Ultra High Framerate Cinematography
Original Upload: 4/14/2026
​
What is Ultra High Framerate Cinematography?
There are a few definitions that people would use, such as any framerate above 24 fps, something filmed in 48 fps (The Hobbit), or 60 fps (sports, various YouTube content). Others would look to higher numbers such as 120, 240, 500, or even 1000 fps (with cameras such as a Phantom Flex4K) which are then slowed down in a 24fps timeline.
My definition is a bit different, which is why I feel like using the word “Ultra” in addition to “High Framerate Cinematography” to help differentiate it from some of the above definitions. Simply put, Ultra High Framerate Cinematography (abbreviated as UHFC) is any framerate starting at or above 120fps which is also PLAYED BACK at the framerate it was recorded in.
Why film in Ultra High Framerate Cinematography?
Why film in color? Why film with sound? Why use CGI? Why shoot digital? Why use LED lights? To push the limits and dogma of contemporary filmmaking. Filmmaking has been in a state of perpetual change since its inception, and will continue to do so. Every time a disruption in the industry arises, people tend to fight against the new technology. The technology almost always wins, and even those who don’t want to adopt new technology eventually come around to using it, even if so begrudgingly (hello film/tungsten purists!).
Story is king. Just focus on shooting at 24 fps, it’s what people are used to. 120 fps would take up too much space on hard drives. These are arguments against, with story possibly being the strongest argument against shooting in a higher frame rate. But what if I told you a close up on eyes with UHFC could have a larger emotional impact, or completely change how you experience a film vs a 24 fps timeline?
What about the fact that the reason 24 fps is standardized is because it was the lowest acceptable framerate that would still look realistic to the human eye, while keeping the costs of film down? Not to mention we've had the ability to shoot at higher framerates for decades.
The additional drive space required for shooting in a higher framerate can be alleviated with larger budgets, more precise shooting parameters, or more efficient codecs/smaller resolutions. This is hardly an argument for someone determined to make the format work.
Motion Blur in Ultra High Framerate Cinematography
Another argument against UHFC is that people will say that you’ll get a “Soap Opera” look that many telenovas of the past had (which were generally filmed in 30 fps) because of a higher shutter speed/angle, thus reducing the amount of motion blur and thus, the realism of the image. There are a few ways to approach this issue. First off, I think people should stop thinking about shutter speed as a set parameter on their camera. Look at it as a creative choice. We have the technology to add motion blur at various amounts in post production (used on various Ang Lee films where he used UHFC, such as Gemini Man).
Now that motion blur is something that can be creatively adjusted, where will you decide to use it? An action sequence with lots of fighting might benefit from less motion blur, or a continuous pan where you want to remove the annoying jitter that is often present in lower framerate cinematography (An example, which is more noticeable on larger screens).
Long Term Views on Ultra High Framerate Cinematography
I do believe in the future that the vast majority of productions will use UHFC with a variable amount of both frames and motion blur, depending on the story. James Cameron has famously adjusted the speeds of Avatar 3 between 24 and 96 fps throughout his film as a creative choice. I think a great starting point for UHFC is 120 fps, and ultimately would be amazing if done at 1000 fps, with 10,000 fps as a long term future goal to achieve maximum parity to reality. I know that these numbers may be daunting, but keep in mind that the more frames that are captured by a sensor, the easier it is to interpolate additional frames (and create UHFC slow-motion) that lack noticeable digital artifacts.
Why am I so interested in Ultra High Framerate Cinematography?
To set the stage: I have a competitive video game background. I’m always looking for an edge to separate myself from the competition. Even though my professional days are long behind me, I still enjoy being a “try hard” at times. Back in 2018 I got my first high framerate computer monitor, which let me play games at up to 144 fps. It’s also important to note that this was the first year I really started to get into filmmaking (although I started learning about cameras/production as early as 2017). I still vividly remember my first experience booting up a shooter game called Fortnite and feeling the difference that my 144 fps monitor had compared to my old 60fps monitor. It was incredible, and I’m sure those of you reading this can probably recall the first time you used a high framerate monitor as well. I had so much additional visual information to use, and it was impossible for me to ever go back to playing at a lower framerate.
I would think to myself, if the user experience has improved so much when it comes to computer games, why can’t I port this over to filmmaking? My first camera, a Sony A7III recorded in 120 fps (although it was purely meant for slow-motion) and I vividly recall when switching to that recording mode, the Sony camera screen would also preview what I was recording in 120 fps. It felt so smooth and life-like. Since then I’ve had an itch to shoot a real project in UHFC to prove my thesis that it can be a new tool to provide a more immersive viewing experience.
Obstacles of Ultra High Framerate Cinematography:
So we’ve had the ability to shoot in high framerates for the past 15 years, and even now many consumer TVs/phones will now at least play back in at least 120 frames (often notated as refresh rate, or hertz). Unfortunately there are still a handful of issues that hold back adoption. First off is that most movie theatres (even higher end ones) have limited capability or are unable to play back films at 120 fps. Downstream this means that film festivals (important for indie, avantgarde projects) would be playing back your films at a max of 60 fps, and end up not being true to the creative vision of the project. I want to emphasize that the difference between 60 fps and 120 fps is quite noticeable. The world wide web has issues as well. The dominant and popular video platforms YouTube and Vimeo both don’t allow framerates above 60 to be uploaded to their platforms. If you upload a file to google drive it will play back at 60 fps max, and must be locally downloaded to view it in its intended framerate.
On top of this, the film industry is very dogmatic and resistant to change. People have been ingrained that 24 fps is “cinematic” and tied to the definition of filmmaking. Until enough people experience UHFC with great, compelling stories I don’t think the attitudes from the average person within the film industry will change. I do believe live streaming and sports would be more open to the idea of UHFC, but oftentimes visual quality isn’t necessarily their top priority.
And while not a big issue, sound syncing to UHFC requires a bit of additional finesse that adds yet another layer of friction for adoption. Modern high end cameras are better at syncing audio for UHFC vs older ones, but most sound people on set would look at you confused if you told them we’re shooting and paying back in 120 fps. From my VERY limited understanding, you must record your sound at a framerate that is divisible by your shooting framerate.
All of these issues make mainstream adoption, and even indie adoption quite difficult. The good news is that this is mostly a technology problem that will eventually solve itself over the next ~ten years (at least for a 120 fps standard), making experimentation and exhibition much more accessible to the average person.
So I want to experiment with Ultra High Framerate Cinematography, where should I start?
We have the capability to record in 120 fps with many prosumer cameras these days. Find a camera that can do this. Don’t be concerned with resolution, it is overrated (just ask Steve Yedlin, ASC). Shoot something. Anything. Experiment with different types of scenes that would require different frame sizes, camera movement, and speed. Throw them into an editing program, set your timeline to 120 fps and figure out how to sync the sound to your project. Experiment with different shutter speeds. See what works, what doesn’t, and if something resonates with you. You can still export a 120 fps file, download it and watch it locally on another computer, or with a bit of coding know-how upload it to a local webserver.
If you have an interest in shooting UHFC with me, or additional questions on the subject please reach out directly.
- Whiplash
References/Additional Resources:
QUICKSTAT: Begin UltraHFR video making! Blur Busters Forms
The Resolution Myth - Steve Yedlin
Demetri Portelli - Camera Operator with Hollywood experience with UHFC/3D feature films
This article was written without any assistance from AI or AI programs.
​
​
​