Thread: Hypothetical - Always film 120fps?

Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1 Hypothetical - Always film 120fps? 
    Senior Member Zack Birlew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California and Las Vegas
    Posts
    882
    Hey, everybody, not sure if this would fit in another category, however, I was watching Kai W's video on the new Z-cam E2 and had a thought when discussing the high frame rate capabilities at 4K. I've been going to NAB since 2005 and I've seen quite a bit of future tech along the way that still has yet to become mainstream and, in this case, I'm talking not only about 8K but also high frame rate video. Now, we've seen what these motion smoothing TV's can do for viewing movies and how not so great that is but, as we all know, it's not the same as filming in higher frame rates to begin with, which a handful of movies have experimented with so far. Years ago, I remember seeing a demo of 8K 60fps video on a large screen and being really impressed and wondering what everyday television would look like filmed that way.

    Now that we're getting affordable cameras that can film high frame rate 4K at minimum, would it be so far of a stretch to go ahead and film in 120fps today in anticipation of a shift in visual presentation as a form of future-proofing projects? The intended goal would be to film 120fps and present in standard 24fps, 30fps, or 60fps (25fps and 50fps for PAL) today and provide for the option to have the film be presented in 120fps down the line. Granted, the added data and post processing would be a hassle, however, should that change in tastes come to pass, that would allow for your projects to not be awkwardly motion smoothed to fit in later on. What do you all think? Thinking too far ahead?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    3,469
    High frame rates generally look like ass. Show scan was an attempt at HFR (60fps) and it never took off. I can't think of anything since the hobbit that was shot HFR as it is universally despised. Plus you get no motion blur as the longest shutter speed you could use would be 120th. Other than sports ball, I can't think of a reason to do this.

    I often shoot 48fps on commercials at 1/48th exposure so that it can play back at half speed and look normal, or be slo mo, but that's as far as I would go.

    Nick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Nick Morrison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Gardner View Post

    I often shoot 48fps on commercials at 1/48th exposure so that it can play back at half speed and look normal, or be slo mo, but that's as far as I would go.

    Nick

    Exactly we do same
    Nick Morrison
    Founder, Director & Lead Creative
    // SMALL GIANT //
    smallgiant.tv
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Gardner View Post
    Other than sports ball, I can't think of a reason to do this.
    Nick
    I'm not sure of the exact workflow but I understand it is good for VFX for rotoscoping and effects, with blur added in post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    940
    So, two things here. The first is that the only way to future-proof any project is to just make good work. I know that sounds stupid, but I don't think I've ever watched and old film and thought to myself, "Man, if only they had shot it like XYZ so it'd be appealing for today's aesthetic."

    The other thing is that yes, HFR can work out well, and it does right now when applied to the correct subject matter:



    That's not to say it can't work out with other things - I just don't think we're there yet.

    Actually, one more note: it's all based on what you like, really. If you like it, and the look makes you happy and you really believe in it, that passion is going to carry over into the way you shoot your HFR content, and will drive you to problem-solve the hell out of it when you get stuck. Just because a lot of people paint with oils doesn't mean you can't experiment and be great with watercolors!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member Jeffery Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    578
    I'm sure there are different barriers to filmmaking that we've yet seen, but highspeed is always played back at normal... not sure there's really a benefit to high frame rate

    in video games there is, because the player is reacting to the environment and it's really just FPS shooters

    the real problem is there is so much shit content that turns off people from wanting to watch movies/TV... HFR is not going to fix that, just make it worse
    I have to try and change the landscape, whatever it is.
    -Robert Plant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member Adrian Jebef's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    661
    IMO "future-proofing" is the same as "obsolescence obsolete": it sounds good in theory but falls apart in practice. 120fps capture for multiple playouts at 24, 60, 120 just creates too many more problems than any it's attempting to solve. Unless you have a specific reason to shoot HFR for HFR mastering all you are doing is compromising for no discernible benefit.
    Adrian Jebef
    DIT
    www.jebefcorp.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    A few things speaking against high framerate.

    When film was invented they could choose freely to set the standard to any number. But they picked 24p for multiple of reasons, basically its a sweetspot. Sure they had difficulty to run both cameras and projectors at highspeed but early cameras and projectors could do 50fps and such, my old Mitchel s35 did 125fps no problem. But people choosed not to. And to me it was not only done in 24fps back then to save on film. Much higher framerates for playback simply does not look as appealing. That bulgarian film would have looked way better in 24p if you ask me.

    The differens today between image smoothning and hfr, wich most tend to hate, is also quite slim. As high framerates demand higher compression then lower framerates when streaming. And as goop compressions are used for broadcasting you get the same kind of smear effect as the morph techniques used internally in the tv when doing image smoothning. But even when viewing without compression I find well shot 24p to beat all else options.
    Björn Benckert
    Creative Lead & Founder Syndicate Entertainment AB
    +46855524900 www.syndicate.se
    Flame / VFX / Motion capture / Monstro
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Björn Benckert View Post
    A few things speaking against high framerate.

    When film was invented they could choose freely to set the standard to any number. But they picked 24p for multiple of reasons, basically its a sweetspot. Sure they had difficulty to run both cameras and projectors at highspeed but early cameras and projectors could do 50fps and such, my old Mitchel s35 did 125fps no problem. But people choosed not to. And to me it was not only done in 24fps back then to save on film. Much higher framerates for playback simply does not look as appealing. That bulgarian film would have looked way better in 24p if you ask me.

    The differens today between image smoothning and hfr, wich most tend to hate, is also quite slim. As high framerates demand higher compression then lower framerates when streaming. And as goop compressions are used for broadcasting you get the same kind of smear effect as the morph techniques used internally in the tv when doing image smoothning. But even when viewing without compression I find well shot 24p to beat all else options.
    I don't think that's exactly historically accurate–24fps I believe was chosen because 18fps (the silent standard) was too slow to work with sync sound (don't know the technical details). Film was expensive, low frame rates were chosen with that in mind.

    Regardless, 60fps/70mm large format formats were introduced later and failed, not just because of cost but I believe for aesthetic reasons. I think there's some Cinerama process that's either 26fps or 30fps that a few movies were released in...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Gardner View Post
    High frame rates generally look like ass. Show scan was an attempt at HFR (60fps) and it never took off. I can't think of anything since the hobbit that was shot HFR as it is universally despised. Plus you get no motion blur as the longest shutter speed you could use would be 120th. Other than sports ball, I can't think of a reason to do this.

    I often shoot 48fps on commercials at 1/48th exposure so that it can play back at half speed and look normal, or be slo mo, but that's as far as I would go.

    Nick
    I see this a LOT in music videos where there's smeary slow motion.

    I was working on some software for slow motion, the idea being you shoot at 240fps with 360º shutter, at which point motion blur is so minor generally the smeary look is minor even at 360º shutter if you choose to use it.

    And then with frame blending you can conform to 180º shutter at 24fps (need 1/48 shutter speed and 120 is not a multiple for 48), 60fps, 80fps, or 120fps depending on if you blend 5, 4, 3, or 2 contiguous frames and drop the other respective group of frames following those.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts