ARRI 48fps test

[David Quinn Carder]

Does anyone know where online I can find some good demonstrations of footage shot at 48p/60p/96p/120p/whatever?

 

[IAN SUN]

David, cinema and film are not synonymous.
See: RED Digital Cinema : )

 

[David Quinn Carder]

David, cinema and film are not synonymous.
See: RED Digital Cinema : )

RED Digital Video doesn't have the same classy appeal, does it?

 

[Jeff Coatney]

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.

I'm with you on this one. I hate that video temporal look. I find pristine 4K to be much more immersive than 3D at any resolution.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I think there's more to it than that Mitch. The brain does respond to different frequencies differently, so it's not surprising we get different feelings from different fps and shutter speeds. It could very well be, like CRT inverse gamma characteristic being close to human brightness perception curve as a lucky accident, that ~24fps is the same kind of thing.

Graeme

There's research out there to prove this. I saw some of it once. I'll try to dig this up. Something to do with Task Saturation that fighter pilot's experience in combat. May also have relevance in CIA Psychotropic Program in the 1960's.

Doug Trumbull's Showscan research has some data on this.- Although he says we top out at 60fps as a rule.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

48fps shoot and projected = crappy video look..

who wants that???

 

[David Quinn Carder]

48fps shoot and projected = crappy video look..

who wants that???

I still think it's just an association thing. Virtually every movie we've ever seen is in 24fps. They all "look like movies". I could definitely be wrong, but I bet if it weren't for the technical limitations that all movies would have been high-framerate all along, and 24fps would look cheap and choppy.

 

[Bruce Allen]

48fps shoot and projected = crappy video look..

who wants that???

I do - not for 2D though, but for 3D. It's a step away from the current headache-inducing compromise we have now. Personally I'm really keen on shooting most of a short in 48fps 3D 3K on Scarlet 2/3 and Epic just to see how much it'd improve things. I'll write a nice script next year, shoot early 2012 and by late 2012 or so there may be actually something that can project it! Glad Graeme's on my side - here's hoping they can do something smart with RedRay

But then I used to be a theatre director. I'd be very happy with 1000fps autostereoscopic 16-view 8K - ideally shown on a gigantic theatre-size OLED screen with microlenses so that you get glasses-les 3D. Come on - you know it's coming and it'll be awesome. Until then, movies are great for some things but roundly trounced by theatre and opera for others - and not just in the live aspect but in the visuals themselves.

Might need to buy an extra computer or two to do the rendering though.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Nathan Garofalos]

I do - not for 2D though, but for 3D. It's a step away from the current headache-inducing compromise we have now. Personally I'm really keen on shooting most of a short in 48fps 3D 3K on Scarlet 2/3 and Epic just to see how much it'd improve things. I'll write a nice script next year, shoot early 2012 and by late 2012 or so there may be actually something that can project it! Glad Graeme's on my side - here's hoping they can do something smart with RedRay

But then I used to be a theatre director. I'd be very happy with 1000fps autostereoscopic 16-view 8K - ideally shown on a gigantic theatre-size OLED screen with microlenses so that you get glasses-les 3D. Come on - you know it's coming and it'll be awesome. Until then, movies are great for some things but roundly trounced by theatre and opera for others - and not just in the live aspect but in the visuals themselves.

Might need to buy an extra computer or two to do the rendering though.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

I agree with you Bruce. This is a great tool, really smooth, less noisy images. This is great for 3D!

 

[Steven Caesare]

I'd really like to see some footage shot at 48fps, but with a 360degree shutter.

That would allow for less judder than 24fps, but still have the same motion blur characteristics per frame (as the exposure timre per frame is the same).

Plus, as an interesting test/bonus, by extracting every other frame, you should have a 24fps stream that matches "typcial" cinema shooting standard today.

With digital acquisition & projection, this might provide some interesting flexability that allows a single project to provide both a film deliverable, and a "high temporal" digital version...

-sc

 

[Stuart English]

48 fps 4K / 5K

48 fps 4K / 5K

I'd really like to see some footage shot at 48fps, but with a 360degree shutter.

Maybe at a future RED DAY .... EPIC does allow capture and record of that as a Project / Time Base, but display at 48 fps on existing projectors would have to be limited to 2K resolution.

 

[Steven Caesare]

Thanks Stuart. Less typical "judder" without the hyper-crisp "Gladiator" short-shutter angle look might be the best of both worlds.

Even at 2K, it would be an interesting comparison (and of course thise projector boys are gonna have to keep up if they don't want Epic's capabilites to leave them in the dust...).

Out of curiosity, can the R1 not do 48fps/360degree-shutter?

-sc

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I was unable to find the specific paper about cognitive saturation that I recall reading some years ago, but I was able to cull from several academic sources some more information that points to a very real effect of frame rate on cognition. And by extension, the synthesis of auditory and visual stimuli as humans perceive it. Very interesting field of study. More robust work has been done by DOD (Darpa, Rand, CIA, et. al.) I'm sure - but those sources are closed to the public.

Basically, it breaks down like this:

If you accept the human brain is a computer, then it has both a default bandwidth and a clock speed and it requires power.

This is our point of departure for what is a theoretical, if casual, discussion of how the audience in the cinema interacts with the film.

Please bear with me, I've been up to my eyeballs in Phd level writing for better than a few hours and it takes a toll.

Bandwidth:
In a movie theatre, visual information is delivered at 24fps. Since we perceive reality at a "frame rate" (for lack of a better term) that is greater that 24fps, our visual processing centers have a surplus of bandwidth with which to process that filmed imagery. Since we are sitting stationary in a darkened room, there is little additional real visual information that is delivered besides the film images. Therefore, the amount of visual processing the brain must perform to result in "seeing" is minimal and may explain the sense of "tunnel-vision" or "cognitive immersion" we experience while watching movies.

So, let's up the frame rate. At 48fps, the amount of visual information delivered to the brain is now doubled. And if we were watching a 3D movie at 48fps, the amount is quadrupled from the 24fps of a normal, 2D movie. While this increase may still allow for a surplus of cognitive function, the simple fact remains that as much as half of our brain activity is devoted to processing visual information. So by upping the frame rate, we may be providing an exemplary visual experience for our eyes, but we are taking up more cognitive bandwidth in doing so.

Now let's rip the doors off and deliver 3D at 60fps. In researching his Showscan™ large format exhibition venue technology, Douglas Trumbull's team discovered that humans could enjoy the benefit of improved visual perception and aesthetic appreciation of filmed content that was measurable up to 60fps, but those benefits plateaued when pushed past 60fps. Suggesting that the "clock speed" of the human visual processing centers of the brain functioned at or near a theoretical 60fps. This frame rate would deliver some 3 times the amount of visual information for the brain to process. And even more information if aspect ratio and field of view were calculated into that metric.

The Downside:
Speed reading experiments suggest that comprehension declines as reading rate increases. Since reading is the synthesis of visual information into cognitive function and then emotional feedback, lets allow that the same cognitive deficit effect could be at work at higher frame rates in the cinema. Could this explain the lack of emotional resonance that some audience members report feeling after watching content that is rich in visual information? Is the net effect of demanding that the brain process more information result in less cognitive bandwidth and perhaps even reduce our ability to connect emotionally to the material?

It would be hard to argue that movies are not an emotional experience. Indeed you could argue that they are primarily emotional experiences. Could our efforts to enrich the cinematic experience visually, actually be harming the movie-going experience? I thought about how emotionally connected I feel towards certain movies that I watched 20 years ago vs. movies that were released today. Could it be that modern movies are taxing our ability to create strong emotional bonds with the content? It would seem that few contemporary films are able to engender a sense that they are essential works, while we long for the transformative cinematic experiences of our youth. Is an abundance of technology and our pursuit of it, masking a neglect of the most critical and relevant aspects of cinema?

The brain and brain function are also fueled. One of the primary sources of power is apparently glucose. Does an uptick in brain activity associated with increasing the burden on the visual processing centers result in a premature expenditure of this fuel source? Will watching a higher frame rate film demand more energy than a film presented at 24fps? The research suggests this could be true. I've been energized by films I've seen and exhausted by films I've seen. I believe there is a connection. I've not even mentioned running time.

Let's look at Black & White films. Here you have not only the 24fps limitation but also a chromatic limitation, yet how many films from the 1930's and 40's still command impressive emotional responses from their audiences? Is this proof that giving the audience less visual information stimulates or allows the emotional centers of the brain, the experiential centers to flourish?

Its a fascinating debate. These conclusions are mine and are the result of reviewing academic studies in cognition, the visual cortex, learning dynamics and higher brain function. Searches on any of those topics will give you further reading, but I couldn't list my sources here- this post is long enough.

 

[Ian Laurie]

I agree 100% with David on this one. I am not sure what it is, but too me 24 fps "feels" natural and appropriate. I have found the higher the fps after that point the more I dislike the results. Once things get above 60 fps, i start to physically get sick to my stomach. 60 leaves me feeling like I am watching a bad soap opera, and 24 feels, well just right.

 

[Ian Laurie]

Although I will say I can see the view of it being a tool in a larger story. But I also feel 3d needs to be relegated to this category as well, rather than a gimmick used for every movie.

 

[Ian Laurie]

Jeff,

I think that may have just upped my IQ. Thank you.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Jeff

I *really* enjoyed reading your post and agree with the need for simplicity when emotional focus is the key... BUT some of my deepest, most emotional memories are at unlimited frame rate - again, outstanding theatre and opera productions... and also real life!

For example, I remember vividly everything from visually simple yet beautiful moments in a slow-moving Robert Wilson opera staging... to an empty room with just an actor... to a Julie Taymor production where there is just a ton of stuff going on everywhere... to moments of great audio-visual overload, detail and speed - such as when I crash-landed in a field in a glider.

How do you reconcile this?

Personally I think that at 60fps, TV bugs us because it seems close to reality but the lack of 3D and the lack of sharpness becomes a conflicting distraction. To use a CG metaphor, it is in the "uncanny valley".

With 24fps 2D, the 24fps motion stutter and grain act as a filter to mask the lack of depth. We're switching over to some mode where our brain is trying to fill in the scene information by guesswork - probably last used when our ancestors were hunting in the forest or whatever and could only catch glimpses of things. This makes things seem more real than they are.

To to my mind, either make it "real" or make it "film". Real frame rates hobbled by low resolution and 2D is what makes TV such a bad in-between step.

I'm with Steven also - I plan to shoot approx. 288 degree shutter 48fps 3D but also downconvert. I will have a "you are there" version - projected in 48fps stereo, hopefully above 2K resolution... and also a "film" version - just take one eye, remove every second frame, add grain and you have a very nice 144 degree shutter 24fps 2D movie

Hopefully by 2012 / 2013 there will be nice projection for the "you are there" version.

Out of curiosity, can the R1 not do 48fps/360degree-shutter?

At 3K you can, right?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I agree 100% with David on this one. I am not sure what it is, but too me 24 fps "feels" natural and appropriate.

It "feels" natural and appropriate because the "feel" developed around 24 fps.

If it developed around 60 fps with little or no good content experiences with 24 fps it would be the other way around.

I have found the higher the fps after that point the more I dislike the results. Once things get above 60 fps, i start to physically get sick to my stomach. 60 leaves me feeling like I am watching a bad soap opera, and 24 feels, well just right.

Because you subconsciously associate content quality with frame rate, all the way from first childhood experiences with cinema and TV.





The real fun will start @ 100 fps.

It won't look as soap opera.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I'd really like to see some footage shot at 48fps, but with a 360degree shutter. That would allow for less judder than 24fps, but still have the same motion blur characteristics per frame (as the exposure timre per frame is the same).

The data storage requirements for a project like this -- especially at 4K -- will kill any post house I know of.

I would strongly suggest you check with the editing, visual effects, 3D, and color correction companies you plan to use to make sure your workflow can be accomplished at this rate.

Bear in mind that many (if not most) Hollywood feature films are still being finished in 2K. 3D doubles the data storage requirements. 4K quadruples the storage. Doubling the frame rate will double it again. The cost and time required to handle this is horrific, certainly beyond any production I've ever worked on.

I think this falls into one of those "interesting ideas that's completely impractical" categories. Don't forget Doug Trumball's years of experiments with Showscan back in the 1970s, several of which were documented in the SMPTE Journal and in American Cinematgrapher. Increased frame rates have been tried before. I'll be very surprised if even Jim Cameron could pull this off for Avatar 2.

 

[Matthias Hutter]

IMHO:

I prefer higher fps especially with 3D and/or action clips. I feel that the added visually information makes it more immersive.
Besides I was never a fan of the staccato look of 24p/180. I dont't know why, maybe I'm too young.

Regards, Matt