For storytelling and polished-cinematic productions, everything but 24fps is awful.
What’ is 24fps (frames per second)?
When you’re watching a movie, you’re watching 24 images flash up on the screen per second. When you watch live TV shows, they’re often 30FPS or 60FPS (60i if you want to be technical).
Lately, there are trends to ‘break’ this legacy since modern projectors and digital cameras can record 60, 120 or higher very easily. Also, 3D and 4K technologies are being pushed to up the ante to keep audiences coming into theatres more.
Faster film speeds are awful. The Hobbit is being shot in both 3D (which most people have a love-it or hate-it relationship with) and testing the waters with 48FPS – twice the speed of normal movies. It’s a fail. Article: “The Hobbit … Didn’t Look So Good” At a recent screening, Jim Vejvoda watched a 10minute special screening of the new film and attributes the 48FPS as being at fault.
What? How could something as simple as there being twice as many frames of footage to view cause that big of a problem? “I was actually let down by the Hobbit footage, as were a number of the other journalists that I spoke with afterward.” Jim wrote. That bad.
In another article through a different publication, Devin Farci was even more blunt; ““The 48fps footage I saw looked terrible. It looked completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets”. There we go. The real stuff looked like real stuff. Instead of being an awesome middle-earth sword, it looked like a fake plastic gimmicky sword prop.
That’s a fail. I hope the producers come to their senses before release, and display the final film in 24P.. which has been working very nicely for 80+ years, thanks.
Footage that is too ‘real’ conveys the fakeness of movie-making. Takes us out of the story. I’ve been shooting 24P with my higher end productions for 5 years, and have no plans to stop. 24P is the ticket, man.