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.

I hear words like; Björn Benckert “No Peter Jackson shoots 48p for each eye. So it's about the same as watching good old soap” or Jim Jannard saying; “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...”

Remember that inside the R3D Files resides a; 24 Frames per Second, 2D Movie, it’s in there, SO FEAR NOT, they got you covered! The other STUFF is for OTHER audiences, the one that want the full experience of a 48 FPS IMAX Experience, the ones that want a 2.40:1 S3D experience, it’s for WHATEVER THE FUTURE BRINGS, is for anything and everything else, it has been recorded in the R3D REDCODE File, FOREVER! Björn, they have you taste in there, that OTHER stuff is for some-else, maybe even many of you who, have preconceived ideas of what we like today and will change our minds tomorrow! It’s there!

Humberto Rivera
 
Cheapness does not depend on frame rate and neither does dream like quality or reality. It depends on a large mix of factors only one of which is frame rate.
 
Björn Benckert said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm totally with you on this. "light field helmets" would be really great! :-)
 
making cg is expensive because of render time. computing power increases each year. animators are expensive (deservedly so). render time will become less so. saying HFR 3D kills budgets is an incredibly short sighted statement. people thought 4K was a waste of budget. now they have a bunch of 1080p masters that they won't be able to show to anyone in 3 years.

i still can't understand the backlash to a technology that is still so new. it seems everyone hates it but no one has seen much of it. i guess only time will tell.
 
Alec Morris said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have many good points, that I completely agree with. Particularly: "kids will love it. immediately. and they won't be kids much longer." That is so true! That said, I believe that 24fps will never die. Just like B&W hasn't died. 24fps has quallities that HFR dont have.

I think we all can agree that HFR has much higher TECHNICAL quallity than 24fps. Simply because it takes more samples of reality, it can render a mutch better representation of reallity.

However - the question is: Is that ALLWAYS the right choise? - I say no. I do shoot 50fps myself when that is best for the project. Like certain corporate videos, or sports, or documentation. In these films the "reality" of the HFR becomes part of the "illusion" I'm trying to make; That "this is the absolute truth".... ;-) This (I believe) works because people are used to television news and dokumentaries (50i/60i) claiming to represent the truth/reality. It's "make believe" :-)

On the other hand, with drama, I believe (and this is just my humble opinnion), that if you try to present something to an audience as reality, and they KNOW it is not, they will never "believe" what is before them. So, to make them "believe" the drama, you need to create an alternate reality, different from what they experience every day. This can be done with 24p/25p as opposed to HFR which try to recreate reality.

I have so many opinions on this, and S3D, but I'm not gonna bore you guys with them--- :-p

Onar :-)
 
onar, definitely agree that the most exciting part of technology is simply our choice of whether or not to use it.

look at schindlers list. that movie HAD to be black and white. i can't imagine it any other way.

i personally am going to shoot HFR 3D from now on. i love it.

i hope 24fps never dies, because that would mean no one is watching my favorite movies anymore. i would be heartbroken if one day i show my kids blade runner (my favorite movie) and all they have to say is 'that looks stupid, it's all blurry'.

but i would be equally heartbroken if my kids grow up never going to movie theaters with their friends. netflix and home distribution is great. i love how easy it is for kids to access movies i used to have to hunt for on dvd. but theres that whole 'power of cinema' thing, the thing that made us all do what we do. i feel like we have a chance to recapture that.. to reengage people on level they have almost forgotten. there is something great about being able to watch movies on my iPad any time i want. but there could also be something awe inspiring about seeing a new film projected at 9K at 120fps in 3D on a screen three times bigger than my house (with whatever the dolby atmos system will be by then). i remember seeing the opening bank robbery scene of the dark knight in imax. i recently saw 2001: a space odyssey in 65mm at the cinerama dome at arclight. that was a fucking adrenaline rush. we can do that times ten.

also, i'm 100% in on light field helmets. lets make this happen.
 
and for me, the response i have to the frame rate is a visceral one. things simply seem more heightened, more engaging. i find it easier to lose myself in it. it's interesting that a lot of people seem to be 'taken out of it' or 'don't believe it', because i have the exact opposite reaction.

i hope it will be different for you guys on a huge screen after you've watched about 20 minutes of the movie and started to (hopefully) adjust.

personally though, i think ian mckellen could act over a web cam and i would believe 100% that he was gandalf :)
 
Not sure how a light field helmet would work but if there is a lot of electronics on board I don't think I want that surrounding my head. The little amount of tech I deal with already has me slightly alienated from my family and friends to the point I just don't discuss it with them. And watching movies in HFR over time will likely cause at least some physical change of the wiring in the brain. Maybe for the better, who knows. But at least becoming adapted to it could help narrow the generational gap between adults and kids. And since parents have decided that kids rule the world, we'd better not piss the little buggers off. '-)


Tongue out of cheek though, haven't seen any HFR projection yet but it sounds like there are some movies that scream for that clean and clear footage look, while others demand a warm and fuzzy feeling. What I'm curious about is will we be able to watch movies in the different formats without becoming aware of the differences to the point it interferes with our immersion into each story?
 
Last edited:
More options can not be bad for art. I will always be a fan of slower frame rates because they do create a dreamy aesthetic. But there is no denying that higher frame rates can offer a new and exiting experience. Good news is -- you can always shoot 24p in a 48p (or 96p) world. And indeed, perhaps in the future of filmmaking it will be commonplace to change frame rate from scene just as you might choose different film stock for different scenes or different depth of field. Frame rate is an artistic choice. So instead of fighting the future, I think the best choice is to use all of your tools to create the aesthetic that you desire. I'm glad it's a tool in the arsenal, even if I choose not to use it sometimes.
 
Alec Morris said:
making cg is expensive because of render time. computing power increases each year. animators are expensive (deservedly so). render time will become less so. saying HFR 3D kills budgets is an incredibly short sighted statement. people thought 4K was a waste of budget. now they have a bunch of 1080p masters that they won't be able to show to anyone in 3 years.

i still can't understand the backlash to a technology that is still so new. it seems everyone hates it but no one has seen much of it. i guess only time will tell.
Click to expand...

We just aired "Götter wie wir", a comedy mini series shot in 4K, post produced in 4K.

OK, it was not HFR (just 25p) and it was not stereo. But the step from traditional FullHD to 4K is already a quadrupel in resolution. To be honest, we did not feel much of it at all. Keying was actually easier. Render times clearly a bit higher, but render power was there - it did not create any bottle neck. Quality of the overall production increased dramatically.

Doing 3D HFR? WE WANT THIS!

We are mainly a post production company, and 1300 shots in 4K is already a significant number. Doing that in 3D HFR 4K, why not? Its just 4 times as big, but not 4 times the work. Hey, we do not rotoscope each frame. We have to deal with two eyes, and stereo introduces quite a bit of extra work over 2D. As long as there is a budget for this I don't see a reason to complaint at all.

The matter is if people will like 3D HFR 4K or not. It will be extremely immersive, though breaking the emotional border from watching a "storytelling" into becoming part of a "virtual reality" that is so real we can't keep our personal distance. That is distraction to some, but the kick of others. Kind of rollercoaster feeling in movies. Its an option, not a must.

As a VFX guy I'd say: Come on with projects, we love to do this!
 
I have zero experience with 48 fps time base and am looking at buying a monitor/tv to view footage on. Do I need a 120 Hz TV to get the full experience or does that matter?
 
Alec Morris said:
i still can't understand the backlash to a technology that is still so new. it seems everyone hates it but no one has seen much of it. i guess only time will tell.
Click to expand...

My case is perhaps completely different. I'm not a particular fan of 3d, but I don't hate it either. I think it looks pretty cool. But I hate the glasses and how they feel on my nose :) and at the movies I end up keeping them with my hands (instead of them resting on the nose) for the entire duration of the movie. So pretty annoying as you can imagine.

And also the glasses solution is not perfect because I can still see with one eye the picture intended for the other eye. And that creates some sort of errors like or distortion. A better solution would be a technology were you would have complete total separation for each eye.
 
https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/qa-on-hfr-3d/10151299493836558

QUESTION: Why did you shoot The Hobbit Trilogy using the High Frame Rate (HFR) format?



PETER JACKSON: We live in a rapidly advancing digital age. Technology is being continually developed that can enhance and enrich the cinema-going experience. High Frame Rate shooting for a mainstream feature film has only become viable in the last year or two, and yet we live in an age of increasing home entertainment. I started shooting The Hobbit films in HFR because I wanted film audiences to experience just how remarkably immersive the theatrical cinema experience can be.





QUESTION: What is the history of frame rates and why do you think the time has come to increase them in the theater?



PETER JACKSON: Silent movies were shot at somewhere between 16 and 18 frames per second (fps) with hand-cranked cameras. In 1927, when sound came along, the industry needed to agree on a motor-driven, constant camera speed. 35mm film stock is very expensive, so it needs to be as slow as possible. However, the early optical soundtrack required a minimum speed to achieve fidelity of the sound. 24 fps was decided on, and became the industry standard for over 80 years, with cinemas all around the world installing mechanical projectors only capable of projecting at 24 fps. 24 fps was a commercial decision — the cheapest speed to provide basic quality — but it produces movement artifacts, like strobing, flicker and motion blur.



Now, in the digital age, there’s no reason whatsoever to stick to 24 fps. We didn’t get it perfect in 1927. Science tells us that the human eye stops seeing individual pictures at about 55 fps. Therefore, shooting at 48 fps gives you much more of an illusion of real life. The reduced motion blur on each frame increases sharpness and gives the movie the look of having been shot in 65mm or IMAX. One of the biggest advantages is the fact that your eye is seeing twice the number of images each second, giving the movie a wonderful immersive quality. It makes the 3D experience much more gentle and hugely reduces eyestrain. Much of what makes 3D viewing uncomfortable for some people is the fact that each eye is processing a lot of strobing, blur and flicker. This all but disappears in HFR 3D.





QUESTION: Having shot the film using HFR technology, what are your thoughts on the experience?



PETER JACKSON: I think HFR is terrific. As a filmmaker, I try to make my movies immersive. I want to draw the audience out of their seats, and pull them into the adventure. That is the experience I hope to offer moviegoers no matter which format they choose at the theater. While I personally prefer watching The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in HFR 3D, I can assure you that every format will provide you with an incredible and immersive experience.



HFR 3D is “different” — it won’t feel like the movies you’re used to seeing, in much the same way as the first CDs didn’t sound like vinyl records. We live in an age when cinemas are competing with iPads and home entertainment systems. I think it’s critical that filmmakers employ current technology to increase the immersive, spectacular experience that cinema should provide. It’s an exciting time to be going to the movies.
 
Here are except from an article that appear in “The Hollywood Reporter” on 10/17/2012 entitled; “THE HOBBIT:' INSIDE PETER JACKSON AND WARNER BROS.' $1 BILLION GAMBLE” http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/the-hobbit-peter-jackson-warner-bros-1-billion-79301 the entire three page article can be found above.

“That commitment helps to explain how Warner Bros. can feel remotely comfortable putting up the better part of $1 billion to make and market not two but three HOBBIT films. A knowledgeable source says the first two installments cost $315 million each, and that's with Jackson deferring his fee. A studio source insists that number is wildly inflated and, with significant production rebates from New Zealand, the cost is closer to $200 million a movie. (The budget on the third film still is a wild card, but one reason a third movie was even discussed was because Jackson had shot more footage than two films could contain.)”

“This time, Jackson is seeing Middle Earth through a different lens. He's working digitally and in 3D. He also made the now-controversial decision to shoot at 48 frames-a-second, which delivers a larger and sharper focus than the usual 24 frames, creating what Jackson sees as a more vivid audience experience. That provoked some negative reactions when Jackson showed 10 minutes of Hobbit footage at CinemaCon in April, with some critics complaining that the daylight sequences were too crisp and looked more like high-definition video than film. Jackson says the new look just takes some getting used to, BUT THE STUDIO IS RELEASING THAT VERSION OF THE FILM ONLY ON ABOUT 400 WELL-EQUIPPED THEATERS (OUT OF ABOUT 4,000), WHERE IT CAN BE PITCHED AS A PREMIUM OFFERING.”

“Jackson had suffered a setback when his passion project THE LOVELY BONES opened in December 2009 to weak reviews and disappointing box office (it grossed $94 million worldwide). But if there's one message that Jackson and his team want to convey, it's that del Toro left on his own -- without a push from Jackson. "Eventually, he couldn't wait around anymore," says Jackson. "We got to the point that it was six months past when we should've originally started shooting." Some close to del Toro suspect the story was a bit more complicated than that. "Do I think Peter wanted to take over THE HOBBIT? No," says one insider. "But he was going to be involved one way or the other, and as an artist, Guillermo wanted to make his version of the movie. I think he wondered: 'How much of an imprint can I put on this? … Do I want to spend years of my life being caretaker of someone else's franchise?' "

“WHEN FILMING ON HOBBIT FINALLY BEGAN MARCH 21, 2011, almost all of del Toro's work had fallen by the wayside. "I didn't want to make Guillermo's movie," says Jackson. Not that he tossed out everything, he adds diplomatically. "Certainly some of his DNA is in it still. Some of the things he did I certainly liked and took bits and pieces from it." It's just that Jackson can't name a great many of them. (Final credits still are being resolved, but del Toro will share a screenwriting mention, at least on the first film.)”

Now this is about the time that Jim Jannard flew down to New Zeeland and offered the Epic 5K Camera to Peter Jackson! He accepted the camera could shoot HFR 48 FPS, 270 Degree Shutter! The rest is history, and Red continues to write its own history on the fly, it’s in Red DNA. Now the film is going to screen for a WORLDWIDE audience, in IMAX!

Theaters continue to join in with the new equipment to make sure they’re in! One thing you can always say about Red, they’re LUCKY because they have passion for “Filmmaking” and “Digital Cinema”! However the mainstream Hollywood Press continues to ignore Red, eventually they’ll come around, but they’re sure are waiting for someone else to show its colors, like Sony or Arri, but they just don’t have R3D REDCODE Files, THAT’S THE WELL KNOWN SECRET! But fear not 24 FPS Purist, they got you covered!

Humberto Rivera
 
I am excited. soon we'll be watching stuff in 60fps. shit would look like we're staring out a window
 
CLOVIS is absolutely right, this is how i feel about 60fps in 3D.
It does not feel like a movie per say in the 24fps dream state if thats even a description.
To me it absolutely felt as if we were staring out of a large window and everything right there was completely real.

3D at 60fps just looks REAL as if looking threw a window.
3D at 48fps eliminates the chatter on panning or horizontal fast moves and looks so much better than 24fps 3D.

The gamble is going to transend the way movies are shot in 3D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top