Digital cinema and the death of grain?

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by Falconer

Can't say I care about grain at all. Only time I notice it is when it gets in the way of a beautiful image.

*cough* Black Swan *cough*

[Monkey]

I just remembered The Hobbit will be in 48fps

Originally Posted by 42041

TV has never had that restriction, yet every scripted TV show I know, even when all of them are shooting digital (so film cost is a non-issue), is in 24fps. It's a distinctive, cinematic look.

I've never read the statistics but I thought some TV shows were filmed at 30fps and some 60fps as well. Would be interesting to see if there was some data base that showed tv shows and their framerates.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by Monkey

I just remembered The Hobbit will be in 48fps

I think 48fps will be the next gimmick to drive up ticket prices even more.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by 42041

TV has never had that restriction, yet every scripted TV show I know, even when all of them are shooting digital (so film cost is a non-issue), is in 24fps. It's a distinctive, cinematic look.

Originally Posted by Monkey

I just remembered The Hobbit will be in 48fps



I've never read the statistics but I thought some TV shows were filmed at 30fps and some 60fps as well. Would be interesting to see if there was some data base that showed tv shows and their framerates.

Every scripted FILMED TV show is shot 24fps. Every show shot on video, but then "mastered" to film for the look are on the film at 24fps. Multi-camera shows, usually situation comedies, especially those shot before a live audience, are 30fps, except they're actually rarely 30fps. Instead they're 29.97 fps.

29.97 became the standard because in analog color TV, the 3.58MHZ color subcarrier would absorb common phase noise from the harmonics of the line scan frequency, resulting in buzzing. So they adjusted everything else except the audio or chroma subcarriers, including the frame rate, which was divided by 1.001. I don't think this is an issue in digital recording or broadcasting, so everyone could go back to 30fps if they wanted to, but most systems still use 29.97. (As a result of using 29.97, TV systems generally also use drop-frame timecode. Without using drop frame timecode, a TV schedule would be off by 86 seconds per day. In spite of the name, no frames of video are dropped. Rather the count is dropped: it drops frame numbers 0 and 1 of the first second of every minute except when the number of minutes is divisible by 10.)

Furthermore, don't necessarily be so thrilled that the Hobbit will be "filmed" at a higher frame rate. I'm open to the potential, but in tests that I've seen, while it made movement much crisper, it resulted in the dreaded "soap opera" effect, which destroys the suspension of disbelief (IMO). Did you ever see an "extra" that documented the making of a film where everything they did looked fake but when you saw the film it looked real? That's the difference between video technique and film technique.

There's a video on the web somewhere of a kid on a swing at different frame rates. At high frame rates, the movement was much crisper, but it no longer looked like film. When you do still photography, if you shoot action at too short a speed (say 1/4000th of a second), while it sharply catches the moment, it no longer looks like there was any action. You need a slight bit of blur for the brain to perceive action. That's what you begin to lose when you double the frame rate, even though technically, it's far superior.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Every sc

[Show spoiler]ripted FILMED TV show is shot 24fps. Every show shot on video, but then "mastered" to film for the look are on the film at 24fps. Multi-camera shows, usually situation comedies, especially those shot before a live audience, are 30fps, except they're actually rarely 30fps. Instead they're 29.97 fps.

29.97 became the standard because in analog color TV, the 3.58MHZ color subcarrier would absorb common phase noise from the harmonics of the line scan frequency, resulting in buzzing. So they adjusted everything else except the audio or chroma subcarriers, including the frame rate, which was divided by 1.001. I don't think this is an issue in digital recording or broadcasting, so everyone could go back to 30fps if they wanted to, but most systems still use 29.97. (As a result of using 29.97, TV systems generally also use drop-frame timecode. Without using drop frame timecode, a TV schedule would be off by 86 seconds per day. In spite of the name, no frames of video are dropped. Rather the count is dropped: it drops frame numbers 0 and 1 of the first second of every minute except when the number of minutes is divisible by 10.)

Furthermore, don't necessarily be so thrilled that the Hobbit will be "filmed" at a higher frame rate. I'm open to the potential, but in tests that I've seen, while it made movement much crisper, it resulted in the dreaded "soap opera" effect, which destroys the suspension of disbelief (IMO). Did you ever see an "extra" that documented the making of a film where everything they did looked fake but when you saw the film it looked real? That's the difference between video technique and film technique.

There's a video on the web somewhere of a kid on a swing at different frame rates. At high frame rates, the movement was much crisper, but it no longer looked like film. When you do still photography, if you shoot action at too short a speed (say 1/4000th of a second), while it sharply catches the moment, it no longer looks like there was any action. You need a slight bit of blur for the brain to perceive action. That's what you begin to lose when you double the frame rate, even though technically, it's far superior.

I'd much prefer the higher framerate. 24fps in panning shots just isn't adequate, it is very juddery and isn't smooth, which takes me out of the experience. Same with high action movies, getting juddery due to the framerate not being able to keep up. If being smooth and not juddery is call the "soap opera effect" for some, then that's what I'd rather have.

[srinivas1015]

Originally Posted by Monkey

I'd much prefer the higher framerate. 24fps in panning shots just isn't adequate, it is very juddery and isn't smooth, which takes me out of the experience. Same with high action movies, getting juddery due to the framerate not being able to keep up. If being smooth and not juddery is call the "soap opera effect" for some, then that's what I'd rather have.

What if they continue filming in 24fps and use higher frame rates for juddery shots like pans? The movie can switch framerates just like how certain IMAX movies(The dark knight and Tron Legacy for example) switch aspect ratios.

But then the projectors and televisions will have to dynamically switch refresh rates or show everything at the highest frame rate. (show both 24fps and 48fps at 48hz. This will maintain the movie-like effect while removing judder.)

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by srinivas1015

What if they continue filming in 24fps and use higher frame rates for juddery shots like pans? The movie can switch framerates just like how certain IMAX movies(The dark knight and Tron Legacy for example) switch aspect ratios.

But then the projectors and televisions will have to dynamically switch refresh rates or show everything at the highest frame rate. (show both 24fps and 48fps at 48hz. This will maintain the movie-like effect while removing judder.)

I suppose it would be possible. I would think they could just do a constant 48fps standard all around and manipulate the source material somehow to give those who prefer the juddery 24fps look what they want as well. Kind of like how using color film can still produce black and white images or heavy grain artifacts can be added as well for those who prefer lower quality picture with grain artifacts.

[X12Celtics3]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

*cough* Black Swan *cough*

Black Swan looked absolutely perfect.

Anyway, I like digital filming, but I was hoping this would be on film. For a dark, gritty mystery/crime thriller, it will be a bit odd to not see any grain.

[Jimmy Smith]

If I had my way every movie from now on would be shot with the same cameras The Hobbitt is being shot with

[Foggy]

Grain will always be used as film is an art form and grain is a tool to create effect. The only problem is that grain my be artifical used

[Jimmy Smith]

Up until recently grain was rarely an intentional artistic decision and more a side effect of filmmaking limitations. Digital cinema is little over a decade old and only very recently could it shoot at a high enough resolution. Up until very recently film was simply the only way to shoot a movie at high enough resolution to be future proof.

[WiWavelength]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Up until recently grain was rarely an intentional artistic decision and more a side effect of filmmaking limitations.

That is a sweeping generalization that fits far more your biases than any actual consensus. You seem to have very little filmmaking knowledge and/or fine arts education.

AJ

[Caesar Will Rise]

I like good digitally shot movies as much as the next person, Hello Knowing, but some movies really benefit from film grain. Look at Spielberg's War of the Worlds, A.I., Saving Private Ryan, or even Minority Report. The natural film grain really enhanced the intended moods of those films, especially Ryan and Worlds. War of the Worlds, even on my Blu, is intensely grainy and overblown bordering on washed out at points, but it really fits with the grimy nature of the situations unfolding. I like crystal clear picture, but I also like when directors use grain like that for artistic purposes. J.J. Abrams is a filmmaker who, at least for the time being, refuses to give up on old fashioned 35mm film. I love him for his dedication. Star Trek and Super 8 are two incredibly gorgeous films shot on 35mm. I know Super 8 had pickup shoots on digital, but Abrams and Larry Fong carefully monitored those shots to make sure they did not break rank with the rest of the movie.

[Foggy]

Makes me laugh how dorky all you people are!

Black Swan being so grainy you can't see where a persons face starts and begins...maybe if you watched it very drunk/catatonic

Films film, whether it's shot at 24 frames, 48 frames, a bazillion frames. The only person who should care it the director and maybe the cinematographer. All you guys can do if shut your mouths and enjoy, or whine to a few people who don't care.

[Trekkie313]

I miss the "dirt specks" and lines on films.

[Agent Bond]

Down with grain. Long live DNR.

[Brightstar]

why dont they shell out movies in 4k instead of 3D?

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Agent Bond

Down with grain. Long live DNR.

Or you could not have either and just have a kick ass picture instead of grain artifacts.

[ObiTrentKenobi]

?wow?

[WiWavelength]

Originally Posted by ObiTrentKenobi

?

Is there any instances anyone here can recollect of a director saying - "I just wanted that grain! That's why I chose such poor film stock and processing techniques." All for the sake of art?

Yes, many instances. If you do not know that, then you lack much knowledge about filmmakers and filmmaking. And your use of pejorative terms "poor film stock and processing" demonstrates your inexperience. In truth, many high quality film stocks (e.g. Kodak Vision 800T 5289) and processing techniques (e.g. bleach bypass or silver retention processing) can have the effect of heightened grain.

Originally Posted by ObiTrentKenobi

I don't think Grain ever was seen as "artistic" in the pre-digital age, it was a byproduct of what technology was available.

Incorrect. See above.

Anyone who thinks that characteristics of film stocks, such as film grain, are only limitations, not artistic tools should do him/herself a favor and go read half a dozen back issues of "American Cinematographer."

AJ