• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

24 fps .. Why ? Why not 8, 12 or ??

IndieBudget

IndieBudget

Im having some fun playing with frame rates. Why 24fps ? Ok, Ok I know it is "the way" ..BORING.. here is something Im playing with. I seeing that some scenes might require different frame rates. For horror, surreal or dramatic effects.

Still would have to get it to the magic 24fps using conversions, I love the rates of 12fps for some animations. Im tired of the new, best, old way. I am experimenting here. We use many combinations of color, luma, chroma changes in sound so why not frame rates ?

Just playin w/ 8 fps for a surreal scene.. Not yet a finished product, still needs voiceover and sound design. Still think I need to play w/ colors and presentation, maybe less color ??


Not saying the entire scene must be that strange frame rate, but only parts for effect. Some parts would look best at a normal rate. One would get seizures from too long at that rate. I wish to experiment with rates for effect.

I will figger it out. Enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHtCcUY3Rc8
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
IndieBudget said:
Why 24fps ? Ok, Ok I know it is "the way" ..BORING..
Click to expand...

There's a bit to more it than that. ;)

Like most things in life, these decisions revolve around money.

When silent flicks were all the rage, an FPS of 14 - 18 was usual. There was a bit of leeway with the exact fps, as much was hand-cranked, etc, yadda-yadda.

Mainly... film is expensive. The more of it you use, the more your film costs to shoot, and even more importantly... each duplicate/copy of it (to be shipped out & screened all across the world) costs more.

Sooooo... why 14-ish fps? This is the lowest fps that you can get away with, and still have the motion look fluid enough to the eye. If you go below this, everything starts to get choppy, and begins to really look like a series of stills. At about 14, things really smooth out well enough for people to accept as motion... so why spend more money for faster framerates that use much more celluloid than you really need?

That was great for a while, but silent film eventually gave way to sound... and all of a sudden you needed a way to deliver the sound, as well as the film. The easiest solution overall was to add a magnetic soundtrack to the edge of the film reel, so that film & audio would be merged together on a single item. At this point, it became necessary to add more frames to accomodate the extra information... but once again, only as far as was minimally needed to get away with it. That fps turned out to be 24-ish... and by this time there's standardisation of many things, etc.

So, long answer to your question about "why 24?"... 'cos it was the fps that used the least amount of film, to reduce cost.

This is also a great reason to really play with alternate framerates, like that 8fps you posted. It looks "wrong"... and in many cases that can be turned into "interesting". But that's mainly because several generations of movie-goers have been trained to see film move at a certain speed.

There's a few movies coming out soon at 48 fps... it's going to be interesting to see how they look, for sure.

At any rate, I'm rambling. I'm really looking forward to seeing how this miniature house ties into the live-action of your film. You've been working on this for a while! :cool:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
IndieBudget said:
Im having some fun playing with frame rates. Why 24fps ? Ok, Ok I know it is "the way" ..BORING..
Click to expand...

The original frame rate was 18 frames per second, but it wasn't smooth. They started making it 24 frames per second because it was scientifically determined that this was the most fluid frame rate for the human eye, at least according to early 20th century data.

24P is an aesthetically pleasing look. 60 frames per second looks too "fake", as in video-ish and that is generally not the style that most narrative movies are looking for.

I would never shoot in something "just because" or I read somewhere that I should. 24 Frames Per Second looks good, but it's only a fraction of the equation as to what makes a moving image look pleasing.


IndieBudget said:
Not saying the entire scene must be that strange frame rate, but only parts for effect. Some parts would look best at a normal rate. One would get seizures from too long at that rate. I wish to experiment with rates for effect.
Click to expand...

Watch the opening battle of GLADIATOR; using different frame rates in a film or sequence is hardly a new idea. SLOW MOTION is just a higher frame rate played back slower, and step printing is doubling every frame to create slow motion in a more staccato way. Since the hey day of martial arts from the late 1960's to today, recording things at a slower frame rate and played back makes the action seem faster.

No offense, but I'm not seeing frame rates as a radical new thing since they have been varied for most of cinema history.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sonnyboo said:
No offense, but I'm not seeing frame rates as a radical new thing since they have been varied for most of cinema history.
Click to expand...
None taken, Im not stating I discovered anything other than Im having fun playing with rates and that getting out of the rigid mold we sometimes put ourselves in can be freeing.

In my learning Im seeing how one should use what works and how the trick in the Martial Arts movies can be used as well...thanxx


Dready ? choppy ? really ?:yes: ..OK
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think playing around with different frame rates can offer some unexpected results that might do the trick (looks great!) or not (hmmmm...). Just depends on what sort of mood you're trying to create.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top