It looks like most people think 48p-movies will look like the upconverted movies they've seen on lcd/plasma-tvs with their crappy interpolation or like (live-)tv or bad daily soaps shot on video-cameras.
And thats a big failure... The framerate is just one single aspect of the whole film-look.
Lots of camera-makers think they can sell 24p-shooting as holy grail to archive cinematic look, but thats just marketing or does everything shot on those cheap videocameras look like film, just because you've set it to 24p?
Just stay open-minded until you've seen real footage. There is enough time for analyzing after you've seen the results. ;)
And keep in mind, it should be easy to generate a great looking classical 24p-transfer from 48p-sources, they'll have to do it anyway (for older cinemas and home-video-releases). You can go back from 48p to 24p, its not a one-way-ticket.
Whatever, i'm sure it will look great, i applaud to Peter choosing the 48p-path, it's about time to leave the old 24p-barrier behind us.
RED finally made it possible, i can't thank you enough, not only as future customer, also as simple movie-lover.
I'm really excited about that new experience, 3D/48p-movie, can't wait to see how it looks. :-)
I am not a fan of this 48 fps crap. They are boosting the frame rate just to make 3D easier to swallow. It's not about making movies better, it is about selling tickets and 3D allows then to jack up the prices. Simple economics. Oh well. I liked Jackson but he is quickly becoming the next Lucas and let's face it, his films post LOTR have been anything but good. When will Hollywood learn that good stories sell tickets, not 3D 120 fps theme park attractions. What is happening to this industry?
Another argument for increased frame rate shooting.
In the past years, I've been doing some EFP work at 50fps: the hyper-movement works very well for TV (especially when you're shooting sports and animals) and it looks better than interlaced, but honestly, I don't really see why movies should be shot that way. Sure, there will be some minor advantages, like little-to-no flicker - even the infamous rolling shutter would be less frequent, but movies will loose the unreal, dreamlike quality delivered by 24fps.
Film does indeed have a "rolling shutter" as Jim has often pointed out, but it is about 4 ms. and we are so used to it, it seems very "normal." The film "rolling shutter" is the time it takes for the opening film blade to move across the shutter to fully expose the whole film frame. In this 4 ms. time frame, things do "wobble" slightly. This might be why a global shutter seems so sterile.
It's a bit under 9ms on the RED One. Epic is about 4.5ms, or very close to the action of many mechanical shutters in film cameras.I believe RED has gotten it down to less than 10 ms in Epic so it has pretty much been eliminated as a visual problem. It is my understanding that some cameras with severe rolling shutter issues have read-reset times of as much as 30 ms.
Yep. As fast as a mechanical shutter may seem, there is still a temporal difference in the start and end of exposure across the film plane. Much the same way there is a temporal difference on the reset action of a digital sensor. The primary difference here is not so much a difference in timing, but how it looks. Most film shutters cut across the image on an angle and they are defocused as they sit in front of the image plane. So you have an organic, soft transitional edge. With digital, it is very defined by the pixel raster and in extreme cases can be more apparent. A good example of an extreme case would be a split exposure from a strobe light or a muzzle flash on a firearm, which occurs when part of a frame has finished exposing before a certain event takes place. So you may see the strobe in only half of the frame or only a portion of the muzzle flash. You can get split-frame exposure with film, but it's very organic, once again the soft-edge transition and light can leak around the still-closing shutter. In digital, once a photosite on the sensor is closed and being read, that's it. So if one row of photosites and everything before that row exposed a dark room, that's what you see on that half of the frame. If everything after it was exposed with a flash from a strobe, then that's what you see on that half of the frame... With film, there will be an organic bleed and soft edge between the two exposures. With digital, it's a razor-sharp, hard-lined, on/off difference.Film does indeed have a "rolling shutter" as Jim has often pointed out, but it is about 4 ms. and we are so used to it, it seems very "normal." The film "rolling shutter" is the time it takes for the opening film blade to move across the shutter to fully expose the whole film frame. In this 4 ms. time frame, things do "wobble" slightly. This might be why a global shutter seems so sterile.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|