Is video superior than film because of frame rate?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Jackson Catts, Oct 22, 2002.

  1. Jackson Catts

    Jackson Catts Auditioning

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  2. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,572
    Likes Received:
    1,230
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Real Name:
    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.
     
  3. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  4. Dan Hitchman

    Dan Hitchman Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 1999
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  5. Thomas Newton

    Thomas Newton Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    1,565
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    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.
     
  6. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  7. Hendrik

    Hendrik Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 1998
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "...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
    . . . [​IMG] . . .
     

Share This Page