If you spend most of your time on Internet forums or following the latest technological trends, you might think that everything is about 60 or 120 fps these days, but that's not the case. Here's why when it comes to movies, 24 fps is here to stay.
Coming to you from Filmmaker IQ, this interesting discussion highlights a number of both objective and subjective reasons why the 24 fps frame rate is unlikely to go anywhere soon in the film industry, despite a move toward higher rates in other areas, such as sports broadcasts. Personally, I think that it's partially a self-reinforcing cycle: whether we consciously realize it or not, we have been strongly conditioned to associate the look of 24 fps with cinema, and as such, we partially judge the cinematic feel of new footage and our ability to put ourselves in the mindset of a viewer based on if it adheres to that standard. That being said, however, there are still a lot of very interesting subtleties and nuances to the discussion as well as practical consequences that drive the choice of frame rate. Give the video above a watch for the full discussion.
Lead image by Donald Tong, used under Creative Commons.
Yea but if Richard Hendricks and his company Pied Piper can get his compression algorithm working, we'll be able to stream 60p with no problem at all! Let's get him some funding. =)
Good lighting and camera are at the core of " the cinematic look", not frame rate. Shutter speed, or lack thereof is another (i.e. motion blur). People have been staring at 3:2 pulldown for ages and nobody batted an eye at THAT butchered up frame rate clusterfuck.
Other than economics, there's no reason to shoot 24 fps.
Trying to come up with an objective argument for what is basically a subjective realm ... is a bit lame.