Last time, we looked at why we ended up with 24 frames per second for narrative filmmaking. Having recovered from the shock of realising that it wasn’t actually chosen for any reason to do with the picture at all, it’s worth looking at the fallout of that historical decision and how it affects us today.
Here's another chance to read this article, the content of which seem to get more relevant with each passing day: "Megapixels" doesn't equal "resolution". Not by a long way!
If you've read the previous two parts of this analysis of frame rates, you'll be aware that what we're all doing is chasing a standard that wasn't picked for how it looked, on the basis of how that standard compares with something else that also wasn't picked for how it looks. Regardless of how much sense this makes, it does lead to a few regional variances in the way this stuff works, principally involving the interaction of 24fps film with local television standards.
This is the first of three articles on concsecutive days that explores the reasons for using 24 fps. As our ability to capture and display much higher framerate that this has blossomed, so has the debate about which number of frames we should show per second. On the face of it, higher framerates should look more real - but in practise, instead of the expected reality, we see cheap-looking TV. 48 fps makes everything look like a soap opera, apparently.
Counter intuitive. Puzzling. What's going on here? Phil Rhodes explores.
Our series of articles on Framerates was extremely popular and some of you have written to us with your opinions on the subject. Here's what RedShark reader Scott Hooson thinks. While his views may have some of you reaching for your tin-foil hats, Scott's background in experimental pyschology and forensics suggests that we should at least hear what he has to say.