24fps with no variation.

No no. 24fps is definitely stuttering. That's why movies are refreshed at 72fps. If they were truly 24fps, audiences would see horrible flicker, possibly get sick and leave the theater.

I have to disagree. If a 72fps movie shows 3 identical copies of each frame, to fill the same time as a 24fps frame, then the only difference is that the 72fps version has very short blackout (but virtually/completely un-noticeable) interruptions to the image twice per frame when compared to the native 24fps version. Unless there is interpolation being performed (like my TV does if I leave the completely unwatchable "TrueMotion/Motionflow" option turned on).

I agree with {Ods} that 24fps shows it limitations on fast panning and action, but the overall outcome for 24fps movies is still much better compared to watching higher framerates. All in my opinion, of course.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
I have to disagree. If a 72fps movie shows 3 identical copies of each frame, to fill the same time as a 24fps frame, then the only difference is that the 72fps version has very short blackout (but virtually/completely un-noticeable) interruptions to the image twice per frame when compared to the native 24fps version.

That's precisely the point. 72fps smooths out the image so that viewers are not distracted by the slower framerate. If the blackout were every 24th of a second, you'd definitely notice it and describe it as "stuttering." Without the flicker, 24fps is very enjoyable and fast enough for most circumstances. The movies is still actually shown at 24fps, there aren't three identical images for each frame in the reel. Instead the projector flashes twice per frame.

I agree that only videogames and sports broadcasts are served well by high framerates.

quote:

Originally posted by Naijeru:
That's precisely the point. 72fps smooths out the image so that viewers are not distracted by the slower framerate. If the blackout were every 24th of a second, you'd definitely notice it and describe it as "stuttering." Without the flicker, 24fps is very enjoyable and fast enough for most circumstances. The movies is still actually shown at 24fps, there aren't three identical images for each frame in the reel. Instead the projector flashes twice per frame.

Maybe you are confusing refresh rate and frames per second here. Getting 72 fps from a 24 fps movie would require the hardware to process additional frames in order to create 3 distinct images per second. My TV shows 24 fps movies at 72[Hz], which means every image is repeated 3 times in order to allow the refresh rate of the screen to be sufficiently high.

I'm not confusing anything; televisions and movie projectors work entirely differently. A television must repeat each frame of a 24fps movie three times to make up its 72hz refresh rate, but a projector doesn't have to. It can keep each image static for three frames while cycling its shutter to create an effective 72fps display.

quote:

Originally posted by Naijeru:
I'm not confusing anything; televisions and movie projectors work entirely differently. A television must repeat each frame of a 24fps movie three times to make up its 72hz refresh rate, but a projector doesn't have to. It can keep each image static for three frames while cycling its shutter to create an effective 72fps display.

Which is quite obvious when you think about it Thanks for the info.

There is another thing to consider. 1080p at 60Hz is 2.5x the amount of data to store. Whilst storage is increasing year on year, you also have to think of the medium to transmit the data. Broadcast HD - e.g. BBC HD is generally 1440x1080i at 50 Hz (equivalent to 1440x1080p 25Hz) and the 1440 is used as it saves some bandwidth without harming the images too much. Broadcast has limited bandwidth - and bandwidth costs.

Yet another thing to consider is that the chips to do all this are only just starting to support 1080p50/1080p60. You sometimes have to wait for technology to catch up you know

And in a given bandwidth in these days of MPEG2 and H.264 compression 24fps means that each frame can be better quality (more bits available).