Hacker News Reader

Comment by spacecadet | Hacker News Reader

No one has seriously shot 24p in 2 decades but Aaron. Time to catch up man... It takes his crew 12 people lol, this isn't much worse then shooting existing 8 and 12k which at most is a single well trained DIT. I looked at this setup, its not any different, hype article.

View on HN

I think as a general rule when you’re using technical specs to argue that one of the greatest practitioners of their generation of whatever art you’re describing is doing it wrong, it’s probably worth sitting back and contemplating what point you’re trying to make and whether you’ve maybe missed something important along the way.

No one has seriously shot 24p in 2 decades but Aaron

What is this supposed to mean? Movies are 24fps. Here is a short list of the movies that are not 24fps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_high_frame_...

at most is a single well trained DIT

Is DIT supposed to mean 'Document Image Transformer' here? This is photography, not upscaling.

Haha, let me grab a random list too... yours is particularly bad because you didn't understand my point. Im talking about physical limitations of film, vs digital, vs human perception and the trade offs of budget, crew, and equipment.

Shooting on a camera locked at 24fps is not equal to shooting 24fps. Spend the next 20 years doing it and come back to me.

Here ya go, random list, tho mine is better matched to my point.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_on_digita...

you didn't understand my point

I still don't. You said something that wasn't true in any way, so I'm still not sure what the point is. Your list doesn't seem to make any sense or have any connection to what you're saying either.

Im talking about physical limitations of film, vs digital, vs human perception and the trade offs of budget, crew, and equipment.

If you say so, but what your comment actually said was that no one has shot 24fps in 20 years, which is nonsense.

Then you said something about 18k not being impressive because someone could shoot at 8k and scale it up, but even that wasn't very clear.

I think you're expecting 3 decades of cinema tech knowledge to be dumped on you in a comment.

No one shoots true 24. Anymore. Nor does any modern studio want to.

That doesnt mean content isnt finalized at 24...

18k is impressive, thats a-lot of heat. 12 people running a standard high res RAID, is not impressive and puffed up for press.

No one shoots true 24. Anymore. Nor does any modern studio want to.

This is not true, where are you getting this information? Converting a high frame rate to a lower frame rate is not like resampling a high res image to a lower res image. You have to interpolate or throw out frames, both of which are terrible compared to just shooting in the frame rate you want.

Unless it’s an integer multiple. Shrug.

Nope, if it's an integer multiple you still have to throw out frames and those frames could have been part of the motion blur of other frames instead. It isn't the same because instead of taking a single exposure for half the time the frame elapses you would have two frames, each exposed for a fourth of that same time.

Or you just interpolate between frames if you want the same motion blur. It’s just like downsampling from 4k to 1080p. The process is clean since you can directly map 2 frames to 1 frame (or, 4 pixels to 1 pixel for resolution conversion).

Absolutly not. Once again, interpolating frames is not "just like downsampling" an image.

Things move and obscure each other, you will get artifacts.

Again, there is also motion blur and missing information. A frame exposure might be for half the time of the frame (which is common). Two frames would then be have their exposures broken up over time. Imagine four units of time. One frame fills up two next to each other and the next two are blank. Two frames would fill up one, the next would be blank, the next would be filled, the next would be blank.

Anyone telling you that you can "just" interpolate frames has never done it before.

> Shooting on a camera locked at 24fps is not equal to shooting 24fps.

Care to explain?

I know quite a bit about camera technology and don't have the slightest idea of what you mean with this sentence.

The only generous interpretation I can see is that Aronofsky uses extremely innovative techniques yet has long publicly voiced that he prefers to use analog film. For instance some of his signature style is short shots taken with cameras mounted on actors in dark conditions which vastly easier to realize with digital yet he has repeatedly chosen to use film. Whilst it is perfectly consistent that what would change his mind is an extremely powerful digital camera; it is also possible that the resulting PR spin causes some frustration to a generation of professionals who have been working in digital for 20 years and not been given shiny 18K cameras to play with.

He only did that in Pi. Maybe thats all he is known for, but I wouldn't call it his style anymore.

And Requiem but yes that was only one example, he has an amazing and varied output.

It has nothing to do with tech. The same reason Daren shoots film is why I still shoot film, at any speeds. Since almost no one chooses to shoot true 24fps anymore, everything is sampled down and so everything I watch looks like shit. Sharp, but jittery shit.

Use the tool for the situation. I actually respect the tech behind the sphere and 18k cameras, because it's purpose built and I imagine looks lovely in its native speed and fov.

But Daren... this piece is gross man.

You still haven't defined what "true 24fps" is, and the idea that it "has nothing to do with tech" makes no sense. 24 fps is a technical term, no more and no less.

And everyone here is left baffled because it seems to be some personal notion of yours, as opposed to what it is universally and clearly understood to mean.

I literally have no idea what you mean when you talk about things being "sampled down" or "sharp, jittery shit".

The only thing sampled down in most modern TV/film production is a usually a 4K source down into 1080p or less for distribution. But I can't possibly imagine you're objecting to that. And frame rates aren't "sampled down".

Meanwhile, by "jittery" I can only guess you mean shutter speed, not frame rate? Normal shutter angle is 180°, and that has been standard for many, many decades, identical between film and digital, and which has never been jittery. Sometimes action scenes use a smaller angle (faster speed), which you're free to call jittery, but that's not the norm. Generally just for action scenes, or for occasional other artistic effect.

If you want to have any kind of productive conversation on HN, I suggest you start explaining what you actually mean rather than throwing around terms with idiosyncratic personal definitions you simply invent, that have nothing to do with how the terms are generally understood.

I never thought about this, but what if you shoot at 30 fps and want to produce 24? How do you map 30 onto 24 time-wise? In 30, each frame lasts 33.33ms. In 24 it’s 41.66. So if the first frame is synced, the second frame of something captured in 30 and transformed to 24 would show up 8.3ms too late. The third - 16.ms, and so on. It’s not possible to properly sync video to 24fps if it was shot at 30 without interpolation, right?

It’s commonly done the other way, actually. Converting 24fps to 30fps for converting film (typically shot at 24fps) to TV broadcast ready, which is 29.97 fps in the US/NTSC region.

That said, you can go the other way. Basically, you interlace certain frames. Wikipedia has a great article on this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down#2:3

Thanks. Then I suppose it doesn't matter if it's 30fps to 24fps or the other way around, the process is probably similar - either interpolation or interlacing.

And that brings up an interesting point - after such a process, is it possible to produce clear visuals on each frame? The image [0] on the Wikipedia article illustrates my question.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down#/media/F...

you come across as someone who doesn’t make sense or someone who knows but doesn’t know how to explain themselves across industry borders.

you can assume everyone here is a bit technical, but not experts on film.

Yeah, like that stupid one-eared Dutch painter who just did these kind of low-res pixelated paintings, unlike more realistic work like the old masters such as Rembrandt. What's his name again? I doubt anyone remembers, or if there's anything named after this doze.

Has anyone shot at 42.6666666667x24? Even earliest digital cameras had higher resolution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com