48fps... I've converted.

[C. Miersch]

24fps imposes technical limits and as such is a factor for the typical filmlook and so did influence the artform. Restricions can be good for art. As an artform it is as valid as a black and white drawing.

I come from the CG-world, where dof is infinite and framerates are just a number (albeit an expensive one). I never understood why people (even in CG-Shorts) tried to emulate DOF. 3D is a new medium, why not use CG as what it is, why not accept and embrace its own inherent limitations. Why would I want to emulate the limitation of another medium with it. When I started to deal with CG, I thought of the film-look more as an limitation.

At the end it is a habit, an arbitrary limit. If it would have been 50fps historically, everybody would swear by that. Its about what we are used to.

If I personally always need the absolute best and latest is an entirely different question. But the world is so full of possibilities, filmlook is just one. I would be curious to see 100fps projected and would not be surprised if one could easily see for example the difference between 100 and 200 fps projewcted in realtime.

 

[Jeremy Torrie]

So if this means 48FPS is the gold standard, what will that mean for Dragon and additional frame rates?

 

[Sidney L. Plaut]

3d is one thing.... 24 fps strobe is annoying.

but for 2d? 48/60 fps?... feature films with a "reality tv motion" feel...?

- the clips on red.com showing panning on a wall with higher frame rate... doesn't exactly look cinematic to me... strobing or no strobing.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

24fps imposes technical limits and as such is a factor for the typical filmlook and so did influence the artform. Restricions can be good for art. As an artform it is as valid as a black and white drawing.

I come from the CG-world, where dof is infinite and framerates are just a number (albeit an expensive one). I never understood why people (even in CG-Shorts) tried to emulate DOF. 3D is a new medium, why not use CG as what it is, why not accept and embrace its own inherent limitations. Why would I want to emulate the limitation of another medium with it. When I started to deal with CG, I thought of the film-look more as an limitation.

At the end it is a habit, an arbitrary limit. If it would have been 50fps historically, everybody would swear by that. Its about what we are used to.

If I personally always need the absolute best and latest is an entirely different question. But the world is so full of possibilities, filmlook is just one. I would be curious to see 100fps projected and would not be surprised if one could easily see for example the difference between 100 and 200 fps projewcted in realtime.

I could not agree more, it is mostly if not only of a factor of what we got used to see, I for one, which I have always looked for the absolute sharpest and most detailed images since the beginning, found my self not liking very much my first HD TV, as it was a big jump, and now all Movies seemed suddenly as if they felt like Telenovelas.

Fast forward 6 years, and now I can't stand watching any movie that has not been Scaled up properly or re-Scanned to fir HD TV or HD projection, all else seems way too flat, with no fill, full of scratches and defects every were, no definition or detail to be seen, fortunately there are many movies that have been re-scanned form Film to 2k and 4k were are remastered in Blue Ray and much more enjoyable to see, as I for one I don't share the nostalgia of many here, not to offend or disrespect their choice, but this is mine, I just don't like it, my eyes don't appreciated, I need Resolution and detail, and lots of it, and since the past few years HD hasn't been enough for me, and I embraced 4k fully.

Now the other issue I have is that seen 24fps shot and projected images, I have come to dislike very much and y type of tilting or panning were everything is blurry, especially in CG heavy films, but not only them, just about all of them.

Solution?

Simple, shoot higher frame rates and project them at the same speed as they were acquired, we shot and tested 120fps images, acquired and projected at this speed, and it was amazing.

I also seen 60fps shot and projected at this speed, and I believe this is better, much better on the eyes, same for 48fps, which seems a very good frame rate, and especially in 3D, does make a difference in the details, and avoids some of the blurring, so we continue to shoot at 48fps, but we are also testing further more 60fps, and awaiting with much interest to see what the industry will embrace, if 48fps or 60fps, fully, but also what I really hope for here, is that thanks to the Redray/Projector, all of those venues that have it, will allow for various Frame Rate projection, were if we have a particular piece shot at 120fps, in order to allow for never before seen level of detail, that this systems will allow for it to happen with just a click of a button on the operating system it self, and then we'll all will be given real choices like never before as Artist, and no longer be stuck in the far past of 24fps and their problems.

 

[Chris Henze]

A lot of wisdom has been expressed in this thread. However I think there's a point missing. I think it's a mistake to predict one frame rate/shutter/etc. as it. I think that in our pursuit to give an audience an experience, the greater the options and tools the greater our ability to communicate an emotion. Communicate the emotion of love. When it's done well, by true craftsmen, nobody feeling the result is concerned with the technology.

In the past I worked with a major composer, he'd always record a demo of his song on the worst portable audio cassette he could find. I was a kid working in the giant cool studio and asked him, with access to all this technology why? He said a great song will sound good on that medium and no matter how many cool technological tricks are used to enhance a bad song it won't get much better.

PJ, Jim and many others on this forum are the best there are and if they are utilizing technology to better communicate the emotion they're after, I'm sure I'll love it. If they're putting lipstick on a pig, I won't.

 

[Michael Ou]

I'm so glad RED has opened the floodgates to higher framerate aquisition. Uber-high resolution coupled with high frame rate/timebase capture is the next evolution to Cinema. 24fps has remained unchanged since the advent of sync sound, and purely because it was just too darned costly and cumbersome to increase (imagine double the amount of film to process, deliver and change-out). Now with data-based capture and exhibiltion we are limited to processor ability and hard drive size. So the economic hurdles to the benefits of high frame rate acquisition is now a thing of the past. These are exciting times!

 

[Kevin Marshall]

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/201...owing-hobbit-hfr-3d-imax-3d-imax-dolby-atmos/

List of who's showing what where.

http://www.48fpsmovies.com/48-fps-theater-list/

Another constantly updating list of cinemas worldwide that have confirmed to show The Hobbit in 48fps. I'm really glad to see that Estonia is in that list. Now if only I had another list to see where I can see it in 4k so I could cross-reference CSI style and have the ultimate experience...

Well, damn. Here I am out in farm country, and my local theater is on both of those lists (and I know it has 4K capabilities already). And here I just went for the reclining seats...

 

[Adam Welch]

My question is when this is released out on Blu-Ray will it be at 48fps?

 

[Brian Pascale]

I have a Scarlet so will be shooting 24 frames per second for a while. Because of less frames, it is nice not to have to dump your SSD all the time. Is there anyway to record sound directly to camera when not shooting 24 fps?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Yea how sad that Italy has ZERO Cinemas showing it in 48fps...

Jim/Jarred, send me one Redray/Projector and I'll show it in 4k 48fps in Rome, Riccione or Milan, which currently have the biggest screens one is 76' I believe...

I might have to end up really flying out of my own country to go some were to see it in 3D 48fps, how sad is that.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

My question is when this is released out on Blu-Ray will it be at 48fps?

Not without some sort of drop-frame funkyness going on. BluRay doesn't support 48fps... NTSC regions get 24, 30, 60. PAL regions get 24, 25, 50. Perhaps the upcoming UltraHD BluRay specification will allow for 48fps?

REDRAY will support it.


I agree that high frame rate is the future. Forget the whole showscan, cinema-smooth, whatever you want to call it motion compensation in HDTVs that artificially interpolate frames. That sucks ass. When material is properly acquired and displayed at high frame rates, it looks great. It does have a different look, but if done right, is very pleasing. IMO, for 3D, the higher frame rate just enhances the experience. And 360 degree shutter open blurriness is not always the proper solution. We all know what that looks like at 50 and 60 Hz...

 

[Adam Welch]

REDRAY will support it.

Wish I could justify REDRAY for my home theatre....I guess I could say it's a "business" expense.

 

[Enrique Blein]

I'm along these lines too. The higher frame rates and of course 3D to me seems just the stone-age version of what will one day be the holy grail of immersive virtual reality; feeling as though you're actually *in it*, much like a theme-park ride. But for me today, 24fps represents not stark reality, but a projected dream-world, which you view partially objectively as an observer, and partially subsumed, your imagination disappearing into it. It's subtler to me and in many ways more complex the way it can work on you as observer/participant.

Yes, sometimes I've walked into stores where they show 120 MHz plasmas with films on them that tend to look like cheap soap operas, they are too vivid and real. Nevertheless I admire Peter Jackson's vision, I'll wipe my mind clean

 

[nigelsmith]

Is it even possible to show it in 48FPS 3D at 4K?
That's a lot of a data!

 

[Andrew Walker]

I work at Warner Bros. and can safely say that I've seen more 48fps 3D playback than most people here. I have to admit that the static shots look amazingly sharp. But the motion kills it for me, looks way too much like video. Maybe people will like that look and it will be a new flavor to see movies in. Regardless of frame rate the Hobbit looks amazing.

 

[Dustin Wilson]

I work at Warner Bros. and can safely say that I've seen more 48fps 3D playback than most people here. I have to admit that the static shots look amazingly sharp. But the motion kills it for me, looks way too much like video. Maybe people will like that look and it will be a new flavor to see movies in. Regardless of frame rate the Hobbit looks amazing.

I agree. The main difference from cinema to television is the frame rate. Uneducated people always ask me, how do you get that "movie" look? I don't like when higher frame rates make films look like live video, it doesn't give you that sense of fantasy that 24fps movies can. Thats what keeps films apart from regular video. A lot can be hidden in 24fps wether it be VFX or backgrounds, 24fps tricks the viewer into the fantasy of the movie very easily. At a higher frame rate, not as much can be hidden. VFX and all surroundings have to be better in every aspect. Its like the difference you see between the main camera and the BTS camera on set when you watch a BTS video. The sets look very fake, yet real in the main camera. (I know lighting, composition and everything effects that too but you get my drift).
However, higher frame rate with 3D is a different world. I've always found 24p 3D a bit jittery, 3D might be the future for 48fps. I could see 2D movies doing dialog in 24p and action scenes in 48p.

 

[Thomas Koch]

I avoid 3d at all costs. THis is probably one exception. i plan on seeing it twice. the 24fps conversion 2D and the 48fps 3d. I'll wait to say which one I like more, until I've seen them.

 

[Brandon J.F.]

Does 48fps use a 47.952 timebase? Will PAL countries use 50fps if this becomes a standard? What will people in PAL countries use for 60fps?

 

[Onar Stangeland]

Not long ago a lot of people was screaming for 24p/25p on video cameras. Now, when that is the norm, a lot of people wants to go back to 48p(60p)/50p....

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Not long ago a lot of people was screaming for 24p/25p on video cameras. Now, when that is the norm, a lot of people wants to go back to 48p(60p)/50p....

For me 2D content belongs in 24p and I'm optimistic about 3D at 48. 3D is a different objective than 2D in my opinion. 2D can be black and white and contrasty and surreal. 3D for me should be as lifelike and immersive as possible.

3D should be a a full 180* field of view experience as if you were really there. The problem is that we've hidden a lot of really low production value sets and materials behind the 24p low resolution veil for a long time. I think we're going to experience the 'uncanny valley' of production. It'll be like when you look at a prop at a planet hollywood. It looks like rubber and is very clearly just a movie prop.