Why is 24fps cinematic

I even researched the history of frame rates and I know they started out that way to save tape media, but those days are long gone. Motion simply isn't smooth if it is not shot at Somehow Hollywood gets away with it, maybe its their post processing, their camera equipment, etc.

I have also watched a lot of videos on frame rates and they describe the problems that occur when you shoot in Even with Hollywood, playing a movie straight from a DVD, there's been scenes that were hard for me to watch because the frames appeared to be stuttering.

So am I the only one that thinks this way? Is it something with H. SteveV4D 9 posts. Jay60p 10 posts. January No offence taken! I've played with shutter angle and waving my hand on front of my face and I've gotten a sense of how 24p is different to reality. The subjective experience for me is that 24p. Because some dead French men of the XIX century and his pals made a bunch of experiments proyecting 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23 FPS.

Then they arrived at 24 FPS an. For me it takes the edge of of reality. Assumptions and biases are made. I see that too. A mantra, repeating what they heard. Cinema Look Pull Down 3: 2. I understand the o shutter for the rotating reflex camera, but today it is no longer necessary, the blur drag is not too bad compared to what it offers in quality of movement, not to mention increased exposure, when necessary.

Funny how perception and difference coexist amongst the human race, distinct periods of life, backgrounds, etc Cinema is a lie told 24 frames-per-second; it doesn't matter what Godard thought ; Irreal, a replaced, pictured reality as alternative is everything we want when we suspend our own disbelief E ;-.

I think it just boils down to what people are used to. When I watch a film that isn't 24fps its jarring. For better or worse, it's the "standard. That translates to others in the video world wanting to film in 24 fps because they think it's more "cinematic" even if they're just YouTubers in their "studio" aka converted guest room.

The jittering you're noticing might be related to shutter speed more than frame rate? A lot of YouTubers leave their exposure on auto or will set it to aperture priority blurry backgrounds! There are other reasons too why their footage might look jittery, like filming at Usually though I don't notice 24 fps issues with a lot of the people that I watch that film in it. It is kinda silly though when you think about grown men in their guest bedrooms talking to a camera being worried about whether their videos look "cinematic.

Most of my work is Human vision blurs while watching fast action or moving your gaze in real life. When I watch 60fps, it strikes me as much less natural--too fast and sharp to feel like natural vision. Not to mention you'll never get a high frame rate movie distributed unless you're a big deal, and even then I think maybe it is a combination of frame rate and shutter speed when filming in 24FPS, but the thing is, I've never noticed jittering at 30FPS.

Here is an example, great looking video until the s mark where it goes from being very nice to a jittery mess on my screen. Every single time a video that I'm watching starts becoming unwatchable to me due to stutter and I go in and check the frame rate it is always 24FPS, and in my own testing with the proper shutter angle and 24FPS the footage just didn't look as good to me so years ago I decided to never film in 24FPS unless a client specified it.

And what people seem to be most used to and comfortable with in the UK today is 24fps. It offers the most compatibility with digital cinemas and Blu-ray without needing frame rate conversion. Some cinemas can play 25fps DCPs , and Blu-rays support 25fps in a 50i wrapper which might not play in a lot of US machines, but 24 is always a safer bet for these formats.

Historically, flickering of non-incandescent light sources and any TV screens in shot was a problem when shooting 24fps in the UK. That means, Stereoscopic a separate picture for each eye 3D creating the illusion of 3 dimensions HFR high frame rate, like frames per second.

Peter Jackson did this on the Hobbit films, the reviews were mixed. Stepping into a movie, which is what S3D HFR is trying to emulate, is not what we do at movie theaters. This new format throws so much information at your brain, while simultaneously removing the 2D depth cues limited depth of field and temporal artifacts motion blur and flicker that we are all accustomed to seeing.

But there is a medium where high frame rates are desired and chased after: the modern video game. From photorealistic, real-time rendering pipelines to supremely high frame rates, digital gaming systems are pushing the envelope for performance. Game engineers build systems utilizing massive parallel processing graphics engines GPUs —computers within the computer that exist purely to push pixels onto the screen.

Modern video games are a non-stop visual assault of objects moving at high speed, and a gaming POV that can be pointed anywhere at will by the player. All this kinetic, frenetic action requires high frame rates 60, 90, fps to keep up. A technology pioneered to let you mow down digital zombies at frames per second is also why Siri answers your questions a little better.

As new digital display technologies replace film projection, higher frame rates suddenly become practical and economical.

And as monitors move off of walls and on to your face because smartphones , all the cues that tell our brains that motion is an illusion will begin to break down. Moving pictures no longer appear as shadows and light on a flat wall. The minimum frame rate for Virtual Reality systems is 60ps, with many developers aiming for 90 to The inverse of VR is Augmented Reality, when the pictures appear to run loose in the real world.

Systems like Magic Leap which has yet to come to market and Microsoft Hololens are bringing the images off the frame and into the real world. The goal of these augmented reality systems is to create an experience that is indistinguishable from the real world.

That some day, very soon, the illusions we used to watch on screens, flickering in the darkness, will run into our living room and tell us that we have an email. In traditional cinema, directors use shot selection , camera movement and editing to determine the pace and focus of each scene. Even today, if you want to achieve a 'cinematic look' to your home movies, you would use this standard.

There have been attempts in the past to move on, to evoke a similar passion for another standard or look, but so far things have been fruitless. I remember back in looking forward to Michael Mann's true story gangster movie Public Enemies. The motion seemed so lifelike, some of it was shot with the latest high definition cameras, and it looked set to blow my amateur movie-going mind.

What we got was something different. Not just digital noise in the darker scenes, but the whole affair just looked wrong somehow. The smooth motion of the actors looked like they had come from segments of a behind the scenes documentary, filmed on someone's smaller camcorder.

Although it was a mixture of film and digital, the setups used e. A more recent example was the backlash against Peter Jackson's choice of releasing his first Hobbit movie back in at 48fps. Many are familiar with this story of course, but despite Jackson's view of "just get over it;" audiences just couldn't move on.

Like Public Enemies , it just looked 'too' real, like reality television, instead of a fantasy to escape in. How long can the romance last with 24fps? Believe it or not, this liaison with higher frame rates isn't going away anytime soon, with some still advocating moving on from the standard rate of dramas onto 30, 60 or even fps, in the case of James Cameron's future installments of his Avatar franchise or, at least, that's what the rumours say.

In fact, Hollywood technology wiz Douglas Trumbull claims that this particular frame rate will push us into new territory and away from the backlash that The Hobbit received. The effect will apparently look a lot more natural and less jarring than what 48fps delivered.

Time will tell. If the worlds of sports broadcast or video gaming have anything to say about it, the divorce from 24p should be well on its way.