Re: What was the point of this Andrew Kramer? Frame Rate Converter

I've seen this same discussion on so many boards (and heaven forbid anyone start trying to define "HD").

I actually haven't used this utility, because, as a lot of people have mentioned, it doesn't instantly give you that "film look". There are a number of other utils that create frame rate changes, ranging from free to high-priced, and well, honestly, you can render out a different frame rate from After Effects.

The legitimate need for changing frame rates is to match something that was shot in one frame rate to something that was shot in another. That is, if you had something that was shot with a video camera at 30i, and you need to comp that with film shot at 24p, you really need to change one of those frame rates.

Now, who is actually doing that?

If you shot film, and went to the time and expense of having it digitized, in today's market you digitized it at 24p. So you edit in 24p.

If, on the other hand, you shot video and need to have it transferred back to actual film, then you are best served by paying the frequently high price of having a professional house master it out. While it still won't be "filmic" it's going to look better than what you'll do with a desktop app and freeware. Additionally, you are already going to be paying that house for the print, so why not pony up the extra to make the print worth something?

I do a lot of 3D animation that gets comped to "real" footage. Every app I have, including some cheaper over-the-counter ones, allows me to output at variable frame rates, so all I have to do is match the one I'm using.

It didn't used to be that way, and I think that's why a lot of folks have gotten hung up on frame rates. I've had DP friends swear that the XL-2 with "true 24p" looks more "filmic" than the same shot made by my XL-1 at 30i, but truthfully, I don't think the difference is significant enough to swap out the camera for that alone.

Film, and the "film look" has gained a certain cache; it lends credibility or legitimacy to a project because it generally means that you had the budget to pay for hundreds of feet of film, rented cameras, lab fees, editing time, etc. that speaks of something "bigger".

Purists will argue for the "artfulness" of film, but then artistic purists argued that it was "too real" when it was invented, and threatened to put all the painters out of work. We ended up with the Impressionist movement from that, so it's not all bad.

Digital tools can not only effectively mimic the look of film (largely because they must comp digital "reality" to filmed action) but can now surpass it, and the digital tools operate with the precision of the bit. Color timing effects that used to be executed only tentatively by the best labs are now becoming true narrative devices, and that is only one example of how the digital/video toolset is extending our creative capacities over "just film".

If you want your consumer camcorder to look like a Hollywood epic, at least as much as is possible, then digital tools can help in many ways. But people shouldn't attempt to mimic a format simply because that's the way it's always been done. That's the path to artistic sterility. What if Van Gogh had spent all his time just trying to match what the camera produced? We'd be a much poorer society artistically.

Larry S. Evans II
Executive Producer
Digital I Productions