About Filming.

Question No.1: Why are film since the talkies arrived are being shot at 24fps,is it a technical reason?
Question No.2: in slow motion scenes do they shoot at faster framerates?

1) movies were standardized at 16 fps during the silent era. however, the 16 fps speed did not run sound quickly enough for quality audio reproduction. 24 fps was the minimum needed for sound to sound "normal". frame rates have never been upped because you don't want to use more film than is necessary (film stock is expensive).

2) for slow motion, you shoot faster than 24 fps because when you project at 24 fps, you draw out the action. however, if you shoot at 96 fps but project it at 96 fps, then it would appear to be normal motion.

The opposite is also true. if you shoot slower than 24 fps and project at 24 fps, then everything looks speeded up. this is why very old movies appear to be "fast", because idiots run 12 or 16 fps movies at 24 fps. however, if you run a 12 or 16 fps movie at 12/16 fps, then the action will appear to be "normal", too.

Another question about connections,
Hdmi is an audio/video option much like the SCART connection we have today...only digital. But to connect it with my surround Amplifier i suppose i must use another hdmi cable to export audio...since my tv has no surround receiver inside, right?

On digital Satellite receivers, what specifications i should be aware of concerning image quality?

And, finally, anybody knows a good dvd authoring Software that supports dts encoded files aswell? (except from DvdLab/pro)

thnx in advance

well, there is a feature in windvd6 called trimension...it makes the film look as if it was filmed in 40 or more fps....its impossible to watch a movie like that...its like watching a sitcom. Lower speeds add credibility...i wrote down this again on another post in this site...i tried to watch gladiator....everything from the battle scene at the begining till the swordfights...look like plastic. its like watching a porn flick that was meant to copy gladiator. During the swordfights...the only thing that makes you think the swords are real is sound...turn that down and you are watching a soap opera sith good lighting.
Plus Film does not do ghosting if properly adjusted before filming. You can have ghosting on the dvd realease...but not on the film screenings.
As for sound recordings...even if you dont need recordings...you still have to up-mix into surround formats...and remove stuff that went in there by mistake

lucboone,

there is some amount of color correction with just about any movie or tv show. the colors in "collateral" didn't bother me.

i'm talking about the fact that "ghosting" is very apparent (i.e. objects leave a trail as they move) since 1) video lacks decent resolution and 2) a low frame rate produces an unstable image. this is why 24 fps for video makes absolutely no sense to me--why not shoot at 48 or 100 fps? the faster you shoot, the more continuous the motion can appear.

also, what you wrote about not needing post-production sound syncing is NOT true. you still get a lot of ambient garbage with the audio that you capture live, so any professional, top-of-the-line release still needs studio-recorded dialogue.

eddie

Luckily I don't have to worry about its look for the big screen at this stage. It looks good for small screen private screenings at school. By the time the big screen stage rolls around they'll have it nailed down to emulate film without any of the post-production problems. And maybe it's my bias, but there was nothing wrong with the look of Collateral. The color pallete in that movie was meant to look like that, it does not represent the HD format in a general way like you're trying to make it sound. Mann actually adjusted the hue and saturation of all the shots in post-production.

Well,collateral was shot in 30fps...it looks natural, and theoretically due to highest framerate...the "shutter" is now faster, capturing more detail to it. if u apply the same technique on a film camera u will get lots of more information on film it self than digital. DV has the tendency to create artifacts on smooth colors while they move fast...i.e. a close up of the human skin that spins will create a small sea of pixies.
On the other hand whats great on HD is that you can manipulate your color pallete easier while filming without all those technicalities involved (such as film type, chemicalls to dye it in afterwards etc etc)The digital era has allready offered the 3rd dimension in the movie industry allready, and thats sound. Digital technology contributed massively on the multichannel sound arena, creating a more "embracing" enviroment for every scene.
Yesterday i watched the 1st episode from the "web documentaries" found on the STAR WARS EPISODE 2 DVD, the producer himself made it clear that they are not refering to this as art (and i quote) "this has nothing to do with art"
As for good old georgie...i was reading an article on "why are star wars fans making better films than he is" with a link to a 40min long movie called "star wars apocalypse". a completely independent cast and crew that worked around the clock to create this free to download movie, and dont be fooled, we are talking about a good job here, the CGI scenes are great..wooden acting is offcourse guaranteed (you cant have a star wars movie without a wooden role...its just not "star wars" ) Lucas said that the fans can do whatever they want...as long as they dont get money for it.

I agree with Chris.

Funny that "Collateral" should be dragged into this discussion. Even people like Chris say that "Collateral" at least does something artistic with HD, unlike "Star Wars II--Attack of the Blurred Images". However, I thought that "Collateral" looked terrible. If I want to know what having detached retinas feels like, then I'll wait for old age, thank you very much.

The main drawback to HD, of course, is that it still looks like crap.

Which, suffice it to say, is a rather major drawback.

lucboone,

Actually, the NTSC video format uses 30 fps. Shooting video at 24 fps is meant to simulate the look of film.

Eddie

Well, its no question that HD Is a lot better for post production. Specially editting and CGI insertion, but as you said...for amateurs. Even though HD works better than film during post production, the expense of making it actually look good on a big screen is high. i never had the chance to see Episode2 on a digital projection equipped theater, but i have to say that the resault i witnessed on a normal theater and from the dvd's are just...not good. You have to understand that imperfection in a scene adds to the reality that it tries to "sell". Backrounds in episode 2 were blur... sometimes, specially during the fight with count duku v.s. the brat & yoda the backrounds, and specially the floor looked like wing commander 3 (a pc video game from the last decade).
Even though filmaking is an art that was directly given birth from technology and invention (kinetoscope...etc etc) and even if that every filmaker should embrace new technologies that make the process easier, HD is just not enough yet for theater screenings.
The process and money you save from editing equipement and time are now being invested in SFX houses...ammounts are not reducing...just shifting.
I Recall mr. Puccio talking about "Sin City" and how "flat" the image was...due to grain absence etc etc...i completely agree with him....But to be Honest...i think HD will replace Film...but not now.
Also i dont believe that HD adds anything to the creative process...what you could shoot with film, you can shoot with dv...you still need a good screenplay and good acting to achieve success, so i dont see the reason for an arguement...
its like giving leonardo da-vinci a copy of Photoshop CS2 and a Mac.

The reason the standard 24 fps schtick came to be in the first place was largely based on price. Now it's not so much about cost as it is about sticking with what people in the NTSC region are used to.

I'm all about shooting in HD for my projects. Film is...a lot of things...none of them in my opinion being good. The two main arguments for using film these days are:

1) Looks better than HD.
2) It's better to edit on film so you have a more intimate experience while editing.

But that's just old filmmakers who don't want to change their ways. In reality, HD is:

1) Much easier to light sets for. IE there's no light meter to register, you just look at the monitor, if it looks good, shoot!
2) You don't have billions of film reels to look through while editing, you have HD tapes which can be loaded into the computer half an hour after shooting.
3) No watching dailies all frickin' night after shooting. There's no worrying about film coming back out of focus because you see what you're shooting as you're shooting.
4) Shoot sound and film on the same tape, but with separate tracks, all live. This cuts down on the need for looping during post-production, which is a HUGE help. Sometimes (especially with amatures) it's hard for them to tap back into their emotions after shooting in a little recording booth.
5) Can shoot in 24FPS (with a good HD camera) to make it look just like film without any of the problems.
6) You can see a lot more in the background and in landscape shots and skies, best example being Collateral by Michael Mann, shot in HD.

Suffice it to say, HD rocks. Thank you George Lucas for supporting yet another wave of technology for the film industry. However, no thank you for the last two Star Wars movies.

S_Coaster, I agree with you to a large extent. To me, the most exciting potential for digital filmmaking as well as for computer graphics is in the forming of a new visual language - NOT in its ability to try to replicate reality or to imitate film. I actually think the CGI in Mars Attacks is wonderful - it doesn't even attempt to be realistic and goes for an entirely unique look. This is the same reason I don't like films such as "Final Fantasy" (with all due respect to Eddie which is, to say, no respect) - movies like that reflect a real lack of imagination. Why should I go for the pale imitation of reality when I can get reality? Give me something different. I'm not saying photrealist effects don't have a place in filmmaking - I'm just much more interested in the DIFFERENT look and feel we might be able to achieve with new technologies.

And right now, we still can't get around the terrible flatness of the image in digital/HD. Some filmmakers can make that work, but it's something that needs to be addressed.

There's no question tha HD is great for students. Its like a gift from heaven. shoot it, edit it on a powerbook, score it...and present it..no arguements here.
About the old star wars movies...i think that when you saw episode 5 or 6 you new from the begining of the scene that this is a puppet.The subconscious part of you accepted the fact that this is a rubber mass...therefor you give more weight to the character complexity (if any...c'mon its yoda)..your mind automatically understands that this ruber thing was not put there to act...but to simply give a face to some lines...to symbolize some lines if you like... cgi on the otherhand....is trying to convince you that its real...and it can act...it tries to overjump this " subconscious part " and make you accept it during every single frame it shows up...you simply use your logic...and deny it. thats why almost every viewer while looking at a cgi character (with importand to the story parts like jar jar's) is subconsciously looking for bugs...glitches..bad animation...so the viewer can verify his instinct...that this is not real. The same thing does not happen with objects...such as spaceships...or big explosions...not only because you never actually saw real tie fighters in person so you can compare...but also because its not trying to speak a line and interact with your perception of a current storyline.
I Also noticed that faces with minimum or no expressions on them are making more impact just by their design. Superheroes allways wear a mask...some..like spiderman are covering all their faces...puting on a face that doesnt morph..or change reaction...it just wears its action face and keeps you in it. Same thing can be told with other numerous movies...i.e. Milos Forman's amadeus. Salieri uses mozart's father's mast to commission the requiem mass from amadeus himself....a cold ..black mask...that has the expression and the mood of its purpose..even though it doesnt express it self..the mask can invoke feelings like agony and psychological extortion during certain scenes. The same goes with our friend yoda. His puppet face is old...tired...moves barely his lips and eyebrows and has a very tired old voice...you allready know he is a puppet..but atleast you can know put a face on the lines.
Then you have movies like toy story...or nemo...i believe that the reason those movies are meeting success with older and younger audiences is that they dont try to sell reality...instead they use a prism of viewing splendor and characters to give a literally fantastic story some "color". Thats why you buy it. its not trying to fool ya.

The funny thing is, I was watching "Episode V" and "Episode VI" to look at puppet Yoda, and despite how crude puppetry can be, the darn thing actually had emotions! Even Admiral Ackbar looked kinda sad-but-relieved during the final space battle in "Jedi". I get no sense of genuine feeling from any of the CGI junk in "Episode II".

By the way, I don't mind CGI, but the CGI in "Episode II" is so atrocious that I laughed until my stomach hurt when I first saw the movie. That is, I laughed when I wasn't asleep.

That's where I disagree, luc. I thought Episode 2 looked awful. What amazes me the most about the Star Wars films is that the first three simply _look_ better than the last two. Even after nearly three decades of technological advances, and all of Lucas' fretting, the fact is that his last two movies look like trash. The frame is absurdly cluttered, the image is flat, and the effects are generally unconvincing. The "ping pong" Yoda scene (his light saber duel) may well be the single worst movie scene I have ever witnessed. Jar jar just looks like a cartoon character. Forget about story, acting, etc - the last two Star Wars movies are just plain ugly to look at.

lucboone,

What works for low-budget student movies does not work for polished, professional, big-budget features. Therefore, be careful when you make blanket statements that appear to be views about the total state of cinema.

Eddie

I said ">>>>cuts down<<<< on the need for looping", I didn't say there is no need. Of course you always have to do some ADR, I was speaking specifically for my low-budget student filmmaking purposes it is very advantageous to use HD. And when used correctly it can work for big budget films as well. Despite the story and other gripes, Episode II looked awesome. Also take into account that film was shot on one of the earliest HD camera models.

Final fantasy was exatcly that...replication of reality. if the characters in final fantasy where fishes and the backdrop an underwater paradise then it was probably gonna be a success.
Tere are numrous effords to enhance the cinema right now....(3d movies etc etc) Studios are trying to enhance anything to sell...its kind of funny if you think that a film shot in 16mm and in mono with a good script can actually feel better and immerse you in it far more quickly and effectively than a cgi-fest movie.