Re: Standard 60fps?

Leo -

"it is not "more common to shoot and edit at 59.94;" at least not on this planet. Overwhelmingly, the standard frame rate for HD is 24 fps, and for very good reasons."

I meant it was more common to shoot at 59.94 then at 60 - I apologize if that was unclear. No one knows more than I how uncommon it is to shoot Varicams at anything other than 24.

"I think resolution plays only a very weak role on a filmic look. Does a film originated on 65/70 MM look more filmic than one shot on 35 MM? Do we sit in the theater trying to enjoy a movie but regretting that it's only shot on 35 MM? I think not."

I know for certain that 35 is more "filmic" than 16 or 8mm. I also know that if you get a chance to see a 70mm print of a 65mm negative every other way of viewing it will look mundane. To go even furher I know that I prefer 8x10 negatives to instamatics and that the most beautiful motion pictures I have ever seen were shot on 3 strip technicolor. I think that all other things being even, and they never are, more information is always more impressive than less information.

"Yes, 60 fps Showscan was unsuccessful; people didn't like the look."

At the Showscan screening I was at the film got a standing ovation. People liked the look, it was the accountants who didn't. What hurt it was the fact that the only feature ever attempted in the format, "Brainstorm", was a fiasco; in part because the leading lady died during filming (Natalie Wood) and in part becasue Trumball was an awful Director - witness "Silent Running." The picture was hurriedly finished without even trying to distribute it in Showscan. Showscan was used in special event theateres for many years. And it dazzled the audiance.

"IMax is terribly expensive, but successful. It's a totally closed system of cameras and projectors, so they could have chosen any frame rate; they chose 24 fps."

I would suggest that it's succes occured despite its frame rate, not because of it. As I said before there is nothing magical or mystical about 24 FPS. It was merely the slowest and worst possible frame rate that could reproduce acceptable audio in 1927. If they could have gotten decent audio at 18fps they would never have changed rates and my guess is that you would now be extolling the virtues of 18 fps.

Look, everyone is entitled to their opinion to like whatever they like - hey i have a brother who like the Mets - go figure. But I find it hard to believe that you cannot see that the reason you like 24fps is because, for historical and economic reasons alone, that is what you grew up watching. I like the Lone Ranger, but I can't reasonably tell my son that those shows were better then the crap that's on now. It isn't, it's just what I grew up with. Paladin on the other hand was better.

"I assume, Herb, that you're a working professional and you're clients are satisfied with your work at 60 fps; that's fine, but I don't think it's at all good advice to give to emerging shooters."

Yeah I guess I'm a working professional - although that can also be said of your basic south bronx street walker. But in case you didn't read it all the way through this is how I ended my original post - "Film history aside, the biggest knock on 60fps is that it's too good and too expensive, so if you