Quantcast
24 frames per second is starting to look awkward in 4k.

Forums - Movies Discussion - 24 frames per second is starting to look awkward in 4k.

I prefer film in...

24 fps. 28 62.22%
 
30 fps. 3 6.67%
 
48 fps. 4 8.89%
 
60 fps. 4 8.89%
 
North of 60.... 3 6.67%
 
Any/indifferent/comments/middle America. 3 6.67%
 
Total:45
Darwinianevolution said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

source? 

https://bid.berkeley.edu/cs160-fall12/index.php/Human_Information_Processing

Though here it says it's 20 fps. Again, not an expert on this, so take everything with a pinch of salt.

Yeah, I figured that it was a tad below 24 fps. I've played a few games on PC that have gone to below 24 but still show up as a consistent range of motion, albeit very slow. Yeah ... once you get to the 10s it gets so laggy and choppy. 



Around the Network

People were fine with 24fps for a century, on huge screens with 4K resolution (35mm). The trick, you perceive smoother motion at lower light levels. A movie theater screen is calibrated at 14 fL with no ambient light. That's 48 nits. TVs before HDR would already be in the 150 nit range in a daylight setting. Now with HDR they can go up to 1000 nits. The other trick is to show each frame twice, 35mm film runs at 48hz. 48 black frames in between to trick your mind into believing it's smoother than it is. TVs don't do this, they simply show 24fps without any back in between, (Perhaps some tvs have proper 24p display modes nowadays, I don't know)

I noticed the effect myself a lot while switching between my 1080p projector (at 15 fL) and 1080p tv (at 40 fL). Movies look a lot more smooth on the much larger screen, due to the lower brightness. Turn HDR off, the lights off, and lower the brightness to get a smoother picture.

The movie industry is all made around 24fps. Lighting, motion guidelines, everything is calibrated for 24fps. That's why the 48fps version of the hobbit look so unreal. The lighting did not fit the frame rate.

Anyway it doesn't really matter to me. You get used to the frame rate after a couple minutes. There are much bigger problems with modern movies. Too much cgi, lens flare, shaky cam, tacky color filters, bad lighting, too much action, too many one liners, crap story.



Chrizum said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

source? 

He said don't quote me you idiot!



                                                                                                                                            

Films have been produced in two dimensions and at 24fps for over a century now. No reason why that needs to change anytime soon.

On a less luddite-sounding note, increasing the standard frame rate to 48fps would double the workload (and thereby cost) of visual effects.



There's nothing wrong with 24 fps. Audiences have been conditioned since the 1920s to expect 24 fps and prefer it. It's cheaper for studios to release films at 24 fps.

Ask yourself for a second why it hasn't changed though? We've transitioned to digital movies for the most part instead of film. Sure for Infinity Wars it would add a ton to the budget because they'd have to animate 36 more frames every second during an action sequence. But for smaller movies or ones that rely heavily on practical effects all they would need to do is literally press a button in post production to make the switch.

The reason it's kept this way is simple. Because it pleases more people. Even 30 fps isn't as preferred. You can rant if you wish, but that's the bottom line in all of this and why it's not changing anytime soon.



Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:
Chrizum said:

He said don't quote me you idiot!



Chrizum said:
CGI-Quality said:

-gif

It isn't the nicest language, but I can let it slide if you promise to kiss and make up! ;P



                                                                                                                                            

24fps doesn't look any different in 4K than it did at 1080p. What kind of TV do you have? I'd check your judder settings.

I'm an Assistant Editor on the reality TV side. Depending on the series, we shoot in 23.976, 29.97, and 59.98. 23.976 still looks best to my eyes.



Intel i7-8086k @ 5.1 GHz | Asus Maximus X Hero | 32GB Ballistix Sport LT 2400Mhz RAM | Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti

CGI-Quality said:
Chrizum said:

It isn't the nicest language, but I can let it slide if you promise to kiss and make up! ;P

*Chrizum violently french kisses AngryLittleAlchemists's left ear



Yea, no. 48 FPS, or 60 FPS, looks horrible in film. It makes a film go from seeming epic, to looking like a TV show. Really, that's why I prefer 30 FPS for games that are aiming for realism. 60 FPS just makes it look like a game. Now, this is fine for cartoony games and can help with the perception of speed in racing games, but IMO it hurts realism. ~40 FPS seems to be a nice compromise, though. It still feels buttery smooth, but the illusion of realism isn't destroyed. At least, that's what I gathered from playing Infamous:SS.

The only real downfall of 24 FPS is that if the camera moves too fast, you can get an image that ghosts/blurs. I think filming digital has helped this some, but maybe upping it to 30 FPS would help more.