Stupid Question

[RichardStands]

Hello... I have a question for you seeming veteran 8mm filmmakers - I'm preparing to use an 8mm camera for a short I'm making and cannot firgure this out - I know the standard for shooting on 8mm is 18fps... why is this? 24fps is still real time with this format is it not? Forgive my ignorance.

[BolexPlusx]

18 FPS is used because it stretches out the amount of time recorded on a given length of film without compromising the motion seen on the screen. 24 FPS is also used in Super-8, typically with sound footage, because the more rapid speed of the sound track gives better audio fidelity. It is also useful where the footage is intended to be transferred to other formats such as 16mm, where the standard is 24 FPS.

The cost of the faster frame rate? A 50 foot cartridge runs 2 and a half minutes at 24 FPS, and 3 minutes and 20 seconds at 18 FPS.

I shoot silent footage that is never going to be transferred, so I stick with 18 FPS.

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Nigel:
I shoot all of my film S8, S16, or 35mm in nothing slower than 24fps no matter what. It looks crisper and sharper hands down.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree. Looks much better to me. I think that shooting at 24fps is also better as it gives you 25% more editorial increments to choose from.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Nigel:
If I had the ability to shoot at and play back at 100fps I would.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hah! That would be fun. Ironically, once you hit 60fps, it will look like video, motion wise. [img]wink.gif[/img]

Roger

[Nigel]

I know a lot of people that will shoot S8 at nothing but 18fps because they say "18Fps is the frame rate in which Super8 was meant to be shot."

I say screw that. I shoot all of my film S8, S16, or 35mm in nothing slower than 24fps no matter what. It looks crisper and sharper hands down.

If I had the ability to shoot at and play back at 100fps I would.

Good Luck

[Matt Pacini]

I read a while back, that some guy came up with a new format, that is a smaller size 35mm frame, but shooting at 48fps.
The reviews said it was astounding quality, and I'd love to see things go that way, instead of towards Hd or whatever.
It was really being touted as the next evolution, to take film beyond what it is now, but not up in expense of shooting 65mm film.
I think it's an excellent idea, but I can't see it happening, unfortunately, especially now, with everyone insisting digital is going to kill film.


Matt Pacini

[dr.sanchez]

Check out this Roger Ebert rant about Maxivision48.

http://www.volksmovie.com/rants/archive/rogerebert.htm

I doubt Lucas would go for it, though.

dr.sanchez

[Nigel]

It might "look" like video but film will never look as bad as video.

Good Luck

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Nigel:
It might "look" like video but film will never look as bad as video.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny comment coming from someone that swore Three's Company was shot on 35mm! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Just kidding, Nigel.

Well, again, I was only talking about the motion characteristics. Once you get close to 50fps or above, the motion becomes silky smooth, just like video.

What is interesting is that, having read Roger Ebert's review of the new Maxivision48, I have to doubt whether he's actually seen Douglass Trumballs ShowScan process, which projects at 60fps and looks (from all reports) like gigantic video. I would imagine the new Maxivision48 would also look very much like video, though it would benefit from a wider dynamic range, for the time being.

My take on it is that, like it or not, digital is the future and not film. Oh, Roger Ebert makes some interesting points about the cheaper price of installation on the projection units and how Kodak and Fuji should really like Maxivision48 since it uses twice as much film. But his reasoning is totally obtuse since the cost of using more film is one of the main reasons that distributors want OUT of film and IN to digital. Distribution prints are numbingly expensive and start to get worn from the very first projection. They are a very expensive consumable; expensive to make, ship and handle.

Also, Roger's views on piracy are also off the mark. One of the strong points about Maxivision48 is that it uses standard 35mm film. This is also its achilles heel. Oh, sure, Maxivision48 runs at 48fps but so what? Piracy is a problem most associated outside the US where 35mm is still the norm for theatrical projection. Does Roger Ebert think that a flea infested theater in Malaysia is going to throw down the $10,000 USD for the retro fit of Maxivision equipment when they can use a skip framed 24fps pirate print on their current projector? The fact that Maxivision48 was designed to accomodate traditional 24fps prints means that, mathmatically, it leaves itself wide open to the most common form of theatrical print piracy: Optical printing. Who needs sophisticated computer hacking and satellite dishes to pirate a film when a used JK from ebay will do the trick? As far as access is concerned - well, digital or film, a bribed projectionist is a bribed projectionist, you know?

Now, I will be the first to admit that (for now) film looks better than video/digital and I would rather it stay an "all film" world. But let's face it, video is cheaper than film and the powers that be in Hollywood aren't concerned about just making the best asthetic decision. They're concerned about making the most *cost effective* asthetic decision.

I mean, the entire film making process is just one big lie. The guy didn't REALLY fall in love with the girl. The house didn't REALLY burn down. The earth didn't REALLY blow up. So the process is about telling the cheapest lie you can and video/digital lies are cheaper than film lies any day of the week.

Ah, but film STILL looks better than video, right? Of course! For the time being....

Here's an example of how things change:

Back in the 50's, there was no video tape. Live programs were recorded on special Auricon 16mm cameras that shot off a black and white monitor. These films were then used as video tape is used today. This process was used up well into the 60's, if you can believe it, and the process was refined to a point where the quality was REALLY, REALLY good. Sharp, good contrast, everything just right. Then, suddenly, Ampex came out with a dependable (though expensive) video tape recorder for black and white video. The image was just awful. I mean, there was NO comparison in quality to the video-to-film Auricon transfers. None the less, the television industry embraced the videotape revolution for the very same reason that Hollywood will embrace the current digital/video revolution: Things get cheaper as they get better. The proof? Anyone can go into a local electronics discount store and by a camcorder that would blow doors off the earlier black and white recorders or even the broadcast recorders from only 10-15 years ago.

So the industry is willing to put up with less NOW for the promise of more TOMORROW. The powers that be in Hollywood aren't interested in what is the best that can be obtained EVER. They're interested in what is the cheapest thing they can get away with RIGHT NOW for the money that will still "do the job". In some warped way, as someone that works in super 8, I can actually relate to that. [img]wink.gif[/img]

Roger

[wahiba]

. [img]smile.gif[/img] It is all to do with persistence of vision. At around 50 images per second we tend to see a movie, in other words the 'flicker' should not be seen.

In days past 16 fps was the standard. The projector had a three bladed shutter so each image was flicked three times to arrive at 48 fps projection which was percieved as a continuing image without, supposedly, flicker.

24 fps film generally uses a two bladed shutter for the same effect.

25fps and 30 fps are the result of PAL and NTSC television, which are obviously based on the mains frequencis of 50Hz and 60 Hz respectively.

18 fps was probably an effort to eliminate the minor amount of flicker at 16 fps. 18 fps gives 54 fps projection which is actually better than the 48 fps from a 24 fps two bladed projector.

Of course a three bladed 24 fps projector gives 72 fps projection, which should look quite smooth.

I believe the problem with more shutter blades at higher speed is to do with light.

So, if there is not too much fast motion 18fps through a three bladed projector should look reasonable.

Hence amateurs do not be conned by the proffesional 24 fps, it is their standard, then they can afford the 50% extra film cost [img]graemlins/film.gif[/img]

[mattias]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is all to do with persistence of vision.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

not really. the flicker issue and the smoothness of motion issue are different things. while 18x3=54 is enough to avoid flicker, 18 is not enough to create smooth motion, which is what we're talking about here? it's generally thought that 10-15 fps is the minimum to create motion where you can't see the individual still frames, and that you need about 50 to call it smooth.

another thing to note: video cameras register everything that happens ("100% duty cycle"). one fields is captured while the other is being written, so the shutter is never really closed as in film, which also makes a huge difference for the look. i believe there are actually film cameras that use a prism shutter to achieve a full duty cycle, and running one of those at 50 fps would surely look very much like video, except for the lack of latitude and color rendition problems. i think i would like it...

/matt