The Idiocy of Frame Rates

As a filmmaker and person who has to deal with video all day every day, frame rates tend to be an annoyance to me.  The sheer number of frame rates and variations is enough to make someone want to give up working in video all together.

 In moving picture's early days filmmakers would project their projects at a variety of rates, anywhere from 12-26 frames per second.  It wasn't until sound came along in the late 20's that filmmakers decided to set a standard of projecting film at 24 frames per second.  Simple. Enjoyable. Agreed upon.

Enter the NTSC (National Television System Committee). I'm not a history expert, but the NTSC decided with the birth of television that its signal should be broadcast at 30 frames per second.  When color television came along in order to account for the chrominance signal they changed their broadcast standard to 29.97 frames per second.  Sounds insane doesn't it?

At least PAL (Phase Alternating Line) which broadcasts in Europe and specific countries around the world broadcasts in 25 frames per second.  But there's also SECAM in France.

And there came 24p which is really 23.98 fps.  Or 60p.  Or 60i. And yes, 30p is really 29.97fps.  And do editors really want to keep doing 3:2 pulldowns to match NTSC standards?  Not really.

With the digital conversion of televisions in 2009 these arcane standards became unnecessary. We had a chance to free ourselves of these silly frame rates and decide on one rate that could be standard for all of television, film, commercials, local tv...everything!  All countries could have the same standards. 

But nope.

Everyone still continues to use NTSC standards in America simply because that's what we've always done.  It's what our cameras that existed in 2009 were already capable of doing.  So we stayed put.  We are still dealing with all of these frame rates for no reason.  But wait! Now films are being shot at higher frame rates! Like Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit."  Granted I haven't seen a film shot at 48fps projected at 48fps but it might be a game changer.

Regardless, I think it's time to get rid of all these different standards,  especially the 23.98 and 29.97 business.  It's silly, sucks for sound mixers, and doesn't make sense any more.

"Yeah, but the book was way better."

Let's say a wildly popular book, or series of books, came out a few years ago.

Everyone goes and reads them.

Everyone loves them.

Everyone raves about them and tells all of their friends.

A movie adaptation is announced.

Everyone gets really excited and links the trailer online to share with all their friends.

Everyone plans to go to the midnight screening because they just. can't. wait. one. more. day.

They love the movie.

Everyone tells everyone that they love the movie, but there's a catch.

There's always a catch.  Whenever a movie is based off a successful book the fans will always, always, always, always include in their review that "It was good but the book was so much better."

(Disclaimer: I'll be discussing popular books that have been turned into popular and critically acclaimed movies, since bad movies of good books are a completely different discussion. Also movies based on books that were written long ago don't apply here since the average teenager probably hasn't read the books and/or it's been several years since most readers have visited the works. A good example is Lord of the Rings.)

I find that this happens more and more with current, successful books such as Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games, etc.  Why? Because they aren't heavy reading material meaning everyone can read it, and it's new and cool and fresh.  So in today's movie industry of course they want to pump out a movie series as well.  Why wouldn't they?  The only problem is that no matter how brilliant they make the films, or how critically acclaimed they are, a movie will never be as good as the book.  This is a sad but common fact.

Let's look at the obvious advantage that a book has over a movie.  Imagination.  When reading a book the individual reader decides each character's movements, looks, voice.  When it comes to supernatural elements the reader can imagine anything they want.  That's what makes books amazing!!  But when readers see what a handful of filmmakers imagine what the book would look like, it's so easy to tear it apart and think your world is superior.  Of course you do! It's your own imagination!

But let's look at the other disadvantages that movies have.  Time.  A movie is generally accepted at anywhere from 90 mins. to 180 mins.  This still doesn't allow time to include every detail, every chapter, every character development.  What an author has control over is the consciousness of each character and the ability to write what a character is thinking.  Other than narration a movie can't do that.  It would be insane.  What a director is then left with is making sure all of those emotions, ideas, passions that a character has comes out in select moments with little to no dialogue.  That's where acting comes in.  Even with brilliant actors and directors, these subtle changes going on within an emotional beat can be lost.  It happens to the best of the best.  It's impossible for a movie to be perfect simply because there's mountains of things they could get wrong that an author of a novel doesn't necessarily have to endure.  And this is why you never hear someone say, "Man, that movie was way better than the book."  Off the top of my head I can only think of one example where I thought that.  After seeing Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones I actually thought the changes in the script were stronger and less mundane. (I realize I'm in the minority regarding this specific film.)

So I encourage readers/movie goers to stop comparing books to movies.  They are two entirely different beasts.  Viewers need to understand that what you see more than likely won't be what you read.  Changes are necessary for screenwriters.  So, instead of comparing the movie to the book,  I beg that you accept the two as separate.  Even with the filmmakers best intentions, what they are making are pictures based off of their thoughts based off of a screenplay based of a screenwriter's thoughts based off of a novel based off of the novelist's thoughts.  So next time you go see a movie based on a book you love, try to enjoy it for what it is, not what it tries to be. 

If viewers can't accept a film for what it is, then I encourage studios to stop making movies out of popular books.  Because even though that's what fans expect nowadays, it's for their own good.  Why would studios want to set people up for guaranteed disappointment. This may sound extreme, but I just can't stand people comparing movies to books anymore.

Back the truck up!

Let's say I'm driving through a packed parking lot.  My eyes are peeled, looking for that holy grail of spots.

I think I see one.

Could it be?

It's open.

I start to turn my car.

And that's when I see it.  A big, nasty, honkin truck taking up two parking spots. If it wasn't for my compact car, I would love nothing more than to back up and ram my car right into that truck.

But seriously, do large trucks/SUVs really need to take up two spots when it could easily fit in between the lines of one? There can only be 3 reasons this occurs:

1) It's an ego thing.  This needs no explanation.

2) Truck drivers are scared of having their doors dinged.  I always find it funny that drivers of nice trucks are scared of getting scratches or going off road.  IT'S A TRUCK! It's not made to show off its new paint job while driving 2 mph down a parade. It's made to carry dirt, mud, wood, kangaroo bouncy castles, you name it.

3) Truck drivers are horrible parkers. Now this I can understand a little bit if the parking lot is relatively full and you are forced to squeeze in a spot.  But what I'm talking about is when trucks are blatantly between two spots. Unless they are blind, this is unacceptable.

After living in rural Nebraska, and now in Tallahassee FL, I feel like I've seen my share of pick-up truck bullies.  If you're one of them, I beg of you, stop!

Say Cheese and Die!

Why in the world has it become commonplace for a photographer to ask his/her subjects to say cheese when getting their photo taken?  I understand the photographer is trying to lighten the mood.  But I also think the intent is for them to make a smiling motion with their mouth.  That sound good and dandy except for the fact that saying cheese doesn't really look like you're smiling.  Instead you get a photo filled with awkwardly shaped mouths.

What's even worse than this is when photographers try to get you to laugh by telling you to say something off the wall like, "Ok, everyone. Say THANKSGIVING DINNER!" It's a train wreck waiting to happen. No one says it at the same time, no one will smile, it's awkward and this type of photography training needs to be thrown out the window.

But I'm forgetting the most obvious fact. People know to smile when getting their picture taken! It's common sense.  We aren't living in the 1860s where it took 30 minutes to get your photo taken.  If someone needs to be told to smile for a photo they are probably so incredibly grumpy that you don't want to be within 5 feet of them let alone give them an order to smile.  Would you demand Clint Eastwood to smile? I didn't think so.

Enter/Exit Signs

This blog is specifically for those times when a store (Wal-mart, Target, Publix etc.) is very busy and has a lot of traffic inside.  During these times people tend to leave their better judgement at home.  We're all in such a hurry that some of us forget to enter the entrance and exit the exit.  This results in chaos, mean mugs, grumpy customers, beeping security systems, shopping cart traffic jams, and lazy welcome people.

I believe the reason people do this is because we can get away with it when it's not busy.  There's no harm when you're the only one walking in the building, right?  Heck, the automatic doors work both ways don't they?  But what this does is train us to become very stupid looking when a store is actually busy.

I declare that we all try to abide by the seemingly pointless signs and actually walk through the doors we are instructed to.  If that doesn't work, I urge stores to either hire people competent enough to manage crowds and instruct people to walk through the correct doors, or install bug zappers that shock anyone who goes the wrong direction.

Make the Oscars Relevant Again

This year the Oscars won't be taking place until the end of February.  Over the years they have been pushed further and further back in the calender.  But what that's doing is making the Academy Awards useless and out of touch. 

Think about it, most of the Oscar contenders release their movies in December and nationwide late December - early January.  That's when people go see these films.  Wouldn't an audience like to know the nominees on January 1st so they can go out and see these films?

Instead the public is exposed to the obnoxious Golden Globe Awards in the middle of January, which at times gets things right but more often than not is a laughing stock.  It's not until after that when we get the nominees of the Oscars and are forced to wait a month before the award is given out.  This usually results in a month of political warfare from the studios pushing voters to vote for certain films.  It's a nasty process that isn't designed to honor these truly remarkable films.

Also, between the Golden Globes and Oscars we have a half dozen awards shows in the U.S. alone, where we see the same nominees win time after time by their respective unions.  By the time the winner takes the stage at the Oscars we're bored to tears and in recent years it's obvious the winners are struggling to find words not because they're speechless, but because they've done this speech 10 times before.  Part of the reason people watch the Oscars is to see the rawness and unplanned moments that happen when these actors take the stage.  Have we gotten moments like this in recent years?  People can say the biggest upset in recent years has been Slumdog Millionaire taking over the Oscars despite it's non-traditional content and independent spirit.  But by the middle of January I was so tired of hearing the hype behind this film.  Everyone I knew saw them winning Best Picture a mile away.  Even HUGE upsets like that are tainted because the Oscars are such a long wait after January 1st.

By the end of February the heavy movie-goers are usually past thinking about the nominated movies.  We're ready for the spring lineup, different festivals, and gearing up for the summer flicks that are a couple of months away.  Did we really care all that much when The Hurt Locker upset Avatar?  Maybe.  But considering the movie came out almost a year before it was announced best picture, it seemed like old news.

I've grown up as a huge fan of the Academy Awards.  Every year I schedule the screening in my calendar and watch every minute of the 4 hour show + red carpet crap.  I'm an invested viewer that simply wants the award show experience to be its best.

I suggest that the Academy Awards move their air date to the middle of January.  The nominees will be announced January 1st.  This way the public has motivation to go see these films that just came out and also give them a chance to see these films after the awards are presented.  Wouldn't you love a chance to see the Best Picture winner in the theatre?  That could never happen when you usually don't find out until the end of February.

Bathroom Door Handles

There is nothing worse than using a public bathroom, washing my hands, and then having to grab a door handle to open a door. Sure, I may have clean hands, but the second I touch that handle my Monk alarm goes off. We've all seen that one guy walk past the sink refusing to soap up all while blowing snot rockets into his hands.

The best case scenario for public bathrooms are typically at large attraction venues such as stadiums, airports, or Disney World.  Their bathrooms don't even have doors!  You have to walk around a rounded corner to enter the room.  No contact. No disgusting door handles.

I understand that these kinds of bathrooms can't be in places like gas stations and restaurants.  But I have one suggestion for places like this.  Handle-less doors.  You know, doors that swing.  This works  especially for bathrooms that don't need to lock.  You get past the hand contact by simply using your foot to swing the door open.  BOOM! Solved.  No more using paper towels to open the door handle.

Of course there's so many other places in public bathrooms that can be solved.  But this is by far my biggest gripe, that could easily be solved.

Do you agree? Can you think of a better way to solve this issue? Or am I the only one with this issue?