[Frameworks] Theory and practice of frame rates in digital cinema?
Robert Withers
withersr at earthlink.net
Wed Aug 10 15:40:15 UTC 2016
Hi all,
Thanks so much for the interesting, thoughtful, and detailed responses on this list. I've added two more below from a private or previous posting, from Michael Betancourt and Ji-Hoon Felix Kim. Tara Nelson, I found your vimeo pieces fascinating and mysterious, and your sources interesting.
In the meantime I researched a a bit, first to try to find any mention of a dark interval in DCP cinema projection (couldn't find it, except in relation to 3D technology) and found interesting material posted by David Bordwell and Douglass Trumbull. http://www.theasc.com/site/blog/thefilmbook/douglas-trumbull-future-filmmaking/ (This is one of 3 interviews) and http://www.davidbordwell.net/books/pandora.php (There are links to his blog topics.) Curiously, both Bordwell and Trumbull discuss the phenomena of changing frame rates, Bordwell in relation to silent film and Trumbull in relation to a cinema of the future, which could embody different frame rates to affect different experiences of "presence," as, for example a film that would present "the humans" at 24 fps and "the monster" at 120 fps.
Per Tara Nelson and others, I have realized that I was focused on one specific aspect of frame rate: sequencing and rhythm of cuts. Other issues I've been reminded of include perception of motion (by Michael Betancourt and in relation to a sense of blurred motion in presentation without the dark interval) and resolution/frame rate (by Tara Nelson, in relation to HD, 16mm, and super-8 film). This has me thinking about possibilities for degrading HD images and slowing the apparent frame rate.
In my persona as a "cinema composer," my immediate concern had to do with tempo and cutting rhythms. For example, I might intend to cut to a 90 or 120 metronome beat, or to cut shots to lengths of 1/3 second, which would be 8 frames in a 24ps sequence or 10 frames in a ~30 fps sequence (non-drop digital). Then I would suffer the experience of any composer who might write precise or general (adagio, allegro) tempo instructions and then turn the work over to performers and conductors who would choose their own metronome markings and then modify the piece. A cinema composer must ultimately turn work over to the vicissitudes of digital projection, which can interpolate frames, change frame rate, and do other messy things to the image sequence. After researching the Digital Cinema Package (DCP) format, I find it seems to be generally locked into a 24fps worldwide, though there are individual machines that can play 30 fps or high frame rates such as 48 fps to 120 fps. Bordwell has been struggling with issues of presenting archival silent films in DCP.
So what is a film composer to do? I am working on a piece that was shot in 30 fps, and am going to continue to create precise cut lengths using 30 fps as a basis for temporal playback, knowing that something different could happen in projection. Maybe let go and accept some Fluxus-like randomness. If someone (including me) really cares, they could mount a 30 fps projection.
I've already seen weird effects created by DVD projection systems, such as automatic conversion of a 3x4 aspect ratio into 16x9 widescreen, so that the classroom audience saw a different film from the one I carefully framed and composed. To late on that occasion to stop and try to reconfigure without a technician present once the film started. I didn't like it, but couldn't ask the audience about it since they only saw the false wide-screen version.
Going forward, I think I will revert to 24 fps for digital cinema, even though I like the higher 30fps frame rate, in submission to the current worldwide DCP standard. 24 fps is no more arbitrary as digital cinema than it was originally for film, because it was the cheapest for film stock and as the minimum requirement for optical sound engineering of the 1930s. Funny that in 2016 the most "advanced" digital system conforms to a standard that was established by production and technology concerns of the 1930s. But cinema has always been like that.
Cheers,
Robert
cinesouvenir.com, vimeo.com/robert withers
1. New Book: Between Film, Video, and the Digital: Hybrid Moving
Images in the Post-media Age (Ji-hoon Felix Kim)
From: Ji-hoon Felix Kim <jihoonfelix at gmail.com>
Subject: [Frameworks] New Book: Between Film, Video, and the Digital: Hybrid Moving Images in the Post-media Age
Date: August 8, 2016 6:43:15 AM ADT
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
Dear Frameworkers,
Apologies for cross-posting and self-promotion, but I hope that my first book will be of interest to you. Please ask your host library to purchase the book as it is currently available only in hardcover. Alternatively, for those who want to purchase a personal copy, please use the 35%-discount flyer from the following link:
https://www.academia.edu/27431138/Between_Film_Video_and_the_Digital_Hybrid_Moving_Images_in_the_Post-Media_Age
Between Film, Video, and the Digital: Hybrid Moving Images in the Post-media Age
by Jihoon Kim
(For table of contents and more information: http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/between-film-video-and-the-digital-9781628922936/)
Re: [Frameworks] Theory and practice of frame rates in digital cinema?
I have written about both frame rates and motion perception as foundational for motion pictures. This is a topic that comes up often in relation to my work: it's in my book Structuring Time. The second edition has a better discussion.
There's also an older article from 2002: Motion Perception in Movies and Painting http://ctheory.net/ctheory_wp/motion-perception-in-movies-and-painting-towards-a-new-kinetic-art/
And I touch on it in this piece from OtherZine: http://www.othercinema.com/otherzine/motion-pictures-an-expanded-framework/
There's also this article (in Spanish) on my movies in relation to my work with motion perception/frame rates & theory: (link to original with rough English translation) http://www.cinegraphic.net/article.php?story=20160716101706826
I hope these help with your search.
Michael Betancourt
Savannah, GA USA
From: Robert Withers <withersr at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Frameworks] Theory and practice of frame rates in digital cinema?
Date: August 8, 2016 11:48:34 AM ADT
To: frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com
Cc: Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com>, Abigail Child <abbychild at gmail.com>, jim supanick <jsupanick at hotmail.com>, blindobject at gmail.com
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
From: Francisco Torres <fjtorrespr at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Theory and practice of frame rates in digital cinema?
Date: August 8, 2016 2:36:24 PM ADT
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
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
From: Christopher Ball <cbifilms at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Theory and practice of frame rates in digital cinema?
Date: August 8, 2016 3:07:27 PM ADT
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
I agree with the above comments. Interestingly, I recently needed to re-create a super 8 look for a film being shot on the Alexa. I argued for actual Super 8, as that is the best way to achieve the look, but was not able to convince them. Anyway, I shot the sequence at 18fps and then transferred back to 24 in post, adding frames as you would if transferring from Super 8. I also shot it at a low ASA to compress the dynamic range, overexposed the highlights and extended the shutter speed. In the end it was pretty convincing, but I think the biggest convincing factor was the 18fps.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 2:36 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
From: Tara Nelson <brendamerenda at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Theory and practice of frame rates in digital cinema?
Date: August 8, 2016 4:05:21 PM ADT
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
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 and reading Movement as Meaning In Experimental Film 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, which explores the history of stroboscopic light and Brion Gysin's Dream Machine.
Link to CATHARSIS
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
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
From: "Gutenko, Gregory" <GutenkoG at umkc.edu>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Theory and practice of frame rates in digital cinema?
Date: August 8, 2016 4:22:19 PM ADT
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
McLuhan's "hot" and "cool" media from the 60s.
/\
< DV > Gregory Gutenko
\/
On Aug 8, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Tara Nelson <brendamerenda at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 and reading Movement as Meaning In Experimental Film 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, which explores the history of stroboscopic light and Brion Gysin's Dream Machine.
>
> Link to CATHARSIS
>
> 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
> 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.
212 873-1353 main
212 203-3048 mobile
WithersWorks.com
202 West 80th St. #5W
New York, NY 10024
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20160810/665f363a/attachment.html>
More information about the FrameWorks
mailing list