Is video superior than film because of frame rate? (1 Viewer)

[Jackson Catts]

A second question on film and video. Thanks to those people who replied on my first film-video question.

While film is approximately 24 frames-per-seconds, video is approximately 30 frames-per-second. That is a difference of seven frames-per-second. Does that mean that video is superior as a visual media than film because of frame rate?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Sound film is 24 frames per second. In general, film is nearly always superior to video, so I'd say that the frame rate makes no difference in this case.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Well, you can shoot film at any frame rate you want. some special FX footage like explosions is shot at hundreds of frames per second. Framerate has to do with a look you're trying to achieve. 24fps has the cinematic feel, it has enough frames to ensure smooth motion, but not so many that it becomes "hyper real" like something you shoot with a video camera

So really, framerate is more about style and desired look and feel than anything else. However, that film is still ported back to 24fps usually.

NTSC video-29.97fps
PAL video- 25fps
Theatrical film 24fps

Some TV shows are shot at PAL framerates on film, for example Farscape

 

[Dan Hitchman]

I like the look of the old Todd-AO films that were shot at approx. 30 fps. An example: Oklahoma.

There are technical and physiological reasons that increasing the frame rate of film just 6 fps can improve things: for one the depth of field and color accuracy is increased, improved light sensitivity, another is the lessening of "motion judder" of fast moving objects, and the eye is tricked into seeing more "resolution."

I really feel we are hampering quality by sticking with 24 fps so religiously.

Dan

 

[Thomas Newton]

Film is 24 fps, but it's 24 fps non-interlaced, on a playback system that has different characteristics from a CRT.

As for "motion judder" -- how much of that is "judder" in the film per se (that is, as projected on a movie screen), and how much is an artifact of forcing a movie originally shot on film into a 30/60-fps TV?

Maybe instead of film "adapting", the TVs and DVD players should adapt. 30/60 Hz (preferably non-interlaced) for video, 72 or 96 Hz non-interlaced for anything flagged on the disc as being sourced from 24 fps film.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

A lot of the judder is from 3:2 pulldown, but if viewing the true 24fps on a progressive system or in a movie theater, it can be gate judder, the physical shifting of the film in thetrack as its projected

 

[Hendrik]

"...There are technical and physiological reasons that increasing the frame rate of film just 6 fps can improve things: for one the depth of field and color accuracy is increased, improved light sensitivity, another is the lessening of "motion judder" of fast moving objects, and the eye is tricked into seeing more 'resolution'."
...and just how does increasing the frame rate of film increase 'depth of field' [1]
and/or 'color accuracy' [2] and/or 'light sensitivity' [3]...?... he asked, amazed by this information...
[1 = a function of the optics used... I think...]
[2 = a function of the film stock used... I think...]
[3 = a combination of functions 1 & 2... I'm (pretty) sure!...]
(signed) Technical Nincompoop
. . . . . .