my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Will the industry ever give up on 24fps? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Will the industry ever give up on 24fps? Mattias Ohlson Expert Film Handler Posts: 180 From: Falun, Sweden Registered: Mar 2003 posted 08-08-2003 02:50 PM                     This post is related to my post about not being satisfied with the projected image quality during a showing of Terminator 3. I know there are many factors that can make the final look of the film on screen appear less than stellar. In action movies with lots of motion is anyone really satisfied with 24fps. I ask you as a consumer why don you go to 48fps or 60fps? I know the studios produce the movies but you sell them. Is Maxivison48 not a good concept at least for putting the story onto a film medium. With 48fps you could offer a better product and the studios could offer excellent quality after life secondary sales of the movie? I mean something like Maxivison48 must be much cheaper for you than going digital or? interested consumer Mattias Ohlson  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 08-08-2003 04:14 PM                    In an age when most Scope format movies are Super 35 blowups, when certain full scale Hollywood productions and even IMAX releases are being shot on video and 65/70mm (5-perf) production is completely dead and buried, I see little evidence that the powers that be consider image quality to be a selling point at all. And since they aren't even willing to maintain what we've had in the past the chances of them investing in improving it are slim to none. Sorry.  |  IP: Logged Christopher Seo Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 530 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-08-2003 06:09 PM                     I wonder why sound gets all the attention these days. It seems that in the golden age of new theatrical release formats beginning with Cinerama in 1952, introducing a new format meant superior sound and superior picture. Cinerama with 6-perf three-panel picture and 7-track sound; CinemaScope with anamorphic picture and 4-track sound; Todd-AO with 70mm picture, 30 fps, and 6-track sound; etc. Why has cinema sound continued to evolve but cinema picture remained stagnant? Yes, filmstock has come a long way, but these are incremental changes rather than bold new steps.  |  IP: Logged Greg Routenburg Expert Film Handler Posts: 178 From: Toronto, ON, Canada Registered: May 2003 posted 08-08-2003 06:25 PM                     One thing that comes to mind almost immedately would be film stress being pulled through the projector at greater then 24fps. Is that not why they had to develop the new film motion design for IMAX?  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 08-08-2003 07:46 PM                    there was Showscan that ran at 60 frames per second. 70MM and didn't Todd-A0 run at 30 frames per second. Remember the faster the film runs through the more film stock you need.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Ralston Film Handler Posts: 13 From: Cincinnati, OH, USA Registered: Jul 2003 posted 08-08-2003 08:08 PM                     When I watch movies with my friends, most never notice dirt, scratches, or splices unless it's really bad, and I would say that a majority of the movie-goers are the same way. So if I made a movie, I sure wouldn't want to make a regular three can movie a six can movie, make all projection booths buy new film delivery systems, etc. Aren't three hour movies big enough at 24 fps?  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 08-08-2003 08:44 PM                     The real problem is industry wide apathy. The distributors don't care. The exhibitors don't care. And the audiences don't care. Well, I think that's what most people in charge want us all to believe. It is more profitable for them that way. Move image quality standards to lesser and lesser values while slightly improving profit margins. What it's going to take is someone with influence to finally stand up, "grow a pair" and start knocking some heads. If George Lucas could convince a good number of people to buy into a video production concept that isn't even 1/2 the quality of 1080i HDTV then someone else with some power could do some arm twisting in the favor of better film presentation. Just how many people does it take to go through and OK having a single film shot 30fps or 48fps? How many stand in the way of shooting a movie in 65mm? How many stand in the way of striking some 70mm prints and having a 70mm showcase screening? There's a good number of filmmakers out there who have more than enough clout to force such a thing to happen. But they are sitting back comfortably while much of the rest of us seem satisfied with apathy.  |  IP: Logged Jesse August Film Handler Posts: 58 From: Vancouver British Columbia Registered: Jul 2003 posted 08-08-2003 09:20 PM                     For the most part IMAX runs 24fps. Accept for a few theatres that run 48fps.  |  IP: Logged Christopher Seo Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 530 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-09-2003 02:10 AM                     Are there even any IMAX HD features to play in the handful of HD-equipped theatres? AFAIK the 48 fps project was dead on arrival. One exception is the "Soarin' Over California" ride at Disneyland's California Adventure. Now that is an example of an improved picture technology making a definite impact on the viewers along with other effects of the ride. Anyone who visits California Adventure must check this one out.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-09-2003 03:44 AM                        Wasn't Maxivision48 more than just a higher frame rate? Didn't it include a new, more precise intermittent module? I never saw any real technical data other than the explanation Roger Ebert once did in his column. The whole package ran about $800 to upgrade and only a short time to convert -- evidently the system was not compatible with standard prints so you would have to switch back to the original intermittent to run non-Maxivision48 prints -- at least that's what I remember of it. If the SMPTE Journal ever did a piece on it, I missed it. John...? Frank  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-09-2003 09:54 AM                     Momentum is the one we show ocasionally at Ontario Place and was the first 48fps film  |  IP: Logged Dave Callaghan Film Handler Posts: 60 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jan 2003 posted 08-09-2003 03:30 PM                     You can read about Maxivision 48 at http://www.maxivisioncinema.com/maxivisioninfo1002.pdf This is a 27 page General Information paper from July 2002.  |  IP: Logged Martin Brooks Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 900 From: Forest Hills, NY, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 08-09-2003 04:19 PM                        There's been many discussions over the years about moving to 30fps, if only to eliminate the 3:2 pulldown when converting to video for TV and other video uses, but it is NEVER going to happen. The industry doesn't want to convert and they don't want to use the 25% additional in print stock, especially in an era when major film releases might mean more than 2500 prints. On the other hand, there have also been proposals for various "compact release print" formats, which are 2-perf or 3-perf and use less stock. The industry has rejected those as well. In the late 70s, when 70mm films were popular (although they were virtually all blowups from 35mm), there were numerous 70mm releases mainly to gain the advantages of 6-track mag sound. Even though you can get more light behind the 70mm print in projection, that was much less a factor. If audiences would stop attending theatres that had lousy projection, the studios might be more inclined to invest in superior presentation. But audiences tend to care more about stadium seating and fancy concession stands if they care at all.  |  IP: Logged Mattias Ohlson Expert Film Handler Posts: 180 From: Falun, Sweden Registered: Mar 2003 posted 08-09-2003 06:31 PM                     OK It will never happen with film, I get that. So the cost is on the duplication side of the coin not so much on the film stock to record the movie. Is it not a good idea to go to higher fps at the same time as the cinemas goes digital , that is if they go digital. You get the quality of film for capturing with plenty of fps, 48 with the Maxivision48 system, and you can show it without degradation by projecting digitally still at the high fps. Film should be used for production at 48fps or whereabouts. Then good transfers with it projected digitally at 2k-4k at 48fps with the resolution depending on venue.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 08-10-2003 04:49 AM                     Martin wrote: quote: There's been many discussions over the years about moving to 30fps, if only to eliminate the 3:2 pulldown when converting to video for TV and other video uses, but it is NEVER going to happen. 30 fps production would eliminate the problem for NTSC transfers, at the expense of introducing a similar one for PAL transfers, so overall you wouldn't really gain anything.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.