I've mentioned in this blog before that I think the digital revolution will contribute to a broadening of audience's creative appreciation. That online distribution will allow artists to refine and define audience tastes in a much more direct way than we've experienced in the past. Because the traditional routes of distribution required that artists convince executives to review and approve of the artist's media creations. Only now, we're going to be exposed to the unusual, bizarre and the brilliant without the filter of some guy in a suit with questionable judgment. It's up to the audience to decide what has merit. And with increasingly fractured niche audiences within an artist's grasp, in some ways EVERYTHING has some merit.

In the old days, creators of music, literature or film had to convince some label, publisher or studio to approve of their creations before the work would get out into the world. But online digital distribution is now instant and entirely within the hands of artists. And despite the proliferation of shallow, meaningless YouTube prank videos, we're also increasingly exposed to a much broader range of artistic expression than ever before. And I just happen to think that audiences are hungry for something inovative, new and different. This song, Chocolate Rain, by Tay Zonday (aka Adam Bahner) is a case in point. The track is a YouTube phenomenon with more than 6 million views. It's odd. But listen to it twice and you get swept up by it. Hypnotized by it. It's certainly different, and there just ain't no way a label would have had anything to do with it. I fully expect the next wave of music and filmmaker stars to come out of the DIY digital revolution.

"Some Tech For Artists: 60i versus 24P"

So, in case you don't know what 60i or 24P refers to, let me simply sum it up thusly:

60i is a frame rate used by HD cameras to capture high-resolution moving images--it's essentially 30 frames per second within 60 fields. Whatever.

24P is the frame rate traditionally used by film cameras to capture moving images, delivering the quality of motion that we have come to attribute to the movies that we pay to see in the theatre. 24P is 24 frames per second (aka 24P or 24fps).

If we watch a movie shot in 60i, we'll think we're watching a "video" or a "live sporting event." If we watch a sporting event shot in 24P, we'll be inclined to think we're watching a scene from something like "The Longest Yard."

Anyhow, it has been argued that the reason we have come to accept 24P as the "cinematic frame rate" for movies is simply that it's what we're used to seeing in the theatre. And alternatively, a 60i frame rate reminds us of videos we shoot at home. The argument goes further to suggest that 24P was simply selected early on in the development of film technology due to cost issues; that 24P wasn't more inherently "filmic" but was just cheaper than faster frame rates. Higher frame rates meant going through more reels of film (the film is moving through the camera's "gate" faster to achieve the higher frame rate, thereby increasing the film stock consumed). In fact, 18 frames per second was originally employed as the slowest frame rate to capture a fluid motion our human eye would accept. But 18fps lent itself to troubles when synchronized sound was introduced: basically sound couldn't be realistically synched to 18fps, so the frame rate was increased to 24P, which was the minimum frame rate for synch sound. Over time, the theory goes, we just got used to seeing this frame rate with big budget movies shot on film. More recently, low-cost video cameras like the DVX100 were able to duplicate the 24P frame rate, simulating a film like motion and allowing low-budget movies to be shot with standard-definition and high-definition video cameras.

But now we get into the land of theory, because no one really knows for sure why we prefer 24P in our movies (as opposed to 60i). The one argument I mention above is simply that we're more used to seeing it, and it's just become an "aesthetic habit." But I think there's a chance that more than one thing is at work here. That while 24fps made for a more practical framerate (i.e., it was the slowest frame rate allowing for realistic synch sound, while keeping the need for film stock as low as possible) there was also something happening psychologically at that frame rate. And so maybe there was some serendipity in the discovery of the 24P frame rate: it was practical AND it was "magical." Because we don't actually want REALITY from our art. Monet wouldn't be a household name if the only goal of art was to reproduce things in a quality that mimicked what the human eye could see.

I believe the human brain likes to work a little bit, at least subconsciously, when we sit passively watching a movie. Even dumb human minds. We like things to be a little dream like and "other" and metapohrical. We want to struggle a little--but not too much--to understand the meaning of things. And maybe we want this in our movies, because movies are like our dreams--they're not entirely literal. We become captivated and hypnotized by them not because they capture a perfect recreation of reality, but because they capture a dream-like interpretation of reality. We like things to be a bit poetic and subtle and obfuscated. And my theory is that there's something about 24P that tells our brain we're entering a dream. We want that. At 24P, the image becomes painterly and magical. And I think the same can be said for the screenplay's dialogue. If everything is "one the nose" and "just like real people talk," telling us everything we need to know in boring pedantic speech, "just how like we really talk," we quickly lose interest.

Truly capturing reality on film would require something much, much faster than 24fps. But audiences want a break from reality. Just like we also like the actors' wardrobe to match the sets (that doesn't happen all that often in real life). And we like music over the love scenes (in reality maybe you get this in your bedroom with surround sound, but not in Central Park). Poetic dialogue, color coordinated wardrobes and musical soundtracks aren't added for any practical reason. They're not cheaper. They're more expensive! But we like them added to the movie because it elevates the experience to "art" (and I use the term art loosely to include Alien vs. Predator as much as it refers to Wong Kar-Wai's In the Mood For Love). There's just something blurry and other-worldly about 24fps that you don't get that with 60i+.

So, I'm not convinced that 24P is just something what we're used to. I think the practical considerations for the "slowest frame rate possible" would have disappeared as budgets for movies grew and technology advanced. Instead, I think we really like things to be a bit distorted from reality (24P lends a certain blur to movement that 60i does not have). We don't want things consistently so distorted that we don't know what's going on. But we want them distorted just enough that it transports the creative side of our brain. The part that dreams things.

So if I'm watching a documentary that includes footage from a real Mars landing, I want it to look REAL. I want to see what Mars looks like as close to the human eye as possible, and 60i would be much more satisfying to me. But if I'm watching the Martian Chronicles, I definitely want 24P.