48fps... I've converted.

[Robert L. Mickles]

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

Jim

My mind is open, but it is a hard sell. I don't like nausea and headaches haha No disrespect to Mr. Jackson or anyone else but LOTR and stories of that nature are not my thing. Medieval, Middle Earth, etc have a hard time holding my attention. Do we know of any other shot on RED movies coming very soon in 48fps that I can give it another chance? Or maybe I'll just see the Hobbit who knows?

Agreed

Haha you're on me on here and Facebook!

 

[Jannard]

Liking (or not) the genre has nothing to do with the technology.

Jim

My mind is open, but it is a hard sell. I don't like nausea and headaches haha No disrespect to Mr. Jackson or anyone else but LOTR and stories of that nature are not my thing. Medieval, Middle Earth, etc have a hard time holding my attention. Do we know of any other shot on RED movies coming very soon in 48fps that I can give it another chance? Or maybe I'll just see the Hobbit who knows?



Haha you're on me on here and Facebook!

 

[Alec Morris]

I just directed and did the stereography on a short film shot in 3D at 48fps. I didn't know quite what to expect, and looking at the dailies after the first day was a pretty jarring experience. But by the third day my brain had adjusted and I was blown away. It is immersive and lifelike. I understand the comparison to oversampled TV's, but that's like comparing taco meat to prime rib. Yeah, they're kind of similar, but only in the broadest of senses.
Does it look 'filmic'? No, not particularly. Does it look 'cinematic'? Absolutely. And I think that's an important distinction to make, one that most detractors fail to.
It takes some time to get used to. But once you do, there's no going back. Give it a honest chance and you will be surprised.

 

[Humberto Rivera]

After all the discussions about the 48 Frames per Second HFR in S3D Theaters around the World, HOW THEATER OWNERS ARE JUMPING ON THE BANDWAGON at the last minute (like they always do when they have to spend money).

Was the 270 degree shutter the same at 48 frames per second as it was at 24 frames per second, I think the answers is YES, you cannot change the shutter once recorded, to borrow a phase, IT’S BAKED-IN! So we have a HFR 48 FPS and a regular 24 PPS shutter (at slightly later date) with different projection speeds! I think that’s the simple answer, is YES.

The only questions are, isn’t 2K of 4K projection, is that per eye-ball or all together, interesting questions. But I’m not really trying to think about-it at this moment, that’s for afterwards, and there is going to be a lot WORLDWIDE commentary, depending on “Box Office Receipts” was this record broken or that record, prepare you’re self, because the future of S3D is RIDING ON-IT. Next comes Avatar and a few others and camera standards are all over the MAP as well as THEATER projections schemes.

But at the end does it really matter? The marketing machine, the publicity machine, the signing up of theater with the specter of only being shown at 48 Fps at the begging is taking hold, the planned JUNKETS, the PREMIERS, the promotional sidelines, the entire machine is now moving forward, like a submarine it will surface at the right moment, it’s still too early, but it definitely heading your way as we speak, WHEREVER you are on the Planet, LOOKOUT! There is a “Hobbit” sneaking up (with great fanfare). And all that “Pop Corn” sold at theaters, which theater owners get to KEEP ALL OF THE REVENUES!

At the end, is the Film Audience AROUND THE WORLD who is going to decide, so sit-back, OPEN YOUR MIND UP FOR A MOMENT as Jim said THE HOBBIT IN 48FPS IS DIFFERENT, and enjoy the Show! Nothing else TO-DO!

Humberto Rivera

 

[Joe Carney]

Fortunately, there are no less than 2 theaters showing 4K HFR 3D version of the Hobbit near where I live. I'm going to give it a shot.

 

[Jim Swan]

That math looks right to me.

But maybe shutter angle is an outdated concept to use for an electronic sensor - unless you literally have a rotary mechanical shutter on your camera.

It would make more sense to me to just speak in terms of real shutter speed - or x's of framerate. As in - 48fps at 2x shutter - would be 1/96th and so on - makes sense from a stills point of view.

A fool's errand perhaps - just like telling people to stop saying "footage" - or "dial" a phone number... My car has horsepower - but I don't need to feed it hay.

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?

 

[Humberto Rivera]

TEHBEN DEAN said some time ago when I was having problems with these shutter business; “Yup, 48fps @ 270º shutter which = 1/64s shutter speed.”

All that the people in New Zeeland are doing is taking out every other frame for the 2D print, nothing about shutter angle, reinterring Peter Jackson; “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

“Was the 270 degree shutter the same at 48 frames per second as it was at 24 frames per second, I think the answers is YES, you cannot change the shutter once recorded, to borrow a phase, IT’S BAKED-IN! So we have a HFR 48 FPS and a regular 24 PPS shutter (at slightly later date) with different projection speeds! I think that’s the simple answer, is YES.” Humberto Rivera earlier!

So again TEHBEN DEAN; “Yup, 48fps @ 270º shutter which = 1/64s shutter speed.” At whatever Frames per Seconds, it’s all BAKED-IN!

Humberto Rivera

 

[Axel Mertes]

Hi!

I just read that roughly 400 to 500 theaters in north america will show "The Hobbit" in 3D 2K 48fps per eye. Clearly this isn't the target Jim & Peter are looking for, however its a starting point. Its said that the release of "Hobbit" in december 2013 should change the theaters mind to convert and upgrade their systems.

We will see, in the strongest mind of that word.

 

[Axel Mertes]

That math looks right to me.

But maybe shutter angle is an outdated concept to use for an electronic sensor - unless you literally have a rotary mechanical shutter on your camera.

It would make more sense to me to just speak in terms of real shutter speed - or x's of framerate. As in - 48fps at 2x shutter - would be 1/96th and so on - makes sense from a stills point of view.

A fool's errand perhaps - just like telling people to stop saying "footage" - or "dial" a phone number... My car has horsepower - but I don't need to feed it hay.

In the digital age, I think the best is to say how long the exposure time in seconds really is. Shutter speed is exactly this, isn't it?

The formula is basically in which factor is the sensor shutter covered vs. open to receive photons per frame, divided by the frame number. The result is the actual exposure time in seconds. This may sound a bit complicated, but the idea is that exposure time should not be longer than a single frame. So a single frame 100% exposure would correspond to 360° shutter open.

Here the formula, a bit better written:

shutter speed = exposure time = (270°/360°)/1 frame/48 frames/1 s = 270°/360°/48/1 s = (0.75/48)s = 1/64s = 0.015625s

or in simpler words:

shutter speed = exposure time = (percentage shutter open/frames per second) seconds


which is the exact same results as the math we had before:

shutter speed = exposure time = 1 frame/(360°/270°) * 48 frames/s) = 1 frame/(1.333 * 48 frames/s) = 1/64s = 0,015625s

So I don't think its outdated thinking when it comes to shutter speed, or exposure time how I would call it.
Shutter angle is just a way to describe how a shutter is opened during exposure.

What comes to my mind is that the above is true and correct in terms of a continuesly open/closed shutter with more or less binary on/off thinking.
Given that there are now various approaches on how shutter work, thinking of multi-sliced strobe like shutter wheels, multi exposure, the Tessive fade in/out LCD etc. the math isn't correctly giving us an idea of what time is being recorded during the exposure, as all these tools modulate the time each pixel is exposed.

Here a thought:
A 100% exposure with 50% of the photons blocked with a filter would give you the same still image as with 50% exposure time and 100% photons received. Or a strobing filter that switches between open/closed shutter 100 times during a single frame. Doing the same with a motion would result in a extremely motion blurred image in case one and three versus a lot less motion blurred exposure in case two.

But the exposure time per pixel is possibly the same in all cases, the amount of photons received per photo site would be theoretically identical...

 

[Wayne Morellini]

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

Try 50fps instead of 24/48fps, one less incompatible standard. They easily slow down and pitch shift 25/50p for 24fps cinema.

I've been seeing digital projection coming for nearly 8 years, and that 24p was going to look worse compared to p50.

 

[Elsie N]

48 fps should make it possible to capture shots like muzzle flash, police car lights, and other things that happen almost instantly in the modern world, more accurately. I think it will cause me to need more SSD media and more editing horsepower but I see the benefits of shooting this way.

Am I right in assuming the difference in watching a movie shot on 48 pfs time base occurs mainly in action shots? Or does it drastically change the look of non action dialogue scenes?

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Now here is some News! http://www.deadline.com/2012/11/warner-brothers-imax/#more-372129 WARNER BROS AGREES TO RELEASE UP TO 20 MORE FILMS ON IMAX OVER NEXT 3 YEARS!

Remember the full marketing campaign is ongoing, it has not stopped, it will continue to accelerate, and this is the time to get THEATER OWNERS to get the equipment to show: “The Hobbit” in S3D HFR 48 Frames per Second! Do whatever you NEED-TO-DO in order to accomplish that GOAL FIRST!

It’s in all our interest that WE WILL EVENTUALLY see most films in 4K EACH EYE-BALL, AT 48 FRAMES PER SECOND but that’s for tomorrow, TODAY get “The Hobbit” out the door, in as many places possible TODAY!

Humberto Rivera

 

[Humberto Rivera]

The Future of Filmmaking!

The Future of Filmmaking!

I cannot emphasize enough that the “Motion Picture Business” has become a truly international business, in My Opinion, the cost of distribution has gone down exponentially, as the “6K Dragon Sensor” will cause the “Resolution Factor” along with “Dynamic Range” to go up-exponentially, we have two different forces at work. For the moment computer speed need to catch up-exponentially, funny how that word; EXPONENTIALLY keeps on flying in all directions.

But what does that mean for the filmmakers? Well for one thing the cost of distribution was so high with “35 mm Film” that you always thought in terms of a “P&A” (Prints & Advertising) deal at the end of Filming! The problem with that is the “Old Saying – LAST IN - FIRST OUT”. Now with “hard disk drives” hopefully after they reach a deal in “Geneva Next Year”, that will become a thing of the past, the Film Pirates are always around the corner, it’s like the other side of the of a BAD PENNY.

REMEMBER; http://www.deadline.com/2012/11/mpa...digital-movie-shipments-to-overseas-theaters/ There is an interesting shot article in this morning Deadline, which reads; “MPAA Presses For Duty-Free Digital Movie Shipments To Overseas Theaters By THE DEADLINE TEAM | Thursday November 8, 2012 @ 4:16pm PST” Film Prints will be relegated to the Smithsonian Instituted much faster that we think.

I keep on coming back to China, Russia, Germany, The United Kingdom, Canada, The United States as some of the countries where more and more IMAX Theaters are being build, as well smaller theaters that can show S3D Films, whatever problems have existed in the past or present, will be fixed, The Red Player and Projectors are about to go out the door to HOME AND THEATERS USE, it will be exciting 2013! There is even an IMAX Theater in our little country of Escazu, Costa Rica.

So as 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

 

[Ryan Farnes]

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.

This.

Although I suspect there will be a backlash from audiences similar to that group of theater owners at that conference. Interesting to hear perspectives from all sides, and I am curious to see the Hobbit in 48fps 3D.

 

[Pablo Moreno]

Hi!

I just read that roughly 400 to 500 theaters in north america will show "The Hobbit" in 3D 2K 48fps per eye. Clearly this isn't the target Jim & Peter are looking for, however its a starting point. Its said that the release of "Hobbit" in december 2013 should change the theaters mind to convert and upgrade their systems.

We will see, in the strongest mind of that word.

I was specting the hobbit on December 2012.. my bad..

 

[Raul Quintanilla]

Nobody seems to mention the option of a variable frame rate, which would mean a real freedom to experiment with frame rates in a new way. Some parts of the film might flow better at 24, or even 16 frames per second! Others, you'd like to ramp it up to 120. Just make it metadata and let the projector figure it out while playing. How about it?

 

[Axel Mertes]

This.

Although I suspect there will be a backlash from audiences similar to that group of theater owners at that conference. Interesting to hear perspectives from all sides, and I am curious to see the Hobbit in 48fps 3D.

Yes and no. The first episode will come next month, so no need to worry. But it will by only 2K 3D 48fps per eye.
I wonder if theaters unable to show 48fps will get a 3D copy at all. As I understand the notes made, 3D will be ONLY 48fps per eye, so 24fps enabled theaters will not get the movie. We will see how that affects the success.
Maybe they will show off the 48fps mono 2K version then?

The idea is that the success of the fewer 3D theaters with 48fps should convince other theaters to follow up next year.

 

[Axel Mertes]

Nobody seems to mention the option of a variable frame rate, which would mean a real freedom to experiment with frame rates in a new way. Some parts of the film might flow better at 24, or even 16 frames per second! Others, you'd like to ramp it up to 120. Just make it metadata and let the projector figure it out while playing. How about it?

I brought up the thought at ISDCF last week, why not drop those dozens of formats (now 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23.976, 24, 25, 29.97, 30, 48, 50, 59.94, 60, 96, 100, 120 fps) and instead make the clever move to a single "variable framerate" addition to the toolset. They seem not to like the idea, though...

In fact as of now you can't intermix playback speed in a single movie for DCP playback. Its not even an option. When doing it, you may end up with a serious time break at the moment you change speed.


Imagine variable framerate would be implemented straight from acquistion, through editing to delivery...

However, broadcaster and such are looking always for fixed bandwidth, and variable framerates imply the opposite.


Btw, the movie "Brainstorm" was noted as one good example where variable framerate was intended to use (60fps for the brain sequences vs. 24fps for the rest). Due to technical inabilities back then they have decided to make it all 24fps afterwards. I still wish I could see it as originally desired, because I really like that movie ;-)

 

[Onar Stangeland]

I am afraid that the hobbit is gonna have that "television"-look. I have shot alot 50fps with my Red One, and it allways looks like good old interlaced video. Hopefully the 3D faktor makes it different.

 

[Alec Morris]

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.