The Hobbit...

[Subhadip Sen]

I copied this from elsewhere and is how i understood it to be.

"The reason low frame rates work for movies is because of the way they are shot as a series of "long exposure" photos, each frame of a movie is "blurred" by the motion of period of a time, the "blur" in each frame is what tricks your eyes into seeing smooth motion when in fact the frame rate isnt high enough to see it smoothly. Video game "frames" though however are hard edged with no motion blur covering the point from one frame to the next its a "new" "solid picture" Human eyes are VERY sensitive to this sort of thing, whilst a game is certainly playable enough with 30fps (providing the minimum fps arent too low) the smoothness of animation is poor at 30 fps."

This is not true. Most modern game engines have motion blur and temporal anti-aliasing. Some advanced game engines that leverage the latest DirectX 11 technologies like Cryengine 3 or Frostbite 2 even have object-based motion blur, which is much closer to how we see. As opposed to 2-dimensional frame-based motion blur evidenced by camera shutters and most console games (also known as post-processing motion blur). Indeed, most console games today are capped at 30 fps and usually generate 26-28 fps, dropping to 23-24 in graphically intense scenarios, which really isn't far away from movies. A reason why my gaming is exclusively on the PC is because 60 fps just offers a far superior experience (in addition to the next-gen IQ). But movies are different, they are not interactive.

That said, I find 24fps significantly jarring for action sequences, particularly in 3D. 48 fps is certainly welcome. The Hobbit has a unique dilemma, however, considering it is high fantasy and extensive make-believe. 48 fps is more realistic, unquestionably so, and I understand how that can break the suspension of disbelief in such a film, for many of us who are irreversibly conditioned to the look of 24 fps.

I would love to hear how the generation that grows up watching 48 fps movies will feel about 24 fps.

[Marc Wielage]

Zodiac was shot on the Viper in FilmStream mode 4:4:4 10 bit RGB log and is regarded by many as the most beautifully shot digital capture to date.

By who? I'd say Hugo won that award (literally and figuratively). There are many, many other beautiful digitally-shot features, and more coming. Not to sound like a broken record, but it's really more about the lighting and the artistry of the DP, not just the camera.

Interestingly, we are finding that most actresses look pretty darn scary in 4k and absolutely horrific in anything higher. The tirckery and hoops we are having to go through to get a "pretty" look is nothing short of a nightmare. Yes, it IS lovely to have the information we get from a large sensor, but the reality is, we are back to all the work-arounds that Hollywood masters of light, filtration and post developed to make the glamourous stars look ...glamororous!

Not that hard, technically. One power window with defocus -- done. It takes seconds. We've been doing this in color correction for at least as long as defocus keys have been around. Seven years? Eight years? At least. I know of a show on TV where there's about three or four defocus keys going on simultaneously, whenever the stars are together in a shot. And there's at least one major (huge) cop show on where, since at least the second season, they not only defocus the star, also all his close-ups are stretched vertically about 10% to make him look thinner in the face. This is routinely done on a TV budget, taking no more than 16 hours to correct 43 minutes' worth of footage, on a $5 million network show.

It's gotten to the point where I'll routinely pop on a defocus key without the client asking, whenever there's a close-up in HD (let alone 4K), using a preset to automatically drop in the correction -- it takes about five seconds, tops. I'll show them the before-and-after, and let them decide which one to go with. Famously, on one major studio western a few years back, I offered to soften the female star's close-ups, and the producer thanked me but nixed the idea, saying, "we wanted her to deliberately look her age, worn-out in the way a real frontier woman would look in the late 1800s." So sometimes, age is a virtue.

I would note also that native Imax film is much higher res than even 5K, and I don't think Chris Nolan and Wally Pfister are doing anything special to light the actors in Dark Knight Rises. Heck, they're all-analog old school on most of that film, chemical timing. Judging by the clips, it looks bloody brilliant. I think movies like this are the last gasp for film, but let's enjoy it while we still can. If it looks good, if it tells the story, if it entertains, and it makes money, what they shoot it on is totally superfluous.

[BRANDON JAMESON]

Thanks, Mark...very cool post!

[Ravi Kiran]

I wonder if 10 minutes of unfinished footage is enough to get used to watching what is essentially a totally different look for movies. Maybe if people watch the movie from the beginning and not only get used to the 48fps look but also get immersed in the story the look of the film will be an asset and not a liability.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

The motion blur justification for high framerates in video games is a small aspect of it. More significant is the interactivity.

If you are watching a film at 24fps you are completely passive and just accepting the frames that come at you. Your mind stitches it together and without any expectation you experience no mental frustration.

If you are playing a game at 24 fps you are making hundreds of little inputs every second. But there is now a 50ms delay between your input and the world reflecting your input. If I put a 50ms delay on your mouse cursor you would start getting frustrated very quickly. In many games too your brain is tasked with things like following a target. If you are seeing a character move across frame in one second you only have 24 points of input to extrapolate their speed and direction. In a film you don't care precisely how fast someone is moving so you don't think about it and your brain doesn't complain about the lack of information.

Ultimately I don't think video game framerates and film framerates have much insight to offer on one another since the way you view them material is so different.

[Marc Wielage]

If you are watching a film at 24fps you are completely passive and just accepting the frames that come at you. Your mind stitches it together and without any expectation you experience no mental frustration.

Don't forget, there's also the shutter within a film projector, which (at least in a case of a 4-bladed shutter) momentarily exposes each film frame 4 times before proceeding on to the next frame. This effectively creates the effect of 96fps, which helps eliminate the apparent flicker with normal 24fps material.

Digital cinema projectors can provide a similar mode, again not to smooth motion, but to eliminate the problem of flicker. 48fps would absolutely reduce this even further and also smooth motion considerably. The trick is whether the smoother motion tricks our brain into accepting the image as "video," or as "film." Different people are sensitive to different issues; me, I don't care as long as the cinematography is good and the end result tells the story.

[Evan Starkey]

I guess i have attachment issues related to mental sets.....Now does VFX benefit from sharp frames ? and if 24fps is just smoke and mirrors maybe theres a trick for 48 ?

[Álex Montoya]

IMO it's even more terryfing than what most journalists are saying.

The thing is they say that the helicopter footage was great: shots from real exterior locations are as inmersive as they should be.

So maybe the extra FPS LIFT the magic 24FPS embellishing veil that made most of the cardboard sets credible. Maybe it means that of we want to go this way, sets and lighting will need to be similar to reality than they ever were.

[Álex Montoya]

Here's a very good review, BTW:

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/...ames_chang.php

[Jarek Zabczynski]

Are the trailers 48 fps? If yes... I like the look already.

No.

For decades we've been trying desperately to make video look more "filmlike" now that we're finally there and settled into it, these guy turn the tables and decide they want to make cinema look more like video? What?

On the bright site, both 48p and 60p lend themselves to 24p conversion pretty easily. While there would need to be some motion blur compensation done, 24p transfers are a guarantee for several reasons.

While Bluray can handle these framerates, DVD cannot. 24fps will remain at least until DVD is dead and buried.

Not all theaters are equipped to handle anything more than 24p.

Higher framerates will not be welcome in the digital download world. You automatically double the file size of your film.

Also, many filmmakers don't care for this. It's merely an option for the filmmaker the same way 3D is an option now.

But no. Personally, the motion of 24fps is what makes moving images look cinematic. Doesn't matter if it's color, b/w, sound, no sound, 2D or 3D. I prefer the look of a 24p picture. It's that simple and most people will agree even if they have no clue about any of this stuff.