I've been having problems editing the Pearl video (which is all sorted now) so I had to put together a quick video for this week and delay the video surroudning Pearl to next week. Sorry for all of the confusion and I hope you enjoy the video!
There is nothing "natural" about 24fps, it's just what viewers are used to. But to someone who does not watch a lot of movies but regularly plays video games on a high end PC it is glaringly obvious that the camera "lags" when it moves quickly. So it's all a matter of perception.
I'd also imagine for the most part, filmmakers would opt to use the 'minimum possible' framerate if only for the fact that editors work with the footage often in a frame by frame basis. Particularly with VFX and rendering. And with film, that probably means using half as much physical film as a 48fps movie, and especially back in the day when editing was more analogue, using the minimum amount of film would've just made the most sense.
Sad but true. If I could go back in time, I'd make Hollywood start at 30. Not only would 30 become the conditioned natural look, but all kinds of other asinine things would no longer trigger my OCD. PLUS Hollywood could then "flex" on European movies about our increased smoothness over their 25p due to their electrical frequency. Well, really they'd probably just figure out a 30 into 50 pulldown and then shoot 30 for their movies, too, but I digress.
high framerates in shows/movies makes it look like a video game, especially when it comes to stuff where CGI is used, it just shatteres immersion and makes it uncomfortable to watch. This ironically isnt a problem in video games where your brain knows and even expects higher frame rates.
Any panning shot looks awfulnin 24 fps and i am sick of pretending otherwise. The shot in dune where the camera flies over the city in arrakis is the best example of this.
A couple of points: My understanding of how the studios got to 24 fps at the beginning of the sound era was more economical in nature: it was the lowest possible framerate where the filmmakers could get a good synchronization between speech and mouth movements (film was/is expensive, after all). Also, as to why we haven't moved from it it's more because we've been accustomed to that framerate for almost a hundred years, and newscasts, soap operas and other shows made cheaply and in video make us associate higher framerates with cheap or fake product (even too real, for some), and reviews for the Hobbit films when they came out reflected that prejudice, not helped by the overblown dislike some people have for 3D cinema. And lastly, the reason film for NTSC TV is 23.976 is because they had to fit it in the 29.97 fps of the NTSC color standard, this by repeating a frame out of every four, and the standard not being a full 30 fps. This is why film had a kind of choppy movement when watched on DVD or earlier tech, or still through network TV or cable, and why it looks smoother when played through a real 24 fps display since HD-DVD and Blu-ray were introduced.
My theory is that it mimics the focal speed followed by processing speed of the human eye better. Since our eyes can focus on the majority of the screen and movies (obviously) have an artificial depth of field; i feel that there is too much to process at a higher FPS. Next time you’re in the car, ideally not the one driving, look out the window and focus on an object you’re going past, youll notice that your eyes dont focus on it and process it straight away. At the end of the day, thats just my opinion/guess, i could very well be wrong
just wanted to say even though i don’t comment a lot, i believe you’re extremely underrated and you make extraordinary, cleanly edited videos. keep it up, i love your channel/work!
Bro needed to reach work with finished presentation, which was missing only his voicever and the bus was 2:26 minutes, so he decided to record the voiceover as fast as he could and then pressed render and by the time he arrived at work and opened the office door, the Render Complete bell rang, and he made the best entry of his lifetime.
Love the video! "It looks natural." What does natural mean? I feel it means, "That's how the majority of films look." That's a shame, and it SHOULD be changed if that's the answer. Maybe "natural" is the way it minds process incoming images, but then wouldn't all frames above 24 feel natural since our eyes would adjust it down to 24? I just watched a scene from a game that runs at least 60 fps, and they included a live scene of actors which felt much lower in fps. This made them look unnatural. If say the industry needs to stop saving film (film is expensive) and make better quality.
Can we just be honest here? 24FPS is used in films because it's good enough not because it's better. The amount of extra work needed for higher framerates just isn't worth it HOWEVER if done correctly would make a better motion picture.
I watched this whole video accidentally at 1.25x speed and didn't even notice that it looked "wrong" like HFR (with 180-deg shutters, at least) does. Maybe the industry should try 30p with a 1/50th shutter for a bit?
Audio. Anything slower than 24 fps gave poor quality audio (sound on magnetic film stock and optical tracks for playback). Anything faster used more film stock and cost more money than producers and studios were willing to pay for.
When you say 24 FPS looks natural, I don't think it does. It looks natural for film because it's what we have gotten used to but it no way replicates natural motion. It's just the better aesthetic for film. Sport looks better in 60FPS, tv shows and soap operas generally in 30 FPS etc. it's more just about what aesthetic works for what type of video. Basically anything other than 24p for a movie just doesn't look like a movie.
Really great question! But I'm not sure, instinctively I want to say yes because it would be unusual to us to watch something in that manner, but without proper testing I couldn't possibly say.
Not for me. I find less eye and mental strain with 30, and even 48-60 just look exquisite. I won't like, there are other downsides to 48-60 and between that and the fact that 30 looks so good and NO modern films have been done in 30 (filmmakers just skip straight to HFR) I REALLY wanna see one at 30, especially if they break the 180-deg rule for a slower shutter speed to reintroduce some typically lost motion blur.
you know you might be on to something here. cause it seems at a higher framerate the brain seems to think "this is real" and is in alert mode. while the slower frame rate puts the brain into a more sleepyness state that allows you to be more of an observer and absorber. i do think the 24fps phenomenon is a psychological effect in nature. something about the blurriness or the mental processing of images makes it seems more "natural" to use in an observing activity vs an interactive one. hence why playing video games. a interactive activity. would not be good at 24fps and feels bad. vs in a movie which you dont interact but only observe
it will require more money for the production, so cheap 24pfs forever and medium or fast motion looks like crap on 24 sport and action scenes are just crap on 24fps
I think a nice transitional framerate should be 36 fps. Seems a logical step up from 24 fps. Not too much flicker, not too much wasted media, not too much computer CPU or camera power needed. Let's just do 36 and be done with it for another 15-20 years.
When camera moves just a little too fast you the walking or running person is glitching. Most commonly you see the blur/glitch matrix thing then you watch hokey games, when camera man pans from one side from the play field to another in that period you cant see anything actually.
The only reason everyone seems to argue this is because that’s how we’ve only ever used it. We’ve convinced ourselves that anything other than 24 isn’t right instead of pushing forward with a new standard.
Well surely there has to be a better reason than “it looks natural”. Cause clearly it doesn’t with 30fps or even 60fps looking like real life and with that you react as so. I think it has to do more with the “slowness”. That our brains have more time to integrate the image and play around with it in our minds. And the fact that it’s not exactly like real life lets us relax instead of engaging a fight or flight response of actually having to be there. Instead it’s more of a “soothing” speed. Where you can suck it up and observe it and sink into the story
24fps is crap it blur everything the only reason 24fps is a thing is because it is cheap and takes less space. Human eye naturally blurs fast motion adding 24fps blur on top of natural blur makes fast motion unwatchable. Key word was lowest possible frame rate
Let's be honest here. 24fps isn't some magical frame-rate that looks more "true to life", it's mearly a cost cutting measure that very early filmmakers imployed because that's the near minimum to make films look like actual motion instead of a slideshow. We have been conditoned because that's what nearly all feature-length films have been since the history of cinemam, and anything above that is associated with the "soap opera" effect, which is the result of many lower budget TV shows being recorded on video tape in the 80s and 90s at 30fps. Theortically, if you had analog cameras that could film with stock capable at 60fps, it would look closer to real life.
I've been having problems editing the Pearl video (which is all sorted now) so I had to put together a quick video for this week and delay the video surroudning Pearl to next week. Sorry for all of the confusion and I hope you enjoy the video!
There is nothing "natural" about 24fps, it's just what viewers are used to. But to someone who does not watch a lot of movies but regularly plays video games on a high end PC it is glaringly obvious that the camera "lags" when it moves quickly. So it's all a matter of perception.
I'd also imagine for the most part, filmmakers would opt to use the 'minimum possible' framerate if only for the fact that editors work with the footage often in a frame by frame basis. Particularly with VFX and rendering. And with film, that probably means using half as much physical film as a 48fps movie, and especially back in the day when editing was more analogue, using the minimum amount of film would've just made the most sense.
Sad but true. If I could go back in time, I'd make Hollywood start at 30. Not only would 30 become the conditioned natural look, but all kinds of other asinine things would no longer trigger my OCD. PLUS Hollywood could then "flex" on European movies about our increased smoothness over their 25p due to their electrical frequency. Well, really they'd probably just figure out a 30 into 50 pulldown and then shoot 30 for their movies, too, but I digress.
high framerates in shows/movies makes it look like a video game, especially when it comes to stuff where CGI is used, it just shatteres immersion and makes it uncomfortable to watch. This ironically isnt a problem in video games where your brain knows and even expects higher frame rates.
Any panning shot looks awfulnin 24 fps and i am sick of pretending otherwise. The shot in dune where the camera flies over the city in arrakis is the best example of this.
A couple of points:
My understanding of how the studios got to 24 fps at the beginning of the sound era was more economical in nature: it was the lowest possible framerate where the filmmakers could get a good synchronization between speech and mouth movements (film was/is expensive, after all).
Also, as to why we haven't moved from it it's more because we've been accustomed to that framerate for almost a hundred years, and newscasts, soap operas and other shows made cheaply and in video make us associate higher framerates with cheap or fake product (even too real, for some), and reviews for the Hobbit films when they came out reflected that prejudice, not helped by the overblown dislike some people have for 3D cinema.
And lastly, the reason film for NTSC TV is 23.976 is because they had to fit it in the 29.97 fps of the NTSC color standard, this by repeating a frame out of every four, and the standard not being a full 30 fps. This is why film had a kind of choppy movement when watched on DVD or earlier tech, or still through network TV or cable, and why it looks smoother when played through a real 24 fps display since HD-DVD and Blu-ray were introduced.
Splendid explanation
Not only is this video excellent, the comment section has some very good explanations on the topic.
My theory is that it mimics the focal speed followed by processing speed of the human eye better.
Since our eyes can focus on the majority of the screen and movies (obviously) have an artificial depth of field; i feel that there is too much to process at a higher FPS. Next time you’re in the car, ideally not the one driving, look out the window and focus on an object you’re going past, youll notice that your eyes dont focus on it and process it straight away.
At the end of the day, thats just my opinion/guess, i could very well be wrong
just wanted to say even though i don’t comment a lot, i believe you’re extremely underrated and you make extraordinary, cleanly edited videos. keep it up, i love your channel/work!
Bro needed to reach work with finished presentation, which was missing only his voicever and the bus was 2:26 minutes, so he decided to record the voiceover as fast as he could and then pressed render and by the time he arrived at work and opened the office door, the Render Complete bell rang, and he made the best entry of his lifetime.
Love the video! "It looks natural." What does natural mean? I feel it means, "That's how the majority of films look." That's a shame, and it SHOULD be changed if that's the answer.
Maybe "natural" is the way it minds process incoming images, but then wouldn't all frames above 24 feel natural since our eyes would adjust it down to 24?
I just watched a scene from a game that runs at least 60 fps, and they included a live scene of actors which felt much lower in fps. This made them look unnatural. If say the industry needs to stop saving film (film is expensive) and make better quality.
Can we just be honest here? 24FPS is used in films because it's good enough not because it's better. The amount of extra work needed for higher framerates just isn't worth it HOWEVER if done correctly would make a better motion picture.
A whole video just to say "because it looks natural". Could've made it a 2 second video and it'd still contain the same amount of useful info.
I watched this whole video accidentally at 1.25x speed and didn't even notice that it looked "wrong" like HFR (with 180-deg shutters, at least) does. Maybe the industry should try 30p with a 1/50th shutter for a bit?
Audio. Anything slower than 24 fps gave poor quality audio (sound on magnetic film stock and optical tracks for playback). Anything faster used more film stock and cost more money than producers and studios were willing to pay for.
When you say 24 FPS looks natural, I don't think it does. It looks natural for film because it's what we have gotten used to but it no way replicates natural motion. It's just the better aesthetic for film. Sport looks better in 60FPS, tv shows and soap operas generally in 30 FPS etc. it's more just about what aesthetic works for what type of video.
Basically anything other than 24p for a movie just doesn't look like a movie.
low FPS is cheaper overall
Imagine a film being shot at 240 fps that would be ten times it's old standard.
The human eye can only see roughly up to 60 fps so it'd be completely pointless
but whz is it that people saz 30 fps or 60 fps feels unnatural when in gamin it is considered to be better the more fps zou get_
Higher fps is like a budget B movie
Hobbit and gemini are how films look on ACID
nobody will admit 24 fps looks terrible when something moves too fast in a movie, whether it's the actors face or the camera
Totally. Watching todays movie on RTX3070 GPU is so gay.
My 2k games has more fps
@@swedensy is it truly homosexual?
Agreed, and 24fps on fast-paced action sequences is terrible, headache-inducing rubbish!
@@swedensy Answer my question.
I'd like to see someone experiment with using 48 just for the fight scenes and 24 for everything else
Would higher than 24fps require more cognitive processing for the viewer?
Really great question! But I'm not sure, instinctively I want to say yes because it would be unusual to us to watch something in that manner, but without proper testing I couldn't possibly say.
Not for me. I find less eye and mental strain with 30, and even 48-60 just look exquisite. I won't like, there are other downsides to 48-60 and between that and the fact that 30 looks so good and NO modern films have been done in 30 (filmmakers just skip straight to HFR) I REALLY wanna see one at 30, especially if they break the 180-deg rule for a slower shutter speed to reintroduce some typically lost motion blur.
@@AngusDaviesDP 24 looks terrible in panning camera shots, you can see it skipping around and it's distracting af.
you know you might be on to something here. cause it seems at a higher framerate the brain seems to think "this is real" and is in alert mode. while the slower frame rate puts the brain into a more sleepyness state that allows you to be more of an observer and absorber.
i do think the 24fps phenomenon is a psychological effect in nature. something about the blurriness or the mental processing of images makes it seems more "natural" to use in an observing activity vs an interactive one. hence why playing video games. a interactive activity. would not be good at 24fps and feels bad. vs in a movie which you dont interact but only observe
it will require more money for the production, so cheap 24pfs forever and medium or fast motion looks like crap on 24 sport and action scenes are just crap on 24fps
I have always noticed that once you go past 24 fps you hit a weird uncanny valley.
Why do talk at 128 fps? I have to slow down the video to understand what you say.
I think a nice transitional framerate should be 36 fps. Seems a logical step up from 24 fps. Not too much flicker, not too much wasted media, not too much computer CPU or camera power needed. Let's just do 36 and be done with it for another 15-20 years.
Interesting how movies are filmed at 24 fps and live news at a higher fps. What frame rate was The Lord of The Rings shot at?
I'm pretty sure LOTR was 48, but it's an outlier when it comes to movies as a whole
LOTR was 24, Hobbits were 48.
No. It does not feels natural.
When camera moves just a little too fast you the walking or running person is glitching. Most commonly you see the blur/glitch matrix thing then you watch hokey games, when camera man pans from one side from the play field to another in that period you cant see anything actually.
I think the best way to put it is that 60 FPS looks like a dramatic soap opera while 24 makes it have more of a serious film look.
The only reason everyone seems to argue this is because that’s how we’ve only ever used it. We’ve convinced ourselves that anything other than 24 isn’t right instead of pushing forward with a new standard.
People are just used to 24p. Its funny because 24p is considered terrible by 100% of gamers
looks nice
I usually set my TV to 60fps on movies like Transformers 5 or Terminator 2, idk it just makes good movies look better
I always preferred the look of 23.976 or 29.97. Never liked 24fps.
The sarcasm is strong with you, young Jedi.
To anyone in knowledge: Is it a good idea to shoot in digital at 30 FPS and then convert it to 24 in post?
Got any solution? I need it too
No.
no because of the 3:2 pulldown causing judder. You could shoot at 48 though, if you need light slow mo in your footage.
just make it all in 48fps to clear up any confusion
Fun fact: movie creators use 24 fps and they make smooth movies.
ok...?
"smooth"
Well surely there has to be a better reason than “it looks natural”. Cause clearly it doesn’t with 30fps or even 60fps looking like real life and with that you react as so.
I think it has to do more with the “slowness”. That our brains have more time to integrate the image and play around with it in our minds. And the fact that it’s not exactly like real life lets us relax instead of engaging a fight or flight response of actually having to be there. Instead it’s more of a “soothing” speed. Where you can suck it up and observe it and sink into the story
24fps is crap it blur everything the only reason 24fps is a thing is because it is cheap and takes less space. Human eye naturally blurs fast motion adding 24fps blur on top of natural blur makes fast motion unwatchable. Key word was lowest possible frame rate
No
I use 80fps and it’s the natural frame rate of the human eye. For real.
I can very clearly see the difference between 120 and 144. There are even 540Hz monitors.
Let's be honest here. 24fps isn't some magical frame-rate that looks more "true to life", it's mearly a cost cutting measure that very early filmmakers imployed because that's the near minimum to make films look like actual motion instead of a slideshow. We have been conditoned because that's what nearly all feature-length films have been since the history of cinemam, and anything above that is associated with the "soap opera" effect, which is the result of many lower budget TV shows being recorded on video tape in the 80s and 90s at 30fps.
Theortically, if you had analog cameras that could film with stock capable at 60fps, it would look closer to real life.
Yeah. 24 FPS looks disorienting with fast things. Not immersive. Horror movies would be way better at higher rates.
I never even noticed the Hobbit Trilogy was 48 fps I just thought redditors were going autistic
Subscribed