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:
it amazes me how many people are ready to write off HFR before they have even seen it, simply because they heard somewhere that 'it looks like TV.' it also amazes me how many people have sworn off 3D technology in general, which is still in it's infancy. There have been very few well shot 3D features, the vast majority of which have gotten post conversions in lieu of native capture. Take your finger and stick it a foot in front of your face. Stick your other hand a foot behind it. Close one eye, now the other. See how you can see more of the right side of your finger when you left eye is closed? And see how it covers up different parts of your hand behind it? That is perspective, which cannot be added in post conversion and goes a long way to creating a realistic 3D effect. yet everyone judges 3D mostly off of post conversion. that is akin to judging color cinematography by watching a rotoscoped film like 'a scanner darkly'.

It feels a lot like a few years ago when everyone DP I knew had nothing but disdain for my red one, because they didn't like what they had heard about it (even though few of them had actually shot with it, and none of them had seen che). Don't knock the technology until you have actually learned about and shot with it. Chances are what you don't like about 3D is not the fault of the technology, but rather bad projection, a bad conversion, or a director that refuses to make framing and editing considerations for 3D.
Click to expand...

Ive seen both, and the post conversions are terrible and the ones that are shot 3D, so far to me are way worse than 2D.
And I can't stand the glasses. If I forget to wear lenses the day I'm going to the cinema I have to wear glasses on top of my glasses.
Gee, what a great invention 3D is.
 
Alec Morris said:
it amazes me how many people are ready to write off HFR before they have even seen it, simply because they heard somewhere that 'it looks like TV.' it also amazes me how many people have sworn off 3D technology in general, which is still in it's infancy. There have been very few well shot 3D features, the vast majority of which have gotten post conversions in lieu of native capture. Take your finger and stick it a foot in front of your face. Stick your other hand a foot behind it. Close one eye, now the other. See how you can see more of the right side of your finger when you left eye is closed? And see how it covers up different parts of your hand behind it? That is perspective, which cannot be added in post conversion and goes a long way to creating a realistic 3D effect. yet everyone judges 3D mostly off of post conversion. that is akin to judging color cinematography by watching a rotoscoped film like 'a scanner darkly'.

It feels a lot like a few years ago when everyone DP I knew had nothing but disdain for my red one, because they didn't like what they had heard about it (even though few of them had actually shot with it, and none of them had seen che). Don't knock the technology until you have actually learned about and shot with it. Chances are what you don't like about 3D is not the fault of the technology, but rather bad projection, a bad conversion, or a director that refuses to make framing and editing considerations for 3D.
Click to expand...


Alec I have viewed quite a bit of high frame rate playbacks. And to me it simply does not look good, I would be happy to be convinced the opposite. I thought it was a low quality fieldbase thing that made me hate 50i video but its not. All tests I have done with highress scanned 50fps and 100fps 35mm film material played back in realtime looks simply like poor video video to me.

And for the issues with 3D I think the best 3D I have seen was back in the 80's on one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View-Master
Still even if each eye get a perfect color slide I find that 3D imagery hurts my brain in a way flat images does not do. When looking at 3D content my eyes takes over and want to control the interest point and focus as well. Hard to explain but thats what I feel.

And if you look at Che today do you honestly think it looks really good..?
 
I don't think HFR looks bad. It just looks like good old interlaced television. :-) And I also belive that for high action sports it is the perfect choise! It brings ultra realism and clarity. But for me, that is not what I want when I'm watching a "fairytail". Then I prefer "the realism of the movie". Something different from the real world.
 
Onar Stangeland said:
I don't think HFR looks bad. It just looks like good old interlaced television. :-) And I also belive that for high action sports it is the perfect choise! It brings ultra realism and clarity. But for me, that is not what I want when I'm watching a "fairytail". Then I prefer "the realism of the movie". Something different from the real world.
Click to expand...

Yes thats what I was trying to say :)
 
Nothing like a good ol' soap opera.

I want my life to look like life. I want my movies to look like movies. And they aren't they same thing.

Stephen
 
HFR 3D isn't an ordinary cinema experience and imo it ain't gonna replace 24/2D anytime soon. There's a room for regular cinema and immersive cinema. Live and let live.
 
I want my movies to look like what my audience wants it to look like. '-)
 
Look Back

Look Back

I remember when “The Beetles” first came on the scene, “The Rolling Stones”, “Elvis Presley” all on the “Ed Sullivan Show” for all the World to see, the older folks of the time went crazy, and they said they’re going to ruin the young folks! Here we’re are in our Fifties, Sixties to our Seventies, not a thing happen to-us, other than "LIFE-IF-SELF", we all went our way and we did what we did!

This kind of reminds me of this 48 Frames per Second, 270 degree shutter angle, 4K each-eye-ball, HFR debate going on here, with one major exception; you can actually extract a good 24 Frame per Second, 270 degree shutter angle image that will satisfy the purest among us WITH-WHAT-THEY-WANT, and experience the “Big-Screen” both ways, it just that one way cost more than the other, and that includes the IMAX release which will show more of the frame. So everyone will be satisfied!

So one more time here is what Jim Jannard said; “When I 1st heard that PJ would shoot the Hobbit at 48fps... I was skeptical. To me, 24fps was "sometime". 48fps was "this morning". I have to say that I am now a convert. THE WAY THIS WAS SHOT (thank Andrew Lesnie), the VFX and Gollum... 48fps is "other worldly". IN A GOOD WAY. A way you have NEVER EXPERIENCED BEFORE. Peter is much smarter than I thought. And I always thought he was pretty smart. 48FPS ON THIS MOVIE IS LIKE NOTHING YOU HAVE EVER SEEN... magnificent. WIPE YOUR MIND OF PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS. Forget "the will of the mass mind". THIS IS JUST PLAIN BETTER. There are so many reasons why to watch this movie...” JIM JANNARD

Humberto Rivera
 
Amen Humberto ...but yet Ill wager there will be pages and pages of detracting posts following this reminder that Jim simply said

Open your minds... its not what you expect...

sigh.

EDIT: and I suspect thats because he saw it on the 4K Laser projector with both eyes projected simultaneously
 
Tim Whitcomb
Amen Humberto ...but yet Ill wager there will be pages and pages of detracting posts following this reminder that Jim simply said

Open your minds... its not what you expect...

sigh.

EDIT: and I suspect thats because he saw it on the 4K Laser projector with both eyes projected simultaneously
Click to expand...

I agree, that’s the direction we’re heading, that’s where our North is; 2013 will be the year that “Digital Cinema” comes TO-LIFE; the year of the “4K Projector and Player”, the year of the “6K Dragon Sensor”!

Humberto Rivera
 
Could we say that HFR 3D is like going to a theater and watching a live stage play / live show ?
 
Humberto Rivera said:
I remember when “The Beetles” first came on the scene, “The Rolling Stones”, “Elvis Presley” all on the “Ed Sullivan Show” for all the World to see, the older folks of the time went crazy, and they said they’re going to ruin the young folks! Here we’re are in our Fifties, Sixties to our Seventies, not a thing happen to-us, other than "LIFE-IF-SELF", we all went our way and we did what we did!

This kind of reminds me of this 48 Frames per Second, 270 degree shutter angle, 4K each-eye-ball, HFR debate going on here, with one major exception; you can actually extract a good 24 Frame per Second, 270 degree shutter angle image that will satisfy the purest among us WITH-WHAT-THEY-WANT, and experience the “Big-Screen” both ways, it just that one way cost more than the other, and that includes the IMAX release which will show more of the frame. So everyone will be satisfied!
Click to expand...

If you want movies to seem 100% real, then I totally respect that. I think that HFR ads reallity and clarity to the image! It makes it look much more real! I shoot 50fps myself if the project gains from it! I believe in a few years we will have cinemas screening 8K at 120fps or more! This is just a natural development! And I really look forward to se this! :-)

But, (sorry if I missunderstood you) I think you should be a bit more respectfull towards people who think that this HFR "100% reality" removes the "magical filter" from the movies. Once the image becomes to real, then thats what it is; reality... Not a "fairytail". I think that no matter how many millions you spend on sets, props and visual effects, it still looks like a cheap soap opera if the image is to real.

Maybe the combination of S3D and HFR will be different. That I have yet to se! :-)

And 3D... as old as film itself. It tends to come back every time the film industry has "trouble". And it's kind of cool! :-) To bad I, and apparantly alot of people, gets eyestrain/headaches from it....
 
What Onar said. I want my movies to look like magic. . . simple as that.

Stephen
 
Onar Stangeland said:
Well, immersive to many, quite the opposite for many others... :-)
Click to expand...

Many others could always buy tickets to the 24/2D screening. I don't like 24/3D at all, that's why if I'll be seeing stereoscopic movies after The Hobbit, they better be in HFR or I'm fine with good ol' 2D.
 
I'm a bit torn here with the 24fps/48fps debate.
I agree that 24fps is just right for 2D movies. It hides just the right amount of information from the viewer, so that the movie doesn't look too real, but rather draws the viewer into a fantasy world.
48fps for a 3D movie, would actually be 24fps for each eye (with active 3D glasses) - meaning that the "fantasy" look would still be retained.

A 2D movie with 48fps would look too real, and that "movie magic" would be somewhat lost.

With all that said - I do love watching 48fps/50fps/60 fps home-made video clips, because the motion is so buttery smooth.

I also see all those TVs with frame-interpolation which cause movies to look like Soap operas, or BTS footage.
I'm not sure if I like it or not - depends on the scene and the algorithm used for interpolation.
It definitely works for watching Sports, as it makes the action that much more immersive and lively.

I also like to game on my PC from time to time - and here the more FPS, the better.

So I have mixed feelings about all this frame-rate issue.
 
Onar, I’m with you, I DID NOT MEAN TO BE DISRESPECTFUL OF YOU OR ANYONE-ELSE! On the contrary, inside that; “48 Frames per Second” image; Resides a perfectly-good-and-healthy; 24 FRAMES PER SECOND 2D IMAGE, that can be extrapolated out of the 48 FPS Image, they’re both in there, with one small difference, the shutter angle will be 270 Degrees instead of 180 Degrees, other than that, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. That 24 FPS Image can be view just as any other image shot today!

IT’S ON TOP THAT where a 48 FPS 270 Degree Shutter Angle Image that can be projected at 2.40:1 Aspect ratio, It can go up to 1.90:1 IMAX Aspect Ratio; it can be condense to 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio. But most importantly the image can be projected at it Maximum Resolution if that is what ONE WANTS, everything has been included with in that one RECORDED R3D REDCODE File Forever, and ever! By the way; I still like “The Rolling Stones” as-do-many more people of my generation, “so start them up”!

Humberto Rivera
 
Eric Z said:
I'm a bit torn here with the 24fps/48fps debate.
I agree that 24fps is just right for 2D movies. It hides just the right amount of information from the viewer, so that the movie doesn't look too real, but rather draws the viewer into a fantasy world.
48fps for a 3D movie, would actually be 24fps for each eye (with active 3D glasses) - meaning that the "fantasy" look would still be retained.

A 2D movie with 48fps would look too real, and that "movie magic" would be somewhat lost.

With all that said - I do love watching 48fps/50fps/60 fps home-made video clips, because the motion is so buttery smooth.

I also see all those TVs with frame-interpolation which cause movies to look like Soap operas, or BTS footage.
I'm not sure if I like it or not - depends on the scene and the algorithm used for interpolation.
It definitely works for watching Sports, as it makes the action that much more immersive and lively.

I also like to game on my PC from time to time - and here the more FPS, the better.

So I have mixed feelings about all this frame-rate issue.
Click to expand...

No Peter jackson shoots 48p for each eye. So it's about the same as watching good old soap.
 
i understand the initial repulsion to HFR and 3D. It is new, it is radically different. and it challenges the conventional restraints many have not only grown accustomed to viewing within, but to working within as well.

kids will love it. immediately. and they won't be kids much longer.

the rest of us have to adjust. if you don't like it, then you don't like it. but make sure you don't. i had to shoot, watch, and adjust HFR 3D over and over for days and days before I really saw it for how beautiful it truly was. when all your favorite films were shot on film at 24, it's hard to adjust. i remember getting my first iPhone and hating the touchscreen. i couldn't type anything. now? can't imagine getting though a day without it.

shoot with it yourself. see what peter jackson does with it. see what james cameron does with it. i'm sure many more will follow. then make a judgement.

also, many people that experience discomfort when viewing 3D are suffering from poorly shot and exhibited material. when the projector is too dark, that hurts your eyes. when rapid cuts are made (3 or fewer second shots), especially between shots of different depths, that hurts your eyes (this happens ALL THE TIME). when enough planning is not put into shot composition and scene depth as it relates to IA, resulting in excessive divergence on larger screens, this hurts your eyes. once directors and cinematographers begin understand this (not just wave off the stereographer because they don't want to change how they shoot) and once better exhibition methods are adopted in both the home and theater (REDRAY!!!!!!!!! RED PROJECTOR!!!!!!!!) your eyes won't hurt anymore.

oh yeah, and HFR helps tremendously with eye strain.
 
I personally think this whole S3D thing is just an attempt from Hollywood to make it a bit harder for people to steal their films and at the same time differentiate the movie theaters from watching films on you laptop. But sadly, I think this little trick of theirs does not hold up. As for me I'm very unsure if what they are trying to do is making it a better film experience. Think of it like this: If Peter jackson would shoot mono 24p then the money spent on the extra camera department and post and everything else that came along with the decision of shooting 3D could be used for other things. As an example, making CG for 48p3D is way more than 4 times the cost compared to doing it for 24p. There is simply a bigger number of frames to process but also the high frame rates demands everything to be more precise, a lot more precise, or it will look terrible. And this goes for the camera work, the set designs and everything else. So I think if we could have voted I would rather see Peter make a none S3D film where he had the same budget. But I guess the studios would disagree.

I think the immersive media needs to be something completely different. Like projector helmets showing light fields with eye tracking so the viewer can control interest point and focus. The big screen showing the same 3D image no matter where you look on the screen simply does not work for me, it hurts my head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top