Will TV and movies become 60 frames per second eventually?

[MUSTKILL]

I hope so. It would only look off until people got used to it. There's nothing special about movies running at 24 fps; we're just used to seeing them that way so they look awkward at any other speed.

My guess is it's similar to the same commitment a lot of directors have towards actual film versus digital recordings. Some film junkies get excited over things being shot in/for black and white. So I can see why 24 fps might matter to them, but I certainly don't need things to run at 24 fps.

It looks like most the thread disagrees though. *Shrugs*

From a filming aspect, it'll be very difficult to shoot let's say a hand to hand fight scene at 60 fps.
If you shoot the scene of Morpheus vs Neo in the Matrix in FPS, it would look like this:


That video isn't even close to 60 fps but you get the point.
Filming that fight scene at 60 fps would risk injury and expose how slow they actually move when filming. It's also why fight scenes in movies don't look anything like a real life fight. There's not as much finesse when there's bones being thrown at you full speed.

I remember when Jet Li started making American movies, they had to make him slow down his movements because they were too fast for their 24p cameras to pick up.

 

[Swing]

From a filming aspect, it'll be very difficult to shoot let's say a hand to hand fight scene at 60 fps.
If you shoot the scene of Morpheus vs Neo in the Matrix in FPS, it would look like this:


That video isn't even close to 60 fps but you get the point.
Filming that fight scene at 60 fps would risk injury and expose how slow they actually move when filming.

I remember when Jet Li started making American movies, they had to make him slow down his movements because they were too fast for their 24p cameras to pick up.

Old Kung Fu movies would often speed the film up to make the moves look faster. Is there some reason they couldn't do that with 60 fps? Since they've recorded more frames, I figure it would look better than something like Police Story (which still has great fight sequences).

What you're saying about Jet Like is one of the problems I have with 24 fps. His movements wouldn't look too fast at a higher frame rate. It's because they were filming at just 24 frames that his movements looked blurry.

 

[MUSTKILL]

Old Kung Fu movies would often speed the film up to make the moves look faster. Is there some reason they couldn't do that with 60 fps? Since they've recorded more frames, I figure it would look better than something like Police Story (which still has great fight sequences).

What you're saying about Jet Like is one of the problems I have with 24 fps. His movements wouldn't look too fast at a higher frame rate. It's because they were filming at just 24 frames that his movements looked blurry.

They could speed it up like the old Kung fu movies, but it never looks natural.
And all it takes is some regular movement in the back to screw up the entire scene's immersion.
You'd actually be really surprised about how fast Jet Li was. I've seen a lot of live wushu demonstrations and they move faster than fuck.

 

[Shoemaker]

Sports and porn only.

^^ that. I hate the motion-smoothing on modern TV's, too. It's only really good for video games and sports.

 

[Swing]

They could speed it up like the old Kung fu movies, but it never looks natural.
And all it takes is some regular movement in the back to screw up the entire scene's immersion.
You'd actually be really surprised about how fast Jet Li was. I've seen a lot of live wushu demonstrations and they move faster than fuck.

I feel like a good film maker could account for that. After all, it's not like speeding film up that was recorded at 24 wouldn't have the same problem in regard to regular movements versus fight choreography.

One of the reasons I feel this way is because of how choppy fight scenes look.

 

[MUSTKILL]

I feel like a good film maker could account for that. After all, it's not like speeding film up that was recorded at 24 wouldn't have the same problem in regard to regular movements versus fight choreography.

One of the reasons I feel this way is because of how choppy fight scenes look.

You'd suggest they move real slow in 60fps and then speed it up?
It just wouldn't look natural and would take more work than just to set to 24fps.
The forced 120hz or "true motion" or whatever your TV marketing bs calls it, forces the standard 24fps to 60-"120". It looks completely unnatural and odd.

 

[Swing]

You'd suggest they move real slow in 60fps and then speed it up?
It just wouldn't look natural and would take more work than just to set to 24fps.
The forced 120hz or "true motion" or whatever your TV marketing bs calls it, forces the standard 24fps to 60-"120". It looks completely unnatural and odd.

That's only working under the assumption that things would really look too slow (which is something you put forward). I'm not convinced that's true. Most of these arguments are all arbitrary. 24 fps only looks natural because it's what we're conditioned to seeing by tradition.

And no, they wouldn't have to move real slow. They can move at whatever speed the actors feel comfortable with and then speed up from there. I don't watch television (at least not unless it makes its way onto a streaming service), so I'm not familiar with what "true motion" is. I just like having more visual information, and it seems most of the reasons against that all come down to taste (and mine apparently just don't align).

 

[hillelslovak87]

^^ that. I hate the motion-smoothing on modern TV's, too. It's only really good for video games and sports.

How did I forget videogames? 60fps is the benchmark for me. That's how I can gauge if a videogame is good. If The game can have a sub 60 fps, and it still grabs me, I know it's awesome, like the newest Assassins Creed.

 

[90 50]

There are hundreds of you tube videos explaining why movies and tv are 24fps.

Pick one and watch. I like Peter McKinnen for videography stuff

I mostly shoot 24fps in my videos UNLESS I want the higher frame rate for a specific reason.

I’ll shoot 120 or 240fps if I want to slow something down later. Like a fish jumping on the fight or hitting a topwater bait etc etc.

 

[Plissken]

I hope so. It would only look off until people got used to it. There's nothing special about movies running at 24 fps; we're just used to seeing them that way so they look awkward at any other speed.

My guess is it's similar to the same commitment a lot of directors have towards actual film versus digital recordings. Some film junkies get excited over things being shot in/for black and white. So I can see why 24 fps might matter to them, but I certainly don't need things to run at 24 fps.

It looks like most the thread disagrees though. *Shrugs*

Actually film looks very different than digital. The latter often looks too videogamey, fake, odd handling of light, and smooth, where the three dimensionality often takes on the feel of old parallax scrolling or objects and planes being rendered separately. Digital is acceptable (more so for certain types of films), but reality is an analog medium and film best captures the natural feel due to it also being an analog medium. Digitally shot horror films for instance just do not work well as a whole. Some do using older digital cameras like Session 9 or found footage movies, but the slick, smooth plastecine look is not fit for horror. Look at how brightly lit the night scenes in the new Halloween movie are compared to the older films due to the move to digital.

 

[Swing]

Actually film looks very different than digital. The latter often looks too videogamey, fake, odd handling of light, and smooth, where the three dimensionality often takes on the feel of old parallax scrolling or objects and planes being rendered separately. Digital is acceptable (more so for certain types of films), but reality is an analog medium and film best captures the natural feel due to it also being an analog medium. Digitally shot horror films for instance just do not work well as a whole. Some do using older digital cameras like Session 9 or found footage movies, but the slick, smooth plastecine look is not fit for horror. Look at how brightly lit the night scenes in the new Halloween movie are compared to the older films due to the move to digital.

It's not really that I think they look the same so much as actual film grain isn't something that I need to be a part of movie. I remember when Blu-ray started to take off, a lot of people hated certain remasters of older films because the people doing the remaster would smooth out some of the detail to clean up the image (that never bothered me). I'm typically willing to make that trade, but I'm also not going to begrudge cinephiles their love of film grain either. If people who really want to dig into film think there's some value to it, I'm happy to let it stay; it's just not something I appreciate.

What you're saying regarding horror movies makes a lot of sense, but I'm not really into that genre. The only horror classic that I really enjoy is Carpenter's The Thing.

 

[Turtlejuice]

Actually film looks very different than digital. The latter often looks too videogamey, fake, odd handling of light, and smooth, where the three dimensionality often takes on the feel of old parallax scrolling or objects and planes being rendered separately. Digital is acceptable (more so for certain types of films), but reality is an analog medium and film best captures the natural feel due to it also being an analog medium. Digitally shot horror films for instance just do not work well as a whole. Some do using older digital cameras like Session 9 or found footage movies, but the slick, smooth plastecine look is not fit for horror. Look at how brightly lit the night scenes in the new Halloween movie are compared to the older films due to the move to digital.

The films being brightly lit aren't due to being digital. Experienced colourists have far more control of a digital image than analogue images. Being brightly lit is a stylistic choice.

 

[Dizzy]

I hope so. It would only look off until people got used to it. There's nothing special about movies running at 24 fps; we're just used to seeing them that way so they look awkward at any other speed.

My guess is it's similar to the same commitment a lot of directors have towards actual film versus digital recordings. Some film junkies get excited over things being shot in/for black and white. So I can see why 24 fps might matter to them, but I certainly don't need things to run at 24 fps.

It looks like most the thread disagrees though. *Shrugs*

Old Kung Fu movies would often speed the film up to make the moves look faster. Is there some reason they couldn't do that with 60 fps? Since they've recorded more frames, I figure it would look better than something like Police Story (which still has great fight sequences).

What you're saying about Jet Like is one of the problems I have with 24 fps. His movements wouldn't look too fast at a higher frame rate. It's because they were filming at just 24 frames that his movements looked blurry.

I feel like a good film maker could account for that. After all, it's not like speeding film up that was recorded at 24 wouldn't have the same problem in regard to regular movements versus fight choreography.

One of the reasons I feel this way is because of how choppy fight scenes look.

That's only working under the assumption that things would really look too slow (which is something you put forward). I'm not convinced that's true. Most of these arguments are all arbitrary. 24 fps only looks natural because it's what we're conditioned to seeing by tradition.

And no, they wouldn't have to move real slow. They can move at whatever speed the actors feel comfortable with and then speed up from there. I don't watch television (at least not unless it makes its way onto a streaming service), so I'm not familiar with what "true motion" is. I just like having more visual information, and it seems most of the reasons against that all come down to taste (and mine apparently just don't align).

Stop trying to make 60 FPS happen. It’s not going to happen.

 

[ssBaldy]

Hobbit looked weird in movies and completely shit on TV. No thank you.

 

[Swing]

Stop trying to make 60 FPS happen. It’s not going to happen.

*Shrugs*

 

[heloder]

The only reason people prefer 24 fps for movies is because that's what they're used to. A drastic change like 60 fps looks "wrong", even though it's obviously far superior. The future for video entertainment will always be towards reality, and a higher framerate is absolutely necessary for that, so yes the standard will eventually be 60+ fps.

 

[LuchaBear]

 

[LuchaBear]

I don't think this is legit 60fps but it looks off. Looking at it side by side makes the 24fps side blurry though.. Maybe if done right, or at a different frame rate, it could work. Or maybe we just need to get used to it.

 

[LuchaBear]

@Madmick

 

[Madmick]

@Madmick

I appreciate the tag, but I don't have the greatest track record in the fps debates.