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

I think this has been thoroughly examined by a whole generation of individuals before us. The "flicker" is akin to sitting around staring at a fire... 24fps is perhaps the most comfortable intersection between persistence of vision and gestalt.

And gestalt theory has always been my go-to explanation for why we do just about anything "nonproductive" our brains love games, music, visual stimuli because it's satisfying to put 2 + 2 together. Seeing fewer images per second, but allowing our brain to fill in the rest, is probably more satisfying for this reason - we're synthesizing the images in our minds more so they resonate more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology
 
It doesn't really matter why we perceive different frame rates differently, just that we need to start thinking of how we can use this perceptual effect to help tell more involving stories.

Graeme
 
David:

Thanks a lot for sharing your impressions. I have been wondering about this (we've mentioned it in other threads) but haven't had any way to see that kind of real world test.

My guess is that things like 3D and high framerates will lend themselves more to action movies or documentaries, while 2D and "normal" framerates will serve us for more story oriented narrative movies for a long time to come, with an occasional well-done, subtle 3D narrative project.

I think for the most part people enjoy being "told" a good story and have moods and more subtle emotions created through photography, pacing, sound, etc. - and 3D and other effects generally take away from that more than they contribute.

Just as for me nothing quite beats reading a good book - because the writer is a good storyteller but also leaves room for my imagination to add to it - I think "normal" movies leave more room for our brain to contribute to the overall feeling in a story oriented movie.

With that said, I certainly think that this should be the goal:

Graeme Nattress said:
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
Click to expand...
 
Graeme Nattress said:
It doesn't really matter why we perceive different frame rates differently, just that we need to start thinking of how we can use this perceptual effect to help tell more involving stories.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Well, as this is a new effect that has to be taken into consideration - trying to understand the principles behind captured motion at different framerates - I'd say it does matter.

I'm trying to be open about whatever there will be coming towards me as a consumer.
As a (tiny) filmmaker, I really can't think of many reasons at the moment because projecting with higher framerates always has a "eluding" effect on me and to me cinema is the true "illuding" artform. I willing to learn though.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, In that case I was talking about overcranking. The 3k 48fps sports and nature action footage I referenced was shot on Red mostly for stock use. I used a project frame of either 23.98fps or 29.97fps, then in Varispeed the frame rate was set to 48fps, with a shutter speed of 1/96th second. In playback the result is glass smooth slow motion.

With Epic for normal motion photography in all genres but narrative (which I don't shoot anyway), I'll simply us a profile of 59.94 project frame rate and shutter speed of 120th second for low action sequences, and maybe 160th second for higher action sequences. Most of what I shoot is for ATSC HDTV delivery. For 5K overcranking for slow motion, I'll probably us a project frame rate of 59.94, in Varispeed set frame rate to 120fps, and maybe a shutter speed of 250th second.

For a recent National Geographic nature special (HD) I was an executive producer for all Red footage was shot in 4k 29.97, and all the helicopter-mounted and boat mounted footage was shot using a Sony HDC1500 in a CineFlex V14, shooting 1080p 4:4:4 at 59.94. It had the glass smoothness we were looking for and intercut well with the downsampled and scaled down (to 1080p) Red 4k 29.97 footage. In the entire production there was no 23.98 footage shot.

For the recent HDTV and Blu Ray separate productions of the bands Journey (10 Red cameras) and Heart (7 Red cameras) for which I was a DP, we shot all footage in 4k 29.97 to achieve a smoothness of motion. We didn't want to suspend reality and portray a bunch of judder - thus the 29.97 - plus 29.97 transcodes easily to the 59.94 delivery frame rate. The recording executives, the bands themselves, and the HDTV and Blu Ray audience reacted extremely well to the production values - including the smoothness.

Again, the over-used cliche: Horses for courses

To me this is an apples an oranges thing. I can appreciate that you and others favor 24fps for the genres you work in. But there are tens of thousands of professionals in other production genres, and vast numbers of audiences, who relish smoothness for non-narrative productions. IMO there is no "right" or "wrong" on this - just potentially a "right" or "wrong" choice of frame rates for certain genres of production, audiences, and/or delivery mediums. As we all know, high production values aren't simply a product of frame rate.

My tastes and the genres I work in run close to what Graeme has expressed - match the frame rate to the shot sequence and/or overall genre to best tell the story, or portion thereof. For most genres of production, except narrative, my eye and brain don't react well to a 24fps look - and I'm certainly not alone on that. Red User is over-weighted with narrative workers and hopeful narrative workers. But that doesn't accurately reflect the overall production industry genre percentages, or necessarily the overall audience taste for the "look & feel" of what they like to watch.
 
Well IMO, for S3D 48fps does in deed give a better viewing experience and less motion blur, with a more defined image and higher sharpness i turn, however, I do agree with you David, well partially, it does make everything look more like video, but only partially, as when lens aperture is set properly per each scene, and lighting is equally applied to the 48fps look, I find it.. well, better.

It is difficult to get adjusted, yes, same it is so for 4K Monoscopic 2d, to go to S3D, it takes getting used to, even so in order to get used to S3D viewing , it is much more of exercising the Visual Cortex muscles then anything else, in order to comfortably view S3D material.

I experienced the same thing when testing the new Samsung super teen LED TV, the image quality is so high, sharpness so incredible, and image adjustability of contrast and color so great, that made Movies look like Video, no actually like they were right there behind a window, so clean that was as if there was no window, it was a bit too much for me, especially the clips for Avatar, you could almost fill as if you were watching a Video Game instead of a Movie, that looked like shot on Video on infinity focus.

But I do also believe that the use of 48fps even in S3D should not be for the entire Film, but used as we now use to under crank or over crank to speed up or slow down scenes, unfortunately this will require internal coding as to direct the projector to play variable speeds, dictated by the digital Media itself, not something I see possible on Film out material.
 
Aesthetically (48fps) looks like video. But the resaon we have the 24 frame standard is quite simply COST. Before digital it meant half the film (shot) and half the film (release print).

Now with film giving way to digital the way to revive it is to DOUBLE the amount of film that is required to make a project on film.

This is a very high brow discussion.

Let's talk cost.

Few if any producers will consider a 48fps option for aquisition and wide distribution. (hey can I double your film costs) in the case of 3D (quadruple your film costs)

In a digital environment it means finding a digital projection system that will actaully project at 48FPS as this is not a timebase standard currently available in video distribution.

In terms of aesthetics 24FPS is a standard that people expect from film. It was always the discearning factor between film (24fps) and video 29.97 interlaced.

No one has provided a 48FPS digital projection standard (as far as I know) and I can not see it as any realistic format for the future of film distribution as studios are moving to digital as a means of tracking the number of plays by an exhibitor and a more pleasant 3d experience. (PROJECTED at 24fps digital)

David
 
David Battistella said:
No one has provided a 48FPS digital projection standard (as far as I know)
Click to expand...

The Digital Cinema Package has supported 48fps for quite some time. It is, in fact, the method used for distribution of all stereo 3D material, which is encoded as 48fps, with left and right eye images interleaved.
 
M Most said:
The Digital Cinema Package has supported 48fps for quite some time. It is, in fact, the method used for distribution of all stereo 3D material, which is encoded as 48fps, with left and right eye images interleaved.
Click to expand...

thanks mike. i put those out there for learning purposes as often as i can.

david
 
The DLP chip can run up to 144fps if I recall correctly.

Frame rate standard is easier to adjust than resolution. How many 4K projectors are currently installed?

To me it seems like we are going slightly backwards than forwards. We finally get to a point where digital can fight side by side with film...and then think about pushing the look backwards to a very digital look!

Like I have mentioned before DW Griffiths used to send projection slips along with his films instructing the projectionist to project at a variety of speeds for different parts of the films. I think the minimum they could project was 12fps otherwise the celluloid burnt by the heat of the lamp.
 
I sense a little confusion here in the discussion. What Graeme is discussing is variability in PROJECTION framerate. Shooting "over-cranked" to then play back at a slower speed is a different effect. As presentation transitions to digital technology both in the home and in theaters, it frees the media from a single locked playback framerate. To be able to shift this framerate for visual effect is an interesting artistic proposition, and I'm sure some cinema artists will discover a use for this just as the use of a wide angle lens or a gentle dolly or a well-placed edge light can help tell the story.
 
What current medium/standard? IE: DVD, MPG, would support this. Film could do it with specific instruction.

I think th thought of what I will call "variable real time" framerates might be an interesting techinical tool and creative alternative. The movie would be interesting.

Scene A 48 fps
Scene B 24 fps
Scene C 96fps

and so on...

all in "realtime" with distinctly different "looks" based on framerate.

Sound would present different issues.

Very esoteric discussion. :)
 
By CS7 they will have sorted out audio sync issues only for this to come into play...the irony ;)

Any more tools to my arsenal is always a plus!!
 
Cost has little to nothing to do with 48fps for S3D, as there is already an added cost in shooting S3D, Producers and Studios alike are already very aware of such costs increases, and if increasing the cost even more by shooting 48fps, gives a better experiecne at the end, do to more pleasing Movie Going experience, and theaters fill up, then cost will never be an issue in S3D productions, only for the Indie, and the Indie is only experimenting in S3D any way, like my self, just that I as others, are trying to really experiment things out with an open mind, in order to try things before dismissal, been used to something or it been not the standard means nothing to me, I'm a Filmmaker, a Storyteller, a visionary, and there for I want to try new things and see how they can help me tell my stories, just tools.

Shooting at 48fps and playing at 48fps, for the right material and the right scenes is definitely very liable and I like it, just again as I said at several S3D tests, not for the al film, and would love to see a Digital system that can play with a recognition data for variable sped on play back based on the coding input in to the media recorded, so that slow motion scenes shot at 120fps with the intent to be played at 24fps, to create slow motion are played as such and the 48fps shot to be played at 48fps, be played at 48fps, as the Filmmaker intended for his/hers artistic vision of how that scene should be, a tool, just like over cranking or under cranking.

Not so sure yet about full movie played back at 48fps, but more tests and toys to play with before making any decision, but again for me the key as well as for any Filmmaker should be not the standard, but OPEN MIND to find new TOOLS for the good of your story to be told.
 
We've been shooting a few 3d test at 48FPS and 48FPS playback and for 3d it is nice as you are now getting 24FPS temporal resolution again (to each eye for xpol interlace systems) and can go back to using 24FPS camera pan rates.

But for single camera, yea 24FPS only please.

I was not at that demo, why did Arri show it, was it for 3d?

I've seen film played back 78FPS and 120FPS and it starts to look very real almost 3d but not cool for a movie. I've heard film shot and played at 800 to 1000 FPS looks insane and is used to simulate reality for computer vision targeting systems.
 
I think the best example of 48fps motion that most of us have seen is the "Motion Flow" feature on most HDTV's these days. Though the TV's probably don't do the 48fps properly, that's basically the effect that you end up with. So, if that helps clear up the over-cranking vs. 48fps projection confusion, there ya go...

Personally, when I see a movie at Best Buy playing on a Motion Flow tv, I throw up in my mouth a little.
 
Mitch Gross said:
I sense a little confusion here in the discussion. What Graeme is discussing is variability in PROJECTION framerate.
Click to expand...

Seems like the first step is to create some kind of "flag" to tell the projector the desired PROJECTION framerate. Some kind of standard will have to be developed. An initial step might be fore Graeme/RED to incorporate that flag into the .r3d metadata so the shooter could identify scenes that are shot for higher framerate playback.

Obviously that could be altered or added in the post production process. But simply creating that option will give some impetus to the industry to start incorporating that into projectors and future standards.

Technical question, would an instantaneous jump from say 24 to 48 or 60 fps be a big problem with projector technology. And for that matter would it jar the audience or does some sort of ramping have to happen.
 
Mitch Gross said:
I sense a little confusion here in the discussion. What Graeme is discussing is variability in PROJECTION framerate. Shooting "over-cranked" to then play back at a slower speed is a different effect. As presentation transitions to digital technology both in the home and in theaters, it frees the media from a single locked playback framerate. To be able to shift this framerate for visual effect is an interesting artistic proposition, and I'm sure some cinema artists will discover a use for this just as the use of a wide angle lens or a gentle dolly or a well-placed edge light can help tell the story.
Click to expand...

Spot on Mitch!

A fixed time base goes back to when TV's were synced to the mains frequency, 60hz in USA, 50hz in UK etc. We no long sync stuff to mains frequency, and as we're editing on computers, no need for a fixed timebase, any more than there's need for specific fixed acquisition frame sizes or dimensions.

Now, I know hardware engineers will utterly hate me for such suggestions, but I do reckon it's the way to go to use technology to enhance creative possibilities.

Graeme
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top