48fps... I've converted.

[Todd T]

you mean Brainstorm hehe

Yes I did, it's been longer than I thought...

 

[Micah Brown]

I plan on judging for myself but it is good to know that it has the RED bump. I will be consciously telling myself when I walk into the theatre, "it's going to look different" I am just prepping that as a mantra. You can't go into this thing, see it doesn't "look like cinema" then dismiss it. You must be prepared to see something different and embrace the vision that Peter Jackson was trying to convey. If you look at art and have know idea what the artist was trying to do then you miss the whole point.

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Now the times are upon us; the arrival of “The Hobbit” in S3D at 48 Frames Per Second, or it’s known by its title; “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” Directed by Peter Jackson and Photograph by the noted Cinematographer Andrew Lesnie, ASC on one of many Red Epic MX they have in their arsenal in New Zealand, with their Arri/Zeiss Ultra Prime Lenses.

What kind of “STANDARD WILL IT SET FOR ALL THE FILMS THAT FOLLOW”, because theater owners around the “World” are rushing to get their equipment updated! Theater List are updated daily, literally around the “World”, mostly IMAX Theaters, that’s where they can charge the “Big Bugs” for watching the movie. It’s the first weeks “Box Office” that makes a “Picture”, and more and more that’s Internationally FIRST, Followed by the Domestic release (which includes Canada), funny how that changed?

Here in Costa Rica the local IMAX Theater in Escazu will have the Movie, “La Nacion” (the biggest of seven local papers), the newspaper which has a “Daily Entertainment Section” that you can pull out is probably setting up for the “Movies Arrival”! The machine is in motion around the world! Junkets are going as we write theses small but significant notes, around the world!

Premiers are being arranged as we speak, Actors are being planned for to-go too many OPENINGS AROUND THE WORLD, a fleet of private jets are being ready to ferry Director, Actors, and Cinematographers across time zone, in order to-be in as many places as “Opening Night Falls” across the Planet Earth.

Here we sit discussing the merits of 2D versus S3D, there is a mood in motion in our Planet, and we are just starting to take notice.

Humberto Rivera

 

[Axel Mertes]

This is a MUST WATCH movie... hopefully you will see it at 48fps.

Jim

Jim,

I think you know already that 2K 48fps per eye Stereo3D is in many cases just a hope with current DCP playback systems in the field.
4K 48fps per eye Stereo3D is so far out of reach of the current systems, that I have no words for it. You know that, for sure.

I can imagine that one of the reasons why Peter Jackson makes now a trilogy is that the playback infrastructure might follow up during that release time, so he can relaunch parts 1 and 2 the way he wants the audience to view them.

The only realistic way of distributing 4K 48fps per eye Stereo3D is IMHO REDRAY in the very near future. However, is REDRAY itself capable of playing 96fps 4K frames to feed Stereo3D this way?

I will soon get the latest infos from the high frame rate group, so we will see whats the current situation. The last thing I heard was adding 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22 fps to the spec (archival film). 48, 50, 60, 96, 100 and 120 fps at the top end is what is being discussed - partly being within the new SMPTE specs, partly not. However, they currently consider 250 MBit too low for 4K 24 fps, aiming at 1000 MBit for 4K 48fps and potentially 2000 MBit for 4K 48fps per eye Stereo3D or 8K.

Whats the situation from RED in that context?
Will there be a REDRAY projector for theaters anywhere soon enough for "The Hobbit" release?
Consider that such movies easily start with like 600 to 900 copies in countries like Germany (with 4700 screens nationwide). How many projectors do you need to make and sell then...

PS: If you need a sales agent ;-) If have eaten that stuff long enough to know my bits.

 

[Maik Müller]

The only realistic way of distributing 4K 48fps per eye Stereo3D is IMHO REDRAY in the very near future. However, is REDRAY itself capable of playing 96fps 4K frames to feed Stereo3D this way?

Axel, this might answer your question: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?77172-REDray-Player & http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?77171-REDray-Projector

 

[Dave Blackham]

<48fps on this movie is like nothing you have ever seen... magnificent.>

Good news. Ive thought this for some time having see some Imax and run some Tlelecine's but now having heard first hand from guys that have seen it from what is to be a stellar movie then Im very pleased.

I have to say Ive always thought 24P has its place but there is a huge deal of room for other frame rates in Cinema. Particularly for 3D. Great that Red have enabled this to happen.

 

[Axel Mertes]

Axel, this might answer your question: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?77172-REDray-Player & http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?77171-REDray-Projector

Ok, thanks for reminding me of the REDRAY specs. Hope nothing has changed. And if it will be this year for the projector - one can only hope. And I won't think for theaters...
Which in turn says that "The Hobbit" in 4K 3D will likely not happen at all this season, and surely not in theaters except with very very special solutions set up just for this one event. What should visitors pay then?

The point is that the REDRAY playback system can quickly pay off for the theaters given just the revenue from The Hobbit trilogy and Avatar 2 & 3 (and all the repeating of each episode when the next is released). Just those few films could pay for the investment. Unheard of...

Jim, you are late Hurry up!

Cheers,
Axel

PS: I can forsee that "The Hobbit" may last in theaters for many month when such playback becomes available and each new theater wants to show what they can do now. However, home cinema users may laugh out loud and simply use their home 4K system a bit earlier than that...!

 

[Pablo Moreno]

I am not an expert, but the logic indicates: 24 fps per eye, right?, should be more than enough. Besides it depends on the projection system. Digital projection is suppose to be more precise and stable than film, and the high pixel count in the Red camera helps even more thou, but, I am just speculating.

 

[Michael Winokur]

Can someone explain: Hypothetically one shoots a movie at 48fps with a 180 degree shutter. In a few places the movie is projected at 48 fps, the shutter speed and motion blur match the play back speed. However everywhere else it is shown at 24 or 30 fps, the shutter is of course still 1/96. What does this very tight shutter do to perceived motion for the majority of viewers?

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Michael Winokur

Can someone explain: Hypothetically one shoots a movie at 48fps with a 180 degree shutter. In a few places the movie is projected at 48 fps, the shutter speed and motion blur match the play back speed. However everywhere else it is shown at 24 or 30 fps, the shutter is of course still 1/96. What does this very tight shutter do to perceived motion for the majority of viewers?

Here is Peter Jackson explanation!

“Converting a film shot at 48 fps down to 24 fps is not a hugely difficult process, but it requires testing to achieve the best results. Some of this involves digital processes during post-production. We are also shooting the film a slightly different way, which is a question several of you asked. Normally you shoot a movie with a 180-degree shutter angle. Changing the shutter angle affects the amount of motion blur captured during movement. Reducing the shutter angle gives you the stroby (or jerky) "Saving Private Ryan" look.” “However, we're going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master." PETER JACKSON

Humberto Rivera

 

[Michael Winokur]

Thanks Humberto, that's explains a lot.

 

[Axel Mertes]

Can someone explain: Hypothetically one shoots a movie at 48fps with a 180 degree shutter. In a few places the movie is projected at 48 fps, the shutter speed and motion blur match the play back speed. However everywhere else it is shown at 24 or 30 fps, the shutter is of course still 1/96. What does this very tight shutter do to perceived motion for the majority of viewers?

You get a very strobing look. Every fast motion is immanently stuttering vs. smooth look of motion blur with longer exposures. Yes, Private Ryan intro sequence is a pretty good example how you will feel that.

Technically one could shoot like 360 degree at 48fps to remain with 180° when watching every second frame, ie. in 24fps.
Or you shoot 360° at 96fps (1/96, HDR greetings, show every frame) to derive either 180° 48fps (1/96, show every second frame, drop the other one) or 180° 24fps (2/96 = 1/48, show 2 subsequent out of 4 frames, drop the other 2) or 270° 24fps (show 3 out of 4). You see, higher frame rates have good points sometimes!

What was cited from Peter Jackson in using 270° at 48fps results in 135° at 24fps.
To increase motion blur, one might retime the sequence by interpolation motion and creating not in-between frames, but motion smear (which is like adding tons of in-betweens over each other, and technically its probably exactly this).
RED footage needs similar technique to get HDR working, as the bright highlights have a different exposure duration and therefor fill a different amount of blurred motion in the image. You need to fill the gaps by interpolating.

I just wonder why Peter Jackson now says he prefers 24fps when they come from a 48fps master?
He should be able to shoot with 135° out of the box in 24fps and have the exact same result...??? Math?

Anyway, its nice and important to hear that the results are pleasing in 24p, because that is what most like we all will get to see this year, 3D or not. Maybe we will see 2D 48fps too, as an experiment?
I just wonder how many options the theaters will get and how many DCPs they need to create...

 

[Jim Swan]

The shutter speed of the Hobbit...

The shutter speed of the Hobbit...

So if my math is right - 48fps at 270° = 1/64th sec shutter. Not quite half way between the "normal" 1/48th and 1/96th of 24fps and 48fps.
If it was exactly half way it would have been 1/72th (....or is it 1/72nd-th..., thndth..., second-und-thith...?:idea.

You get a very strobing look. Every fast motion is immanently stuttering vs. smooth look of motion blur with longer exposures. Yes, Private Ryan intro sequence is a pretty good example how you will feel that.

Technically one could shoot like 360 degree at 48fps to remain with 180° when watching every second frame, ie. in 24fps.

What was cited from Peter Jackson in using 270° at 48fps results in 135° at 24fps.
To increase motion blur, one might retime the sequence by interpolation motion and creating not in-between frames, but motion smear (which is like adding tons of in-betweens over each other, and technically its probably exactly this).
RED footage needs similar technique to get HDR working, as the bright highlights have a different exposure duration and therefor fill a different amount of blurred motion in the image. You need to fill the gaps by interpolating.

I just wonder why Peter Jackson now says he prefers 24fps when they come from a 48fps master?
He should be able to shoot with 135° out of the box in 24fps and have the exact same result...??? Math?

Anyway, its nice and important to hear that the results are pleasing in 24p, because that is what most like we all will get to see this year, 3D or not. Maybe we will see 2D 48fps too, as an experiment?
I just wonder how many options the theaters will get and how many DCPs they need to create...

 

[Tehben Dean]

I wish they had a trailer online that was 48fps... :/

 

[Axel Mertes]

So if my math is right - 48fps at 270° = 1/64th sec shutter. Not quite half way between the "normal" 1/48th and 1/96th of 24fps and 48fps.
If it was exactly half way it would have been 1/72th (....or is it 1/72nd-th..., thndth..., second-und-thith...?:idea.

The formula is

shutter speed = 1/((360°/shutter angle°) * fps)

so in this case

shutter speed = 1/(360°/270°) * 48fps) = 1/(1.333 * 48fps) = 1/64

shutter speed = 1/((360°/135°) * 24fps) = 1/(2.667 * 24fps) = 1/64


and further examples

shutter speed = 1/((360°/360°) * 96fps) = 1/(1 * 96fps) = 1/96
shutter speed = 1/((360°/180°) * 48fps) = 1/(2 * 48fps) = 1/96
shutter speed = 1/((360°/90°) * 24fps) = 1/(4 * 24fps) = 1/96

shutter speed = 1/((360°/180°) * 96fps) = 1/(2 * 96fps) = 1/192
shutter speed = 1/((360°/180°) * 48fps) = 1/(2 * 48fps) = 1/96
shutter speed = 1/((360°/180°) * 24fps) = 1/(2 * 24fps) = 1/48

shutter speed = 1/((360°/270°) * 96fps) = 1/(1.333 * 96fps) = 1/128
shutter speed = 1/((360°/270°) * 48fps) = 1/(1.333 * 48fps) = 1/64
shutter speed = 1/((360°/270°) *24fps) = 1/(1.333 * 24fps) = 1/32

Or am I calculating wrong?

 

[Axel Mertes]

I wish they had a trailer online that was 48fps... :/

Good idea. Love to see that too. On PC displays we at least have a chance too, long before we find the right theaters.

However, I just read that WB is aiming at releasing a 2D 48p version - hope this is not a rumor (coming from the ISDCF IIRC, though...)

 

[Robert L. Mickles]

I'll hold on to 24 as long as I can. Higher frame rates make me nauseous and gives me a headache. Higher frame rates should only be used for slow motion IMO. I don't know if anyone can change my mind on that.

 

[Jannard]

That's exactly what I thought. Open your mind up for a moment. Watch The Hobbit in 48fps. It is different.

Jim

I'll hold on to 24 as long as I can. Higher frame rates make me nauseous and gives me a headache. Higher frame rates should only be used for slow motion IMO. I don't know if anyone can change my mind on that.

 

[Glen David Miller]

To add a thought to my earlier post - and to comment on headaches and frame rates.... one issue, as I understand it, that causes headaches during projection is the alternating projection mixed with black. It's made even worse with old mechanical 3D.

Films now are projected at 1/48th a second black and 1/48th a second picture. I've always wondered what the difference would be, if any, if modern projectors didn't create that black frame? Is this effect true of modern electronic projectors? Do you still see flashes of black between frames? If things were projected at solid 24 fps, would the image appear to strobe less? Given that we no longer have the mechanical restrictions of pulling film through a gate, seems a lot could be done in this area.

Pondering on this for a bit longer I remembering the first progressive cameras that shot at 30 fps. At the time, the sequences coming from those cameras had a filmic look but with a little more punch - even though I remember praying for a REDUCTION in frame rates and about cried when I finally had digital 24 in my hands!)

I always thought it might be interesting to add 12 more frame to take it to 36 fps and would you split the difference between cinema and reality? (I also remembering praying for a REDUCTION in frame rates and about cried when I finally had digital 24 in my hands!) It's

One thing I know for sure - having spent a long, long time in the VFX world... budgets aren't going to go up and 48fps suddenly doubled the amount of work for compositors and rendering pipelines. Add that up with people wanting VFX created in 4 and 5K now and... man.... the poor post guys are never going to get to go home.

 

[Kwan Khan]

That's exactly what I thought. Open your mind up for a moment. Watch The Hobbit in 48fps. It is different.

Jim

Agreed