Why films are shot in 24FPS

When you start out filmmaking, this is probably one of the first questions you have. We’re told that you set the camera settings to 24fps, a 1/48 or 180-degree shutter angle, and to experiment with the rest.

But why have we decided as filmmakers, to stay with 24fps? Well, in today’s video, I want to briefly look at the history of frame rates, why we use 24 frames per second, and why we haven’t switched to 30, 60, or even, 120.

As always if you have a recommendation for an analysis, let me know below!

Timeline:
00:00 Introduction
00:32 History
01:11 Why we use 24FPS
01:43 Moving on
02:12 Conclusion

Music:
Modern Attempt - TrackTribe

[AngusDaviesDP]

I've been having problems editing the Pearl video (which is all sorted now) so I had to put together a quick video for this week and delay the video surroudning Pearl to next week. Sorry for all of the confusion and I hope you enjoy the video!

[SirBuzz]

Not only is this video excellent, the comment section has some very good explanations on the topic.

[Fresh]

I'd also imagine for the most part, filmmakers would opt to use the 'minimum possible' framerate if only for the fact that editors work with the footage often in a frame by frame basis. Particularly with VFX and rendering. And with film, that probably means using half as much physical film as a 48fps movie, and especially back in the day when editing was more analogue, using the minimum amount of film would've just made the most sense.

[TheJFGB]

A couple of points:
My understanding of how the studios got to 24 fps at the beginning of the sound era was more economical in nature: it was the lowest possible framerate where the filmmakers could get a good synchronization between speech and mouth movements (film was/is expensive, after all).
Also, as to why we haven't moved from it it's more because we've been accustomed to that framerate for almost a hundred years, and newscasts, soap operas and other shows made cheaply and in video make us associate higher framerates with cheap or fake product (even too real, for some), and reviews for the Hobbit films when they came out reflected that prejudice, not helped by the overblown dislike some people have for 3D cinema.
And lastly, the reason film for NTSC TV is 23.976 is because they had to fit it in the 29.97 fps of the NTSC color standard, this by repeating a frame out of every four, and the standard not being a full 30 fps. This is why film had a kind of choppy movement when watched on DVD or earlier tech, or still through network TV or cable, and why it looks smoother when played through a real 24 fps display since HD-DVD and Blu-ray were introduced.

[eternallove]

just wanted to say even though i don’t comment a lot, i believe you’re extremely underrated and you make extraordinary, cleanly edited videos. keep it up, i love your channel/work!

[DethronerX]

Bro needed to reach work with finished presentation, which was missing only his voicever and the bus was 2:26 minutes, so he decided to record the voiceover as fast as he could and then pressed render and by the time he arrived at work and opened the office door, the Render Complete bell rang, and he made the best entry of his lifetime.

[Kilonovae]

high framerates in shows/movies makes it look like a video game, especially when it comes to stuff where CGI is used, it just shatteres immersion and makes it uncomfortable to watch. This ironically isnt a problem in video games where your brain knows and even expects higher frame rates.

[Pinpadprompts]

Any panning shot looks awfulnin 24 fps and i am sick of pretending otherwise. The shot in dune where the camera flies over the city in arrakis is the best example of this.

[ghost]

There is nothing "natural" about 24fps, it's just what viewers are used to. But to someone who does not watch a lot of movies but regularly plays video games on a high end PC it is glaringly obvious that the camera "lags" when it moves quickly. So it's all a matter of perception.

[ToeNailGathering]

My theory is that it mimics the focal speed followed by processing speed of the human eye better.

Since our eyes can focus on the majority of the screen and movies (obviously) have an artificial depth of field; i feel that there is too much to process at a higher FPS. Next time you’re in the car, ideally not the one driving, look out the window and focus on an object you’re going past, youll notice that your eyes dont focus on it and process it straight away.

At the end of the day, thats just my opinion/guess, i could very well be wrong

[robnlarie]

Love the video! "It looks natural." What does natural mean? I feel it means, "That's how the majority of films look." That's a shame, and it SHOULD be changed if that's the answer.

Maybe "natural" is the way it minds process incoming images, but then wouldn't all frames above 24 feel natural since our eyes would adjust it down to 24?

I just watched a scene from a game that runs at least 60 fps, and they included a live scene of actors which felt much lower in fps. This made them look unnatural. If say the industry needs to stop saving film (film is expensive) and make better quality.

[Drunken_Hamster]

I watched this whole video accidentally at 1.25x speed and didn't even notice that it looked "wrong" like HFR (with 180-deg shutters, at least) does. Maybe the industry should try 30p with a 1/50th shutter for a bit?

[pabloboiii]

but whz is it that people saz 30 fps or 60 fps feels unnatural when in gamin it is considered to be better the more fps zou get_

[daniel.h]

nobody will admit 24 fps looks terrible when something moves too fast in a movie, whether it's the actors face or the camera

[ash--qj]

Would higher than 24fps require more cognitive processing for the viewer?

[KurtF]

Audio. Anything slower than 24 fps gave poor quality audio (sound on magnetic film stock and optical tracks for playback). Anything faster used more film stock and cost more money than producers and studios were willing to pay for.

[m.devellis]

Can we just be honest here? 24FPS is used in films because it's good enough not because it's better. The amount of extra work needed for higher framerates just isn't worth it HOWEVER if done correctly would make a better motion picture.

[Sigismund-von-Luxembourg]

I have always noticed that once you go past 24 fps you hit a weird uncanny valley.

[audie-cashstack-uk]

Hobbit and gemini are how films look on ACID

[MylesSmith-qy]

Imagine a film being shot at 240 fps that would be ten times it's old standard.