It seems to me that have now gotten my full HDTV a while ago, that it looks mostly like 60fps. A lot of people say they like HD cause there is no motion blur, or much less of it. But if this is the case, then why haven't filmmakers just all shot in 60fps this whole time. If people think it's better then why stick with 24. It seems people wouldn't have responded so well to HD had films already had that similar look to begin with.
If full HD looks like 60fps, then why not just shoot 60fps?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
It's not in 60FPS. HDtvs have some kind of function that smoothes the image. Personally, I hate it and I turn it off. Each company has a similar function but name it with some bombastic title.
Search your TV settings for something along the lines of "TruHD" or "Pixle Perfect Motion".
Search your TV settings for something along the lines of "TruHD" or "Pixle Perfect Motion".
Full HD = 1920x1080 pixels, nothing to do with the frame rate. The two are not connected.
I know what you're referring to. Ridley Scott recently stated that he wants to start shooting mostly in 3D and at 60fps because it does create a smoother, better looking picture.
The reason most don't, I would imagine, is because we have become accustom to films looking the way they do when shot at 24fps. Also, for movies to be shown at 60fps, theaters have to have projectors that can show a film at that frame rate and many don't.
The reason most don't, I would imagine, is because we have become accustom to films looking the way they do when shot at 24fps. Also, for movies to be shown at 60fps, theaters have to have projectors that can show a film at that frame rate and many don't.
3D benefits from the higher framerate exponentially, but in general movies look/feel better at 24fps. Ask Peter Jackson, whose screening of a section from The Hobbit to journalists was canned because it looked like a soap opera.
In terms of High Definition television, the framerate has nothing to do with the TV. AFAIK, most TV is shot or broadcast at 1080i which is 59.97 interlaced frames, rather than 59.97 progressive frames. Those that are progressive would be shooting/broadcasting at 23.97 fps ( or 25 in PAL land) with the TVs own 'funkification' of the image applied.
Also, I think you'll find a lot of contentious argument about whether or not it looks better. A lot of people, both filmmakers and consumers alike, hate the ultra-smoothness of a high end HDTV.
In terms of High Definition television, the framerate has nothing to do with the TV. AFAIK, most TV is shot or broadcast at 1080i which is 59.97 interlaced frames, rather than 59.97 progressive frames. Those that are progressive would be shooting/broadcasting at 23.97 fps ( or 25 in PAL land) with the TVs own 'funkification' of the image applied.
Also, I think you'll find a lot of contentious argument about whether or not it looks better. A lot of people, both filmmakers and consumers alike, hate the ultra-smoothness of a high end HDTV.
HD does have a similar look to 60fps, no denying that.
With the exception of 3D films we will continue to see films shot at 24fps because that is what looks cinematic. HD television is fantastic for things like sport but, I agree, movies are very rarely improved by the additional crispness.
With the exception of 3D films we will continue to see films shot at 24fps because that is what looks cinematic. HD television is fantastic for things like sport but, I agree, movies are very rarely improved by the additional crispness.
Okay. So people don't actually prefer movies that look like 60fps then. Do people just by HDTV for sports reasons then mostly?
People buy HDTVs because they are High Definition - try finding an SD TV that's bigger than ~30", let alone attempting to watch one. HD TV was brought in because SD couldn't scale to the sizes needed for 50", 60" etc. size TVs.
Note that not all HDTVs have the crisp motion you are talking about, and I've never owned one that does. Some do, but you can usually turn it off.
Note that not all HDTVs have the crisp motion you are talking about, and I've never owned one that does. Some do, but you can usually turn it off.
One of the characteristics of film and film-on-video is its relatively low temporal resolution. Unlike spatial resolution (which has more to do with visual sharpness and —indirectly— pixel count), temporal resolution has to do with how many frames (or fields) are recorded and displayed per second. Standard film production is normally shot at 24 frames per second, which is a much lower framerate compared with traditional television, which has been 50 fields per second (in PAL countries) and 59.94 fields (in NTSC countries). One of the many ways to achieve that film look or film-on-video look is to shoot with low framerate progressive video, which is commonly referred to as “24p”, 25p, and “30p”, since all three of these are much lower than the original field rate of traditional television. Because of the conditioning of TV viewers starting in the late 1970s and early 1980s (when TV news switched from 16mm film to 3/4” U-Matic video), we tend to associate high frame (or field) rate video on TV (50 or 59.94) with live video, and we tend to associate low framerate video on TV as either documentaries or dramatic productions. Both “24p” and “30p” have that low framerate look, although the low framerate look is milder with “30p” than with “24p”.
I just noticed that the Canon XF100 defaults to a shutter speed of 1/24 sec when in 24p. Why they wouldn't default the shutter to 1/48, I have no idea.
I just noticed that the Canon XF100 defaults to a shutter speed of 1/24 sec when in 24p. Why they wouldn't default the shutter to 1/48, I have no idea.