Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

ARRI 48fps test

David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC

Moderator
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
7,832
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Website
www.davidmullenasc.com
I'm trying to keep an open mind on the topic... but I saw ARRI's test comparing 24 fps shooting and projection (of 2-perf 35mm material, digitally projected at CineGear) to 48 fps shooting and projection.

The look of 48 fps wasn't particularly appealing to me. Sure, there was a reduction in grain and an increase in smoothness, but it made everything look like it was shot on interlaced-scan video. I guess the 24 fps look is too ingrained in my mind to accept the look of 48 fps.

I'm becoming more convinced that I'd rather see 4K at 24 fps than 2K at 48 fps, as opposed to what James Cameron has proposed. Though I can understand intellectually that a fast-moving, fast-cut 3D action film should benefit from 48 fps... but my brain is telling me that it would make "Avatar 2" look even more like a video game and less like a movie.

But then, I'd also rather see 2D 15-perf 65mm IMAX than 3D 2K digital in terms of having an entertaining immersive experience.
 
IMHO, just like the more subtle use of 3D depth, 48-120fps will end up being used selectively from scene to scene as a create tool rather than a whole feature at 48.
 
The motion media industry is very broad - and along with that comes a wide range of creative needs and choices. Personally I like 24fps very much for narrative cinema...but higher frame rates for just about every other genre of production. Its a whole big production world out here beyond the "24 fps for everything" paradigm. Our eyes and brains see things smooth - and the suspended reality look of 24fps isn't necessarily the universal way all motion media, or portions of it, needs to be presented to the audience.

I view 24fps as just one of many frame rate options, depending on the project at hand. There's a good reason why the new generation of cameras like Epic have such a wide range of selectable frame rates, shutter speeds, and quality levels - and that reason is to enable broad utility of the cameras across multiple industries and genres of production. IMO the biggest challenge for users of Epic will be for their attitudes and skill sets to be diverse enough to effectively maximize the capabilities of the camera.

A lot of my overcranked footage of sports and nature with Red One has been 3k 48fps - and it has been very effective for its intended uses. For subjects like that, the higher the frame rate the better. With Epic I'll be shooting those types of fast moving action at 5k 120fps, or 4k or 3k at even higher frame rates as needed.

All camera work should effectively tell the story it's intended to tell. IMO the frame rate selected should be the frame rate which best tells the story of that particular genre of production, or portion thereof, ultimately conformed to the technical requirements of the intended delivery medium of the finished production.
 
I've mentioned it before, but my personal goal is that fps become a creative tool just as aperture, lens, grading, lighting, shutter etc. are today - in that you can be flexible with it on a shot by shot (or even frame by frame) basis and you would be able to use just the "perfect" frame rate for the needs of the story at that moment.

We certainly know that different frame rates convey different meanings, so to open that up to creative use, rather than technical limitation seems to be the way forwards.

Graeme
 
I agree that framerates should be a creative tool. But 48 frames per second also means altering the TimeBase of the image.

In film shooting 24 and projecting 24 is simple. Shooting 48 and projecting 48 is simple (double the speed of the projection).

In digital we shoot 24 at a 23.98 timebase, 48 is played back within a 23.98 time base displaying double the number of frames over the same time period.

If you were in a 29.97 time base and shot 48fps it would fit those frames into a 29.97/59.94 time base.

I guess I am just pointing out the difference between doing this on film and on RED where on RED you would need to be in a 23.98 timebase because it's digital. If you were going to film you might select 24 as your time base and shoot 48, but then at 48 if you wanted a slomo shot you'd have to go to 96fps for 2x slomo.

Epic is positioned nicely for this situation because you could do all of this at 4k and not take a resolution hit. R1, not so much because you'd be in 2k cropped just about all the time.

Then there would be some consideration for sound and retrofitting theaters with film projectors which playback 48fps.

I think the standard should say at 24fps and we should go to larger frame sizes. I do not think we should stay at 2k and go to 48fps as a standard.

David
 
I think the goal would be that a single fixed framerate for a project would become an anachronism.

Graeme
 
Graeme. Will we ever be able to have multiple project framerates as well as varispeed on single magazines. Say we want to shoot one take at 25fps and playback at 25fps, and the next shoot at 50fps and playback at 50fps (ie NOT for slow motion) ON the camera?
 
I think that's a "we'll have to wait and see" answer to your question. It's hard to figure how to achieve these kinds of goals without putting a lot of confusion in camera.

Graeme
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I'm trying to keep an open mind on the topic... but I saw ARRI's test comparing 24 fps shooting and projection (of 2-perf 35mm material, digitally projected at CineGear) to 48 fps shooting and projection.

The look of 48 fps wasn't particularly appealing to me. Sure, there was a reduction in grain and an increase in smoothness, but it made everything look like it was shot on interlaced-scan video. I guess the 24 fps look is too ingrained in my mind to accept the look of 48 fps.

I'm becoming more convinced that I'd rather see 4K at 24 fps than 2K at 48 fps, as opposed to what James Cameron has proposed. Though I can understand intellectually that a fast-moving, fast-cut 3D action film should benefit from 48 fps... but my brain is telling me that it would make "Avatar 2" look even more like a video game and less like a movie.

But then, I'd also rather see 2D 15-perf 65mm IMAX than 3D 2K digital in terms of having an entertaining immersive experience.
Click to expand...

David,

You're not alone.

I could not explain why, but i have the very same opinion/taste.

I'll risk something:

Maybe the brain (mine at least...) likes to see fixed images for short periods of time rather than see continuous movement.

Maybe the brain interprets slower frame rate as a story, as opposed to the reality (in the sense of RIGHT NOW) look of high frame rate ?

Bizarre...no ?

I am open minded too, but today, definitely prefer 24 fps over say 60 fps.

Antoine
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I'm trying to keep an open mind on the topic... but I saw ARRI's test comparing 24 fps shooting and projection (of 2-perf 35mm material, digitally projected at CineGear) to 48 fps shooting and projection.

The look of 48 fps wasn't particularly appealing to me. Sure, there was a reduction in grain and an increase in smoothness, but it made everything look like it was shot on interlaced-scan video. I guess the 24 fps look is too ingrained in my mind to accept the look of 48 fps.

I'm becoming more convinced that I'd rather see 4K at 24 fps than 2K at 48 fps, as opposed to what James Cameron has proposed. Though I can understand intellectually that a fast-moving, fast-cut 3D action film should benefit from 48 fps... but my brain is telling me that it would make "Avatar 2" look even more like a video game and less like a movie.

But then, I'd also rather see 2D 15-perf 65mm IMAX than 3D 2K digital in terms of having an entertaining immersive experience.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Same here!
 
I have the same feeling with 120hz and 240hz refresh rates mixed with the smooth motion feature on these new sets. They make everything feel too smooth and takes away the cinematic feel that we all are used to. Changing an accepted standard is very hard to do. Video cameras have been trying to mimic this look for so long and now they are able to.
 
Steve Gibby said:
A lot of my overcranked footage of sports and nature with Red One has been 3k 48fps - and it has been very effective for its intended uses. For subjects like that, the higher the frame rate the better. With Epic I'll be shooting those types of fast moving action at 5k 120fps, or 4k or 3k at even higher frame rates as needed.
Click to expand...

Sure, but you're talking about overcranking, not shooting at 48 fps, 120 fps, etc. for normal speed motion. Unless you are talking about 60 fps photography for 720/60P broadcast or conversion to 1080/60i as normal speed -- otherwise, if you are shooting 48 fps 3K and dragging that into a 60 fps timeline, it's going to look sped-up. It's only going to look slo-mo in a 24 fps timeline. And I don't know of any broadcast standard that runs at 48 fps (PAL 50 fps would come closest.) I'm not talking about slow-motion photography, I'm talking about normal motion photography.

I completely understand all the technical reasons, I'm just saying that my personal reaction was a lot more negative than I would have thought to seeing 48 fps as normal motion. It made film look like 60i broadcast video origination.
 
Last edited:
David Mullen ASC said:
Like I said, I wanted to be open-minded, I wanted to like the results, but once it switched from 24 fps at 24 fps to 48 fps at 48 fps, my reaction was basically "yuk". I was just surprised, that's all.
Click to expand...

I, and EVERYONE I spoke to after the screening, totally agree with you David.

My take on it was that with the Alexa, ARRI has now made Digital look like film.....and then for some odd reason, they have also shown that they can make 35mm Film look like video!
 
I see the same David,

Now i'd be curious to know exactly "why" i like 24 fps so much more than 60 fps.

I'll make a little experiment when i have a few minutes.

I'll try to shoot and watch in 12 fps, just to see how i like it...never know...

I can't remember where i saw this article, but it was explained that the brain sees "fixed pictures".

Was cinema about motion "PICTURES" ?



Interesting thread :)

Antoine
 
Just spent a day shooting motor cross at 120 fps. At the end of the day I flipped back to 25 fps, and it was really not-good looking. I think 24/25 fps "rule" is also here to be broken, like film-vs-digital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top