How does 24 FPS make a footage appear more cinematic than other frame rates?

[Pikemann Urge]

There are several related topics going on here. I suppose it's easy for one to be a bit confused!

Wrong. Exposure time for 24fps film cameras is variable through shutter angle, it is not fixed at 1/24th of a second, and can be "stopped down" to as little as 1/500th–1/1000th of a second.

That's true (variable shutter angle).

Frame rate has little to do with it.

Cheers,

dmz

That is certainly wrong. In fact frame rate is most of what makes movies look like movies. I'm not saying it's better or worse. It just is.

To not consider shallow depth of field one of a number of clear and distinct cinematic aspects is to not understand the term in the first place.

This has nothing to do with the 'film look' that I think people are talking about. Citizen Kane was shot in deep focus. Does it look less cinematic than other films? Of course not. It all comes down to frame rate.

We have a 100Hz PAL TV. It does not interpolate frames. Its purpose is to reduce flicker (just like movie projectors which show each frame twice). It's a nice picture to look at and doesn't change the character of the footage.

 

[acearchie]

This has nothing to do with the 'film look' that I think people are talking about. Citizen Kane was shot in deep focus. Does it look less cinematic than other films? Of course not. It all comes down to frame rate.

We have a 100Hz PAL TV. It does not interpolate frames. Its purpose is to reduce flicker (just like movie projectors which show each frame twice). It's a nice picture to look at and doesn't change the character of the footage.

I think it has to do with frame rate and shutter angle.

Many home videos shot outside in the sun are not very likely to have a 180˙ shutter which leads to the motion blur that we are used to in the cinema.

In low light conditions as well many video cameras will give a 360˙ shutter which gives even more blurring than cinema and some even slow the frame rate a little to allow in more light.

 

[Pikemann Urge]

I think it has to do with frame rate and shutter angle.

Okay, that's interesting. Never heard that one before. Well, here is why I disagree: Gladiator has shots with the shutter angle at 45°. Yes, it looked a little stroboscopic (though not flickery) but it still looked 'cinematic'. Your thoughts?

 

[acearchie]

Gladiator has shots with the shutter angle at 45°. Yes, it looked a little stroboscopic (though not flickery) but it still looked 'cinematic'. Your thoughts?

To me that is the very definition of not being "cinematic" but, as said before it means different things to different people.

For people attempting to recreate the feel of "cinema" in a home movie I would always recommend 180˙ shutter. In gladiator the style warranted something else but to create something cinematic the rule of thumb states 180˙ shutter.