About 24 FPS in movie theaters.

[Bubukill]

After seeing Black Panther, especially that Korean Casino fight scene and all the car chasing scene. Am I the only one who thinks this 24 FPS standard on movies is getting pretty annoying on action scenes while watching them in movie theaters?

I just saw the same casino fight scene on youtube and comparing it to watching the scene in the movie theater, I just struggled to understand all the details of that action scene and all the movements, and I saw this movie in a pretty good IMAX theater (just in case someone tells me the theater I went could be the problem). Black Panther is just one example, I've been having the same difficultiy with pretty much tons action scenes.

 

[Khanimus]

Uhhh... no? If just about all film is built with that standard in mind, I'm not sure what Black Panther is doing any different .

 

[FunkyMonkey]

i notice it more in theaters when the camera is moving quickly and you see the jumping a bit. but overall it's not an issue with me

 

[Fulminator]

I don't have any problems with 24 fps

 

[TheBeardedOne]

No, I don't have a problem with it at all.

 

[B B]

I just saw the same casino fight scene on youtube and comparing it to watching the scene in the movie theater, I just struggled to understand all the details of that action scene and all the movements, and I saw this movie in a pretty good IMAX theater (just in case someone tells me the theater I went could be the problem).

Click to shrink...

The scene was still in 24 FPS on youtube

 

[TyrantII]

Why would YouTube be any different?

The trailer isn't mastered at anything higher than 24.

Very possible your lieMAX theater is still using 2K projectors with bulbs that should have been swapped out a year ago (dim issues)?

 

[Deleted member 11637]

I don't want dialogue scenes to look like soap operas, followed by action sequences that look like prerendered cutscenes.

 

[Bubukill]

The scene was still in 24 FPS on youtube

Click to shrink...

Well then 24 FPS in the movie theater is way more noticieable to me than YouTube. I had watched the scene previously, and when I watched it yesterday in the theater I really struggled to catch the same details compared to watching it on YouTube.

 

[Zedelima]

No. Action movies nowadays are pretty difficult to follow mainly because of that "shaky" camera that directors began to use (civil war use it a lot, and its pretty distracting).
But because of 24fps? Nah

 

[Xe4]

24 FPS is fine. It allows better effects for loads less money. 48 would cost twice as much, because twice as much animation needs to be made. If you don't mind paying twice as much for tickets, sure, but I doubt most would.

 

[The_Strokes]

It's not the frames, it's the directors fault. Coogler, for all the good he did, showed he's a little green when it comes to those kinda set pieces.

Although I did enjoy it, it wasn't particularly mind blowing.

 

[Sanjuro]

I need 360 frames per nano second.

 

[GarthLordOfTheSith]

Huh? The movie looked fine on my end. What FPS would you like it to try? They did 48 with one of the Hobbit movies and it just looked wrong. And weird.

 

[Bubukill]

You know one movie where I didn't get this sentiment, I could appreciate every frame and didn't lose any details was Mad Max Fury Road, that movie had some god-tier shots that made it absolutely perfect.

 

[Eidan]

No. 24 FPS is fine.

 

[Khanimus]

You know one movie where I didn't get this sentiment, I could appreciate every frame and didn't lose any details was Mad Max Fury Road, that movie had some god-tier shots that made it absolutely perfect.

Click to shrink...

You're not talking about framerate, you're talking about staging, framing, choreography, storyboarding, clarity of action.

 

[Zedelima]

You're not talking about framerate, you're talking about staging, framing, choreography, storyboarding, clarity of action.

Click to shrink...

This
As much as i like the blockbusters of today, this is one thing that a lot of them don't get right.
Maybe its the thousands of effects on screen and they dont know what to do with them

 

[Flabber]

When you say IMAX.... was it true IMAX or was it lieMAX?

To some extent I don't know why I'm being specific, I saw Force Awakens in a real IMAX screen in 3D and there were definitely some issues with that projection.

 

[Aurongel]

Choreography, shutter speed and focal length describe what you're getting at more accurately. Framerate doesn't factor into the equation as much as you think.

 

[FlaygletheBagel]

Considering what an awful, awful experience the Hobbit was in 48 frames, I hope the 24 fps standard sticks around for a long time.

 

[Bubukill]

You're not talking about framerate, you're talking about staging, framing, choreography, storyboarding, clarity of action.

Click to shrink...

I am talking about frame rate in part because I could basically notice every damn frame where the action sequence on black panther was happening like if it were like playing a videogame at 24 fps but this time watching a movie, It annoyed me and I lost details. Still, I understand the importance of 24 fps in movies.

Just to clarify, I don't have problems watching 24 fps movies in the Television, just in movie theaters as I've mentioned

 

[Beer Monkey]

24fps in YouTube is problematic as your PC display is typically 60hz; not an even multiple.

Cinema projectors do not have this issue.

 

[Xe4]

I am talking about frame rate in part because I could basically notice every damn frame where the action sequence on black panther was happening like if it were like playing a videogame at 24 fps but this time watching a movie, It annoyed me and I lost details. Still, I understand the importance of 24 fps in movies.

Just to clarify, I don't have problems watching 24 fps movies in the Television, just in movie theaters as I've mentioned

Click to shrink...

But Mad Max was shot in 24 fps. Shoot, apparently looking it up some were manipulated in post to run at an even slower FPS to make things appear faster.
So you're not talking about FPS, but about good cinematography in general.

 

[Aurongel]

I am talking about frame rate in part because I could basically notice every damn frame where the action sequence on black panther was happening like if it were like playing a videogame at 24 fps but this time watching a movie, It annoyed me and I lost details. Still, I understand the importance of 24 fps in movies.

Just to clarify, I don't have problems watching 24 fps movies in the Television, just in movie theaters as I've mentioned

Click to shrink...

If it looked "framey" to you then that's probably a factor of the motion blur used in the CG scenes not matching with the natural motion blue which is a factor of shutter speed. Saving Private Ryan's sharp choppy look isn't because of framerate fuckery so much as it is the shutter angle used during filming. There's a lot of different things contributing to the sensation you're describing.

 

[Einchy]

Black Panther was 60 FPS at 4K with AA turned on for me.

 

[Bubukill]

If it looked "framey" to you then that's probably a factor of the motion blur used in the CG scenes not matching with the natural motion blue which is a factor of shutter speed. Saving Private Ryan's sharp choppy look isn't because of framerate fuckery so much as it is the shutter angle used during filming. There's a lot of different things contributing to the sensation you're describing.

Click to shrink...

Thanks for the explanation and clarification.

This is what may be happening to me. The Black Panther scene had a long shot where it did not look bad, though.

 

[Skel1ingt0n]

If it looked "framey" to you then that's probably a factor of the motion blur used in the CG scenes not matching with the natural motion blue which is a factor of shutter speed. Saving Private Ryan's sharp choppy look isn't because of framerate fuckery so much as it is the shutter angle used during filming. There's a lot of different things contributing to the sensation you're describing.

Click to shrink...

Yep - this exactly.

You'll see this a lot on amateur youtube videos from those with solid gear. With a mirrorless camera, to get the "cinema" look, someone will choose 24 (or 23.98) fps but then pay absolutely no attention to their shutter speed if the general exposure is right just by happenstance (through a mixture of ISO, exposure comp, and aperture). With a really low shutter speed, the blur can become really distracting.

In the right hands, 24fps shouldn't be an issue - but shooting action is a very scientific equation, and it's really easy to mess up - even in trained hands. Ryan Coogler and his DP/cinematographer are a trillion times more talented than myself, so I don't meant to be dismissive of their incredible skill... but it's easy to observe and discuss these phenomenons.

Additonally, I'm always wary of anyone's theater experience, because the quality of every screen and projector varies so greatly. Hell, at my AMC, you have a Dolby theater with incredible blacks, a real 70mm projector for thins like Hateful Eight, and then you have LieMax theaters that are hyper dim and probably should have had their bulbs replaced a year ago, combined with a dingy screen. In many cases, this can cause just as much issue for the viewer's eyes as a poorly shoot scene.


***

EDIT: To this day I'm still upset I wasn't able to attend a true screening (of which there were only 3 or 4, I think) of Ang Lee's last film, Billy Lynn's Long Half-Time Walk. Apparently it's a very meh film - but it was shot at 4K, in 3D, at 120fps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Lynn's_Long_Halftime_Walk_(film)

 

[Zoso]

It bothers me too. Not a big fan of the soft blurry image during action scenes or panning shots. I actually loved the Hobbit 48fps releases and wish more films would experiment with higher frame rates. Holding out hope for the James Cameron's Avatar sequels.

 

[Jadentheman]

I don't want dialogue scenes to look like soap operas, followed by action sequences that look like prerendered cutscenes.

Click to shrink...

Most pre-rendered cutscenes at least in modern games run at 30fps though...

 

[HockeyBird]

I only watch movies with uncapped framerates. It's a shame that old theaters have such crappy CPUs. It really holds the movie industry back.

 

[Galkinator]

Nope I like it. I used to have a TV with that annoying processing thing that makes everything sort of 60 fps looking and it just made all the movies look cheap and weird.
It may be an old obsolete standard technically but I'm very much used to it, that "cinematic look".
Also, the hobbit didn't pull off the 48 fps "jump" too good, so imo that's a sign we shouldn't move to that format anytime soon.

 

[supernormal]

OP watch this.
https://vimeo.com/16591534

It's a good example of how clarity/blur is heavily influenced by shutter speed. What you're referring to could be related to shutter speed and not frame rate.

Edit: At a higher shutter speed there's less motion blur so the image is clearer, but this combined with it being at 24fps makes it look choppy. Videogames look choppy at 24fps because they lack the natural motion blur a camera gives when filming at a slow shutter speed. So when you take this motion blur away by recording at a higher shutter speed it may resemble the same effect you get from 24fps in video games.

 

[Mona]

If the crazy jackie chan stunt action in Police Story is readable on screen at 24fps, then it should be enough for any action movie

 

[TheWraith]

Huh? The movie looked fine on my end. What FPS would you like it to try? They did 48 with one of the Hobbit movies and it just looked wrong. And weird.

Click to shrink...

They did it with ALL Hobbit movies!

 

[Jtrizzy]

Yeah I don't know how to describe it either, but it's annoying. Reminds me of how much I hate panning the camera in 30 fps games.

 

[ry-dog]

Nope I like it. I used to have a TV with that annoying processing thing that makes everything sort of 60 fps looking and it just made all the movies look cheap and weird.
It may be an old obsolete standard technically but I'm very much used to it, that "cinematic look".
Also, the hobbit didn't pull off the 48 fps "jump" too good, so imo that's a sign we shouldn't move to that format anytime soon.

Click to shrink...

I think it did, we just weren't use to it

 

[Dr. Caroll]

24fps is absolutely awful for a lot of reasons and should have been killed decades ago, but the reason it's so problematic in theatres is screen size. The closer you sit to a huge screen, the more massive the jumps between frames. This was classically a problem with Westerns. They've have these wide angle shots of characters walking, and the characters would be juddering across the screen in a really noticeable manner. If you watch on a smaller screen, the juddering and strobing is slightly less obvious.

But yea, action films are sort of kinetically starved. Fast paced action turns into a juddering, blurred mess at 24fps. I think Michael Bay movies would be so much more visually coherent if they had a higher framerate.

 

[Bluelote]

I don't mind some movies being 24FPS, but I do think more should use other rates.

50-60FPS feels a lot better for watching sports and I think it would benefit some action movies

 

[Nictron]

After seeing Black Panther, especially that Korean Casino fight scene and all the car chasing scene. Am I the only one who thinks this 24 FPS standard on movies is getting pretty annoying on action scenes while watching them in movie theaters?

I just saw the same casino fight scene on youtube and comparing it to watching the scene in the movie theater, I just struggled to understand all the details of that action scene and all the movements, and I saw this movie in a pretty good IMAX theater (just in case someone tells me the theater I went could be the problem). Black Panther is just one example, I've been having the same difficultiy with pretty much tons action scenes.

Click to shrink...

I couldn't keep up with Thor so I got my eyes checked and ended up getting glasses. The result is that I don't have that problem anymore.