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 :)

48fps... I've converted.

Alec Morris said:
So many people watch HFR for a couple of hours and think they have a definitive opinion. I have shot HFR3D, and went through the entire first day unsure of what I thought. Day 2 was a completely different story. It was amazing. By day 6, I couldn't believe this wasn't the way every movie was done. How many of you have actually shot it?
Click to expand...

Many of us have shot higher frame rates. The theater experience of watching The Hobbit was less of a 3 hour toe dip into HFR and more of a confirmation that the aesthetic very closely resembled video frame rates we were familiar with.

To myself, and I think many others, HFR looks electronic in many shots, particularly apparent in certain camera motions. I don't know about you, but when I look at the world through my eyes, I don't see things electronically. I don't see in 24p either, but 24p much more closely creates an organic fluidity and texture than any video frame rate I've experienced for narrative production.

We're all interested in producing great motion visuals, but preferences vary significantly on frame rates, and we also seem to forget that HFR seems to exclusively address 3D right now. Even Jackson didn't release a HFR 2D version.

That is cool that you're working with HFR. It does mean that you're coming at it from a different angle, better equipped to dissect its merits. The reason myself and many others aren't shooting HFR is because we recoil at its sight.

Every. Time.
 
To be clear...I am only speaking from a fictional narrative point of view.

I think HFR is amazing for things that are real....narrative is not...its an illusion...we painstakingly torture ourselves to make sure the ILLUSION doesnt let up even for a frame for fear of the audience getting pulled out of the story. STORY TRUMPS ALL....continuity, focus, composition, beauty....that all has to be sacrificed if it messes with the ILLUSION the audience buys into when they watch fictional narrative.

Fashion, sports, documentaries...I would be all over HFR for this type of stuff....but not for sets, with actors that are pretending to be something they arent....it ruins this illusion and therefore ruins my art.
 
Someone once said that when arguments run out, people start discussing about semantics... Isn't this discussion a little worn out already? I think it's more of a personal taste.

I, personally, hated the 48fps, didn't let me get into the story. Loved the movie in 24fps 3D. Hated the CC in 2D. A friend of mine didn't even notice the 48fps, hence his argument about why he had to pay more for something he didn't notice. Anyway, he is not a professional, so he doesn't give a damn about all this.

This is just my personal opinion, as everyone else's in this thread, 'cause is a subjective matter. There're no right or wrong frame rates, just preferences.

Cheers!
 
Two more opinions out of six billion possibles.
My studio cell mate and I watched the Hobbit in 48fps at our local IMAX (Rave Theater) in Ann Arbor, MI.
We both thought it looked great and thought it was a good ride.
I congratulate Peter Jackson and his team - and of course JJ and his.

One thing that surprised me was that even at 48fps, there was still strobing on fast pans.
The frame displacement was just smaller/tighter, but it was still there.

Perhaps the next thing (and we know it is being worked on) would be variable frame rates?

It didn't strike me as 'video' or electronic, but I also believe the audience experience has a lot
to do with having the projectors, glasses and screens all set up as perfectly as possible.
Maybe we got lucky?
 
Ryan Farnes said:
I didn't like HFR Paul. The motion looks electronic to me.
Click to expand...

I do not like 24 fps. The motion looks mechanical to me.

I find it difficult to understand how some people claim it is harmful to the artistic effect of fiction that there is less flicker in the image. What was the flicker rate at the Globe Theatre again?

This is more about habituation than anything else. There is a reason why MacDonald want children to get habituated to the taste of the food they serve. What you grow up with will often seem right and preferable, even if it is of clearly inferiour quality. When hi-fi music systems were new, many disliked the sound because they had grown up with the limited frequency range of AM radio and early television.

People decried sound movies for lacking artistic expression, they both flickered less and had a different acting style. Colour was seen as a gimmick, artistic movies were made in black and white for many years after big budget popular productions were made in colour.

With each improvement in technology it has been necessary to make advancements in settings, props and effects. Everybody has had to learn new skills or refine those they already have. This evolution will not stop any time soon. Occationally people still use the old tools of silent movies or black and white. In the future, they will also use the tools of 18 or 24 fps for special purposes, but now is the first time we will be able to afford flicker-free ( at least 72 fps) frame rates. Remember that 24 was not chosen because it was preferable, but because it was the lowest speed it was possible to get a usable soundtrack with. The high cost of prints was the real deciding factor.
 
paulherrin said:
24p is a term born out of electronic devices. hope that helps.
Click to expand...

I need to disagree with this statement. 24P is born, at beast, from an electric device (projector), and the set it was dialed so it will run 24 frames per second.
 
Actually 24p was used long before cameras had any electronics at all... As a crank and spring mechanism is not really electronics is it...

I do not like 50i or high frame rate but It's quite fun that the redray will allow 96p for mono viewing... That and some internal interpolation / smoothing in the monitor will probably keep most HFR people happy.
 
Bjørn Vermo said:
I do not like 24 fps. The motion looks mechanical to me.
Click to expand...

I'm cool bantering back and forth with people advocating this or that with an open mind.

It seems that some think 24p is habituated, and others think we've had HFR all along and never went with it for a reason. Both opinions reaching back into history to justify their current opinions.

Will be interesting to see how much or how fast HFR is adopted.
 
there's really no use in a semantics debate. look it up. 24p stands for 'progressive', to differentiate it from interlaced.

all i'm saying is that in the grand scheme of life, the universe, and everything - i don't buy into the philosophy that obscuring should outweigh revealing. i don't believe that imitating the imitation (digital film-look) is the ultimate artistic expression available. i do believe that when we accept the mysteries of who, what, when, where, why, and how we are - there is magic. if you want to shoot film - shoot film. this is digital. and the sooner we simply let it be digital the sooner the magic shows up.
 
paulherrin said:
there's really no use in a semantics debate. look it up. 24p stands for 'progressive', to differentiate it from interlaced.

all i'm saying is that in the grand scheme of life, the universe, and everything - i don't buy into the philosophy that obscuring should outweigh revealing. i don't believe that imitating the imitation (digital film-look) is the ultimate artistic expression available. i do believe that when we accept the mysteries of who, what, when, where, why, and how we are - there is magic. if you want to shoot film - shoot film. this is digital. and the sooner we simply let it be digital the sooner the magic shows up.
Click to expand...

True, But 50i has been an option for a very long time, so has 30p. But for some reason most film makers have avoided anything above 25p as far as possible even for digital media.

Remember when the 5D only could do 30P. Then, for me at least, the only option was to reformat the mov files and stretch the audio with a pitch was the only way to go. I much rather had a little slomo than watching slippery looking 30p. It's not that I want it to look film it's just that I do not want it to look ugly. But that is off course just according to my taste.
 
do what you do. you may be missing what i'm saying, though...

since the early days of photography and cinematography people have been experimenting with all kinds of stuff artistically and technologically. i'm not sure why it's suddenly an offensive, threatening problem.

if you guys don't see potential in digital cinematography, demand film stock. i'm serious. i want you to do it. i encourage it. i fully support anyone who chooses the alchemical process. otherwise, well... buckle up.
 
paulherrin said:
do what you do. you may be missing what i'm saying, though...

since the early days of photography and cinematography people have been experimenting with all kinds of stuff artistically and technologically. i'm not sure why it's suddenly an offensive, threatening problem.

if you guys don't see potential in digital cinematography, demand film stock. i'm serious. i want you to do it. i encourage it. i fully support anyone who chooses the alchemical process. otherwise, well... buckle up.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why our dislike for 48fps means we have to shoot on film. My Epic looks exactly the way I want it to when I use the correct settings. In my case 24fps with a 180 degree shutter.

I'm tired of people constantly comparing this to the invention of sound and color. Industry professionals might have resisted those changes, but the general public went wild and immediately saw the benefits. In the case of 3D 48fps, you have a group of industry professionals pushing a new technology on a general public that is bitterly divided on the subject. Even the people who don't hate it seem to be indifferent at best.
 
Julio Quintana said:
I'm not sure why our dislike for 48fps means we have to shoot on film. My Epic looks exactly the way I want it to when I use the correct settings. In my case 24fps with a 180 degree shutter.

I'm tired of people constantly comparing this to the invention of sound and color. Industry professionals might have resisted those changes, but the general public went wild and immediately saw the benefits. In the case of 3D 48fps, you have a group of industry professionals pushing a new technology on a general public that is bitterly divided on the subject. Even the people who don't hate it seem to be indifferent at best.
Click to expand...


not saying that at all... merely commenting on the organic vs electronic and film vs digital discussion. kind of a side track from framerates, but obviously correlated.

and definitely check your history. don't you remember the days of transition to HD? or what we're still dealing with about 4k? it's the same repetitive thoughtlessness, but i guess it's a good reminder of what's really important for visual storytelling.
 
Björn Benckert said:
True, But 50i has been an option for a very long time, so has 30p. But for some reason most film makers have avoided anything above 25p as far as possible even for digital media.

...
Click to expand...

Well... that's not quite right, 720p60 (or 720p50) is an official standard. A lot of thing are shot, and shown, in this way. We actually shoot quite a lot. In blind tests, between 1080i50 and 720p50, most people have prefered 720p50. I would say 60 or 50p can be considered HFR. It has been chosen for sports because it renders movement better (than either 60i, 50i, 30p or 25p).

I am under the impression, there are two main reasons people dislike HFR. One is because it affects them physically, ie. headaches, etc. The other is due to habit. 24fps has been the standrad for cinema projection for all of our lives, this is how we are used to seeing movies, motion, etc. Considering purely the high frame rate aspect of HFR, it's definitly closer to video (50/60i) that 24fps, but is that what defines a film, verses what is shown on TV? It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Personnaly, I really enjoyed The Hobbit, which I saw in HFR 3D.

Cheers,
Damien
 
Isn't 48fps just the natural evolution of things?

We started with 12, then 16, then 24, which has stuck around for awhile, why not 48? Or 96?

To put a period at the end of something is impossible, almost laughable. Things will always move forward whether you like it or not.

I'm excited to see who follows in The Hobbit's footsteps. I want to see as much technological advances and industry changes as possible while I am still alive on this planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top