30p Cinema

 

Back in January of this year, I published an article discussing my updated feelings about the film Gemini Man and my opinion on the use of high frame rates in cinema. The short version is that I still think Gemini Man is a better film than people give it credit for, and that high frame rates are indeed a viable option for cinematic capture. Provided the material calls for it as some stories are better suited for high frame rates than others. However, a more pressing matter to me, which I did not go into more detail in my previous article, is the argument that capture format seems to dictate so much of cinema's identity when it really should not. 

Suppose you have not yet read the article mentioned above. In that case, I will provide a link to it right here, and encourage you to please read that one first. I will be discussing technical aspects in this new article under the impression that you are already familiar with, having read the essay, as mentioned earlier. 

After the silent era and before the dawn of digital video, cinema had one constant, made with celluloid film at 24 frames per second. The decision to shoot 24 frames per second came in to play around the time of synchronized sound, as that was the maximum number of frames that would create the illusion of motion without using too much film. To this day, many people argue that 24 frames per second are and will remain the gold standard, and anything else will NEVER be accepted. 

Instead of arguing that this is just another case of old-fashioned ideas refusing to go away (which I do not believe is the case), please allow me to speculate and present alternative views as to why this is still an on-going debate. 

Digital Cameras are Still Frowned Upon by some. 

Even with all of the technological and image aesthetic advancements made in digital video, many people still prefer celluloid film. And that's fine. There is no scientifically sound argument proclaiming that is wrong. Yet despite that, too many people are still arguing that digital video is "inferior." That even with all the image control you have, it will never look as beautiful as celluloid film. To which I ask, so what? Why should digital video continue to cater to the image aesthetics of celluloid? Do you think the digital video looks ugly? If so, then say it. Don't trample on those who happen to prefer the video look. Depending on the story, it might call for it, like the film Pieces of April from 2003. A family drama shot on a Sony camcorder and nominated for an Oscar. Also, Spike lee's Bamboozled shot on a Sony camcorder and nominated for a Golden Berlin Bear. The fact is that digital video has an aesthetic of its own that is worth utilizing and expanding. A movie is a movie, regardless of its capture format, plain and simple. 

Kodak. 

I subscribe to the magazine American Cinematographer. A fascinating and insightful publication that I always enjoy reading. However, one of the few aspects of this magazine I never enjoy is the ad for Kodak film on the back. Which, as far as I can tell, have always claimed a sense of "superiority" over cinema. Granted, they do have a long and proud history of being one of the biggest suppliers in celluloid film used in cinema. However, this is the same company that filed for bankruptcy because it refused to figure out how to coexist with the digital revolution. I love occasionally taking pictures using traditional film and would like to make a short movie on Super 8 someday. In the meantime, Kodak desperately needs to get off their high horse. 

Okay, now that I've covered a few bases on possible reasons for opposition, here's what I think is the best solution. 

30p for Cinema is Doable. 

All video cameras offer a framerate of 30p or 30 frames per second. It is the standard framerate for American television (which is where all movies will eventually end up). It contains all of the visual aesthetics of classic 24p while presenting a slightly smoother image. It is the perfect middle ground for old-fashioned and modern. Best of all, movie theater projectors can play it. Most of the time, theater projector systems play at 24p because that's what they typically receive. However, because most theaters have digital projectors, they can accommodate a wide variety of framerates. 

The "Video Look" can be Cinematic. 

As I stated in my Gemini Man REDUX article, the term "cinematic" is more subjective than many people would like to believe. While some would prefer to think of it as a hard and fast rule, I instead view it more as a guideline. When digital cameras were still trying to get their foot in the door, they needed to show how well they could emulate classic celluloid film. Now that they have accomplished this goal, it should have the freedom to express its unique aesthetics. Judging a film's quality should always pertain to the storytelling's virtue and not the mechanism that made it. To dismiss a movie for its choice of capture format is to ignore the very essence of cinema. It would be like rejecting a Chocolate Cake made with Hershey's cocoa rather than Ghiradelli. Unless you're deathly allergic to Chocolate, nobody ever does that. 

Digital no longer needs to emulate the look or feel of celluloid film. It has its own identity that deserves a better chance to prove itself worthy of cinema than it has ever received before. Just because something has been done a specific way for a long time does not mean it must remain that way for all eternity. Cinema is what you make of it, so make it something worthwhile, always. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading.