Only thing I was saying was that you have the same motion blur on 48fps at 1/48sek shutter as 24fps at 1/48 shutter. I never spoke of 1/96sek or any other shutterspeed.
This was my reaction to all the 48fps naysayers that haven't figured out that the motion blur from the most common used shutterspeed on 24fps projects will also be available at 48fps projects. So there are no reason for them to claim it will look "videoish" over and over again.
at this link in Daily Variety.
While Trumbull is gung ho about higher frame rates, he points out that the experience is not appropriate for all films. The article also says the same thing I've been saying for a long time:
...many feel the look of 24p, film grain and other artifacts of filmmaking actually help the audience suspend their disbelief. Without this "proscenium effect," the argument goes, auds see actors in makeup on a set instead of characters in a story, or, at least, everything starts to look like a soap opera, so those picture improvements may be counter-productive to dramas.
To back up that fear: I have occasionally checked color-timing on reels in DI theaters at 48fps just to go through the reels twice as fast (to minimize the client's time). During those screenings, we found that 48fps from film absolutely does look more electronic and artificial at this frame rate, but this was with the DI projector itself in 24fps mode, so it's not a fair comparison. My suspicion is that it'll look unusual and striking, and it may take a while for audiences to get used to it.
However, I would never underestimate the skill and knowledge of Jackson, DP Andrew Lesnie, and their extremely-capable staffs. I'm positive they tested the beejezus out of the whole workflow, tried out every possible combination of shutter angle and frame-rate, as well as different projection set-ups. And I bet they already have covered a way to "downconvert" (for lack of a better word) the final film to 24fps for theaters that can't handle 48fps. One assumes that the 24fps output will look more or less like a regular 24fps film.
So without actually seeing it, I think it's too soon to judge what The Hobbit looks like. What I will say again is that I really sympathize with any post house that has to deal with 208MB per frame of data -- 52 megs for a 4K DPX file, 104 megs in 3D, and then double that for 48fps. The data storage requirements for two 3D 4K features that are being shot over an 8-month period is stunning to consider. I suspect at the end, they could easily wind up with over a hundred Petabytes of material for all the footage. All the companies I've dealt with in the last 10 years have trouble and delays just dealing with a more typical 50 or 60 Terabytes for a standard 2K feature -- especially when they're trying to deal with multiple projects at one time.
1/48 does not mean 180 degree shutter at all frame rates. 1/48 is equal to a 180 degree shutter only when we are shooting 24fps. when we are shooting 48fps to replicate the 180 degree shutter angle we need to set the shutter at 1/96 of a sec ,not at 1/48,not at 1/48,not at 1/48 !!!
I believe it is you who is misunderstanding.
A 24fps rate w/ 180 degree shutter will render an exposure time of (1/24)*(180/360)= 0.21 seconds per frame
A 48fps rate w/ 360 degree shutter will render an exposure time of (1/48)*(360/360)= 0.21 seconds per frame
Therefore the motion blur on each frame will be identical.
Now, with 48fps you are projecting twice as many frames per second, so even though moving objects will blur the exact same amount on each frame, there will be less judder as the will not be the "gap" in between frames associated associated with the 180 shutter (which is also .21 seconds). I suspect this will simply make fil look more fluid, and less "juddery", espcecially on pans. But I've never seen 48fps/360 shutter, so that's just a guess.
I, for one, woulld be very interested in seeing some 48fps/360 tests.
i will still stick to what i said,i don't want to discuss it anymore.......
Actually, Steven is right.
A 180° shutter at 24fps is the same as a 360° shutter at 48 fps, both exposures being 1/48th per frame. So they have both exactly the same motion blur characteristics. I'd be curious to see how that looks.
Plus, that would allow to just skip half the frames to have a perfectly normal looking 24 fps playback in theaters that can't handle 48 fps playback. Sounds pretty smart.
1/48th is 1/48th! The motion blur is the same if the exposure TIME is the same, the frame rate doesn't matter.
The confusion is assuming that 180 degrees equals 1/48th, which is only true at 24 fps. So if you shoot 24 fps with a 180 degree shutter (i.e. 1/48th) and 48 fps with a 360 degree shutter (i.e. 1/48th) then the motion blur per frame is the same, because it's 1/48th in both cases.
The problem is that if you are shooting at 48 fps for the improved motion characteristics, you generally don't want to shoot with an open shutter because the motion looks a bit smeary, you're better off at 180 degrees, i.e. 1/96th per frame, which would have the same motion blur per frame as 24 fps shot with a 90 degree shutter.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|