Why Movies Stick to 24FPS While Gaming Targets 60FPS
As a tech-savvy gamer, I’m accustomed to playing the latest titles at 60 frames per second (FPS) for optimal smoothness and response time. So why do cinematic movies remain fixed at the much lower frame rate of 24fps instead of matching videogames‘ 60fps fluidity? The reasons trace back to both historical precedent and artistic intent in the film industry.
Silent Film Origins Dictated the 24FPS Standard
Before sound, early silent films were shot and projected at variable frame rates ranging from 16 to 24fps depending on the film studio and era. Faster frame rates improved perceived quality and motion smoothness but literally used up more film stock per second of movie time. As studios balanced cost savings against acceptable quality, 16fps emerged as the bare minimum while 20fps provided sufficient motion fluidity.
When the sound era arrived in late 1920s, studios needed to standardize filming and projection rates to synchronize audio reliably across the industry. Projectionists running films slightly faster or slower than intended would cause noticeable audio distortion.
| Era | Common FPS Rates |
|---|---|
| Silent Film | 16-20 |
| Sound Film | 24 |
Through convention and technical standardization, 24fps was selected as the lowest frame rate still able to capture lifelike motion quality while facilitating synchronized sound workflows. Anything under 24fps risked unacceptable visual stuttering or audio problems. Thus 24fps stuck as the film standard we still follow about a century later.
Artistic Advantages Maintain 24FPS Preference
But why not move to even higher frame rates as projection and camera technologies improved? Some of the most famous directors argue retaining 24fps isn‘t just due to legacy industry inertia or equipment limitations. Instead they assert 24fps offers specific creative advantages.
Legendary director Martin Scorsese praised filming The Irishman at 24fps, saying:
"24 frames per second, it just seems to be the rhythm, the tempo that feels right for me…it‘s more like looking through a window at something.”
What Scorsese means is that 24fps provides a “cinematic” look audiences recognize after decades of big-screen movies using the same standard. The discrete frames add a unique texture, like periodically sampled photographs woven into lifelike motion.
Additionally, the gap between 24 still frames per second retains some natural motion blur in fast movements rather than capturing each instant. This temporal blurring loses sharpness but conveys a sense of realistic momentum. Our eyes see the world through the same motion-sensitive perception too.
So from creative standpoints of emotional impact and familiarity, dipping to 48fps or rising towards 60fps risks damaging the "movie look" and connection for audiences. Data suggests that audiences do perceive differences as well:
- A study found 74% of viewers felt The Hobbit at 48fps looked "too real" disrupting escapism
- But only 10% disliked Gemini Man‘s mix of 24fps and 120fps scenes framed around different perspectives
Transitioning to 60FPS Faces Technical Barriers Too
Pushing substantially higher frame rates also introduces new production challenges. Shooting 60fps RAW video at 4K resolution devours storage space – at about 617GB per hour! For a 2.5 hour sci-fi epic, that’s nearly 1.5 Terabytes just for the raw footage. Significant data infrastructure is required to handle such volumes smoothly.
Post-processing costs also mount due to the heightened rendering demands. Visual effects companies still build workflows and set budgets expecting 24fps deliverables. While tools and cloud compute have caught up to enable 8K edits and composition relatively affordably, photorealistic CGI often remains stubbornly resource-intensive.
For example, Ang Lee pioneered filming Gemini Man at an incredible 120fps. But the VFX studio Animated so many frames of Will Smith’s fully CGI villain alter ego that server farms were constantly overloaded. They had to expand on-demand rendering capacity by 3x to composite scenes averaging 2-5 terabytes per minute during edits!
Most studios consider such effort a risky, pioneering investment rather than the norm. When balancing creative intent against infrastructure upgrades, sticking with a mature 24fps pipeline makes prudent business sense for now.
Gradual Adoption of 48FPS and 60FPS Emerges
That said, directors like James Cameron and Peter Jackson continue advancing the bleeding edge of high frame rate (HFR) filmmaking. Through breakthrough projects expanding 48fps and even 60fps usage, they aim to offer next-generation movie immersion.
Cameron utilized 48fps projection across certain IMAX, Dolby Cinema and other premium screens for his slate of Avatar sequels. Jackson also filmed The Hobbit trilogy in 48fps and continues advocating its benefits for fantasy and sci-fi. Though both influential directors faced some early audience resistance to hyper-realistic HFR, they stood firmly behind its artistic value for immersion.
Gradually, such uses of restricted 48/60fps applications are becoming more acceptable rather than outright rejected as strangely distorted like early heavy-handed HFR attempts:
- Ang Lee still supports HFR creativity as a distinctive experience despite Gemini Man’s commercial disappointment
- James Gunn incorporated 70fps scenes in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3** to boost emotional moments
- [[Other directors|https://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/james-cameron/avatar-way-of-water/high-frame-rate/james-cameron-high-frame-rates-importance-of-avatar-way-of-water/45660]] are also tentatively increasing targeted HFR usage
So while full-time 60fps filming remains cost-prohibitive and creatively risky for tentpole productions, we’re seeing gradual HFR adoption to enhance key sequences. Much like the uptake of color and sound innovations before them, high frame rates will likely permeate blockbusters over the next decade rather than overnight.
In closing, 24fps endures as the film standard not just due to technical sticking points of early 20th century cameras but an artform perfected around its seeming limitations that still resonate. Contemporary digital filmmaking now afford opportunities, sometimes heavy-handed, to escape those original boundaries with HFR approaches like 48fps and 60fps for new levels of visual impact.
But rather than completely abandoning the medium and audience expectations shaped by the contours of 24fps over a century, innovative directors are finding ways to strategically integrate and transition towards HFR’s additional degrees of freedom where it serves the story. This creative interplay between limitation and freedom thrives in Brave New cinema on the leading edge.
For those curious if HFR initiatives like Cameron’s signify imminent extinction of good old 24fps – not so fast. The beloved and familiar 24fps film look continues dominating cinematic storytelling for years to come while 48fps and 60fps gradually find their niche. Horses and carriages didn’t vanish overnight with the Model T’s debut – and 24fps retains too much timeless appeal to disappear in an instant either.
