Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The Hobbit...

Douglas Trumbull's vision is starting to come to fruition! Unfortunatley it only took 30+ years but at least its starting.
 
Having worked with Showscan, I can tell you that the film projection did not have the "video/soap opera" look when lit for film. Yes, it did have somewhat of an untra-high definition video look, but it still had mostly a film look.
For jollies and chuckles, one day while looking at dailies, we slowed the projector down to 24 fps. Because the projector had a single blade shutter, with one interruption per frame, the image was absolutely unwatchable. The flicker was unbearable.
 
By the way, most film projectors have two or three bladed shutters, which means that the audience is viewing either 48 or 72 interruptions per second, even though the film is moving at 24 fps.
 
Post is a major part of all productions, and 48fps is a whole new game… This is a key part of making all this work, and is not something you are going to be doing on low-end kit.

I’d suggest checking out SGO’s Mistika, especially as this is the system in use by Park Road Post, and is also in use for Stereo 3D checking, etc, by 3ality.

If you're at NAB SGO Mistika will be showing Epic post-production workflows, and Stereo 3D, on their booth - SL8220
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Are they still shooting mostly 1/48th of a second (360* for 48fps)? i.e. will it still look 'normal' for 24p 2D presentation?

EDIT: Also, why not stick to integer framerates? If we're moving into the future couldn't we please have nice round numbers for framerates?
Click to expand...


I could be talking out of my rear here but as far as I know projectors already run at 48 frames per second they just double print the frames to match it so shooting in 48 frames per second would be more compatible with the current system... or maybe it's just cheaper then printing a film at 60fps.
 
Craig W. Bickerstaff said:
I could be talking out of my rear here but as far as I know projectors already run at 48 frames per second they just double print the frames to match it so shooting in 48 frames per second would be more compatible with the current system... or maybe it's just cheaper then printing a film at 60fps.
Click to expand...
No printing double or triple. The idea is mind boggling. 48 or 72 Hz is a shutter effect on the projector. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_projector
 
Jay A. Kelley said:
See? This right here.. This is what Jim has been talking about for a long time... To do this with EPIC is a firmware change, and they made it (At no charge I might add). How many other cameras can do this on the fly, and won't charge an arm and a leg...
Click to expand...
We were wondering about this too. Some camera mfg out there boasts their new tech as having 35mm capability but only shoots at HD. Are they planning to send out free firmware to un-lock or charge you for the upgrade?
 
Does this mean 48 fps-per-eye or 24 fps-per-eye?
 
I think so many people are completely talking out of their ass here. Who here has seen a film (or even a shot) shot at 48fps for anything other than some bullshit camera test? A few of you sure, many have probably even shot and played back at 60fps. But how many have you shot or even watched something shot this way for a creative reason and then watched it on a theatre screen?

It is hard for me to argue for 48fps, but it is just like the use of DOF in movies, it is a tool to tell a story in the way you want to tell it. A camera is a story telling machine, and why can't we experiment a bit?
Take a look at the keyboard in front of you, find one that is completely different to the one you are using and have fun struggling to type and get some sentences out of your stupid fingers. Continue for one week, you will be perfectly happy.

Be wary of anyone who is blindly and passionately on one side of the fence in any argument, there is always a situation where their position may not always be correct.

(This is coming from an animator who prefers 15fps to 24fps more often then not, as this is what I am most used to as an animator)
 
For anyone that's wondering, the above link is to a post about why PJ chose 48fps. Also has stills on his page from behind the scenes. Huge ass video village!
 
That video was awesome. The first time I saw the Lord of the Rings as a kid I knew that I wanted to pursue film-making. As a Red tech now, its great to be "part" of the making of the Hobbit and to know the technology going into it. I can't wait to see these new films!
 
I wonder if the production monitor you see at the end of the clip is 48 fps? Anyways, I like how he cut in clips from the Lord of the Rigs but I cant help but be a little sad that the Hobbit will not look like that. Instead, it is going to look like a theme park ride like Star Tours. Immersive but strange and possibly even distracting. I wish he had let Cameron carry the torch on this one. I could care less about Avatar but The Hobbit is something special, not some lab experiment. Oh well.
 
OK. I hope I don't sound like a massive idiot here.

So, you hear of films shot in 24fps then projected in 48fps. I assume this is done by printing each frame twice and projecting it in double time? I also assume this is to combat juddering and strobing.

48fps means there would be much less motion blur. So is there any possibility that shooting 48 fps is a way of being able to "control" the amount of motion blur in post? As in "you can't get rid of too much, but you can add it in later"?

Is that what all the huh bub is about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top