[Frameworks] Theory and practice of frame rates in digital cinema?

Mon Aug 8 19:05:21 UTC 2016

Hello Mr. Withers,

I am very interested in the topic of perception and frame rates in film vs.
video.  My own work has involved research on the technical differences
between moving image formats, and the effect of those differences on the
human perceptual mechanism.

I began conducting research on this topic in 2009, while in Graduate School
at MassArt.  At the time I was working in Super 8 and 16mm film, and
observed that audiences had a greater empathetic response to Super 8 film
(18 fps with lower image definition) than to 16mm (24 fps with higher image
definition), even when the image was identical.  I was also studying the
work of Rose Lowder <http://lightcone.org/en/filmmaker-199-rose-lowder> and
reading *Movement as Meaning In Experimental Film*
<https://www.amazon.com/Movement-Meaning-Experimental-Consciousness-Literature/dp/9042023856>by
Daniel Barnett, along with texts on perception by Rudolf Arnheim and
phenomenology by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, among others.

The phenomenological experience of projected film became the focus of my
work, and I created interactive "cinema sculptures" to experiment with
frame rates and perception.  I was also researching the Gestalt Principles
of Organization as well as the mechanics of early motion picture
technology. Very influential as well was John Geiger's book *Chapel of
Extreme Experience
<https://www.amazon.com/Chapel-Extreme-Experience-History-Stroboscopic/dp/1932360018/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1470683034&sr=1-1&keywords=chapel+of+extreme+experience>*,
which explores the history of stroboscopic light and Brion Gysin's Dream
Machine.

*Link to CATHARSIS <https://vimeo.com/38341893>*

I believe it was Barnett who theorizes that when there is less information
(stimuli), the perceptual mechanism (mainly the nervous system working with
the senses) effectively "fills in" the gaps.  Effectively: Less Information
= More Imagination.  And when the imagination is triggered, there is a
tendency to "feel" more, rather than to simply process observable
information.

The space between frames is the space of the imagination - a rich territory
of emotional, psychological, spiritual and cognitive awareness.  Video, as
you observed, does not provide space between frames - there is always
information (stimuli) to be processed, leaving the perceptual mechanism
without any "gaps" to fill in. More Information = Less Imagination.

Here is a link to my most current work in this area, a series of
installations which project a unified image using four formats.  This is a
work in progress, and a collaboration with my husband, Gordon Nelson.

Link to FourMats <https://vimeo.com/155081792>
Password: FourMats

I have so much more to say on this subject, and I look forward to the
discussion that follows!

Tara Merenda Nelson
Curator of Moving Image Collections
Visual Studies Workshop
31 Prince Street
Rochester, NY  14607
T 585 442 8676
F 585 442 1992
www.vsw.org

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Francisco Torres <fjtorrespr at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I have given it some thought and so far what I have noticed is that
> digital projection is very different from film projection, so even ''24
> fps'' mean very different things in each. You discussed the reasons why in
> your OP so I will not go over them again, what I think is that there is
> nothing in digital projection like the effect those film makers achieved
> with film projection. Plus there are issues regarding how film was exposed
> in the camera itself...  So to achieve those kind of effects will require a
> whole new and different practice in digital media.
>
> 2016-08-08 10:48 GMT-04:00 Robert Withers <withersr at earthlink.net>:
>
>> Looking for information . . . writings . . . practices . . . thoughts . .
>> .
>> In film practice, certain artists such as Frampton, Sharits, Conrad,
>> Lawder and others (even myself) sometimes built film rhythms based on the
>> 24 fps rate, choosing shots or images of specific frame lengths (1, 2, 4,
>> 8, 24, etc) for specific effects. The effect in projection was also
>> modulated by the projection technology, which would typically project each
>> film frame more that one time, with a black interval in between. We had
>> different kinds of flicker effects interacting with the
>> psychological/perceptual phenomenon of persistence of vision, with the odd
>> result that audiences in a movie theater would be sitting in total darkness
>> for a portion of any film screening, watching the images that persisted in
>> their brains.
>>
>> Now in digital cinema there is a choice of "standard" frame rates,
>> especially 24 fps and 30 fps, modulated to a more unpredictable effect by
>> use of displays and digital projection systems, which have been
>> standardized in commercial cinema theaters but not in all systems. So 8
>> frame sequences in 24 fps digital could conceivably have a different flavor
>> than in 30 fps sequences. In digital display there is no more effect from
>> closed film projection shutters: digital frames are projected in sequence
>> with no significant interval between. (*Pace* the blanking interval.)
>> Hence digital cinema is typically always "on" with no intrinsic (even if
>> unperceived) flicker. Further, there are automatic background manipulations
>> done by some display technologies that convert between 24 fps, 30 fps, 60
>> interlaced fps, etc., without the viewer being aware of this or tipped off
>> in any way.
>>
>> I'd be very interesting in hearing about anyone who is writing,
>> practicing, or thinking about these issues, and any references.
>>
>> Many thanks,
>> Robert Withers
>>
>> cinesouvenir.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20160808/0011bc05/attachment.html>