Film vs. RED. A real comparison.

[Jeffery Anderson]

Have you seen anything shot in 48fps?

A lot of the reviews believe it to look very video like, loses that cinema feel.

Do you prefer the 24fps or 48fps look?

 

[Cesar Castillo]

Ahh shucks I would of hit 999 before him had the gig not updated the firmware constantly and they didn't make me name the mags! 113 days on 1 scarlet with 1 mag! we captured hd sdi out but would roll on the mag as a backup on all the shots in case the external recorder crashed... it was a great system because the external recorder crashed constantly, unlike the mag

Which external recorder you used? that crashed constantly? maybe wrong process... use recorders that supports 4K....not HD it will crash...

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

Have you seen anything shot in 48fps?

A lot of the reviews believe it to look very video like, loses that cinema feel.

Do you prefer the 24fps or 48fps look?

What is cinema feel? 24fps and filmic motion blur (mechanical shutter)? If so, The Hobbit in 48/3D looks nothing like it, call it immersive movie experence if you will. Some people get motion sickness from 48 fps like in a Disneyland ride. No kiddin, it's just as "real" as the ride. I'm sure 24/2D version looks as expected, though.

 

[Nathaniel Haban]

The numbers for The Hobbit are mind-boggling, literally, it is like reading about the distance between the planets, stars, galaxies.

27 million ft. of film = shooting 162ft film for every single square-mile of New Zealand, or enough film to stretch to from one end of New Zealand to the other and back again 2.5 times.

 

[Tim Lawrence]

you can't deny the savings, and the creative freedom there. Not at all, it's an amazing feat. That being said, take that number, and divide it by 2 to get 24 fps, then divide it by 2 again for 2D. That will give you a more direct comparison as far as amount of footage vs Lord of the Rings.

if you don't want to do the math that's

7 million feet of film for The Lord of the Rings

vs

6.5 million feet of film for The Hobbit.

Essentially what this means is that they were about the same as far as how much they shot, they just got to do it in 48 fps and 3D. Which is awesome! but lets compare apples to apples here.

On another note, is there a list of theaters that are screening this in 4K 3D 48p? Are they screening it like that at all? if there is anywhere in the continental USA that is, I want to be in that line.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Add glasses and silver screen
= reduce contrastrange and resolution

Dunno if 4k for 3d really will give the same advantage as it does for a properly displayed 2d.

Just asking here, though, not stating.

 

[Marc Wielage]

On another note, is there a list of theaters that are screening this in 4K 3D 48p? Are they screening it like that at all? if there is anywhere in the continental USA that is, I want to be in that line.

I don't think the current DCP standard allows for 48fps 4K 3D. I think at that speed, you have to drop down to 24fps. I believe there will be flat film showings, 4K 2D showings, 2K 3D showings, and 2K 48fps 3D showings. Add Dolby Atmos and Imax to that, and there's a lot of different versions of this film -- including RealD, ExpanD, and Dolby 3D versions.

 

[Tim Lawrence]

thanks Marc, I need to see it at least once in 48fps and at least once in 4K, neither if which I'm sure are showing in Portland (closest to me)

 

[shashbugu]

The reviews are not so good
http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/12/the-hobbits-hfr-reviews-are-in-and-theyre-not-so-good/

Who cares about reviews anyway?

 

[Cesar Castillo]

I know this was not the point of the post, but how can we get our hands on that tool that counts cycles on a REDMAG?
Is that publicly available?

David

+1.... It is better if we know how to counts that otherwise... we will end up on crawling around on site seaching for some backups where to save if you reach that limits without knowing exact at what stage or state is your RED SSD will be.

 

[Joel J. Feigenbaum]

Mr. Jannard:

It just keeps getting better. Many thanks. And Happy Holidays!

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The reviews are not so good
http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/12/the-hobbits-hfr-reviews-are-in-and-theyre-not-so-good/

Who cares about reviews anyway?

Something tells me that the movie-going masses are going to disagree with most of these negative reviews. The primary market for this movie is a demographic that plays tons of video games and is used to squeeky-clean motion with little blur, no stuttering, etc..

Personally, I believe that frame rate and exposure time (shutter angle) are aesthetic choices that can aid in how your story is presented. HFR 3D seems to be a double-edged sword as it pulls people away from their 24fps theatrical comfort zone, but also solves many of the temporal shortcomings of 3D cinema in the past. From what I understand, Jackson shot at 48fps with a 360 shutter. So when the film is presented at 24fps projection, they only need to present the odd frames (or even if they choose) and we have a properly timed 24fps feature with 180 degree (1/48s) exposure.

What induces the video-ish look or "soap opera" effect is the open shutter more so than the frame rate. I think ultimately the desired HFR 3D technique, for projection onto a flat screen anyway, will end up being 120 to 240 fps or even more, but with finite exposure times to minimize in-frame motion blur. When frame rates are high enough, our brains will create the proper motion blur and we lose track of the ultra-smoothness of the image. It becomes "real". It's hard to convince people of that, especially these days where frame rates on things with no added blur are still 60fps or lower, but this is what most of my research into high frame rates in the past has shown, much of it done in the mid to late '90s in my game developer days. When CRTs were still the norm and we could get things scanning at 85 to 120Hz and in some cases more, working with 3D game engines and VR environments. When breaking that 120Hz barrier, our minds started creating proper blur for fast-moving objects. The way we see things blur to our eyes in the real world. This is not be confused with the 120Hz+ "motion flow" crap we see on newer HDTV displays. That is an interpolation and reduction of the blur that just destroys the image in a bad way. IMO, it's technology that has a place for certain things where frame rates are too low to do it right -- like sports and some other live event coverage. It has no practical or desirable application to film presentation and turning that feature off on your new TV, with extreme prejudice, should be the first thing any new TV owner should do!

I shot video elements at 120Hz on the RED One a couple years ago for incorporation into a motion ride thing. They were using Samsung LCD panels scanning at 120Hz and with customized interfaces to allow that rate of input. Essentially the signal was sent over as frame-packed 3D via HDMI, but the sequential frames were just that, sequential frames and there were no polarizers or glasses in place to separate, just 120 frames per second at 720p. While still an overall crappy experience while in the ride, as most of those always are, it was probably the most convincing one I have ever experienced. The high frame rate, with relatively low blur from what I recall was a 1/290s exposure time on the live elements and un-blurred realtime CG elements, had a very convincing feel to it. IMO, another doubling of the frame rate to 240Hz could have really worked some magic, but the project was already at its technical limits.

 

[Bill Anderson]

Jeff, the way I see it: 24fps motion characteristics PORTRAYED the effect one might encounter in life. i.e blurring motion. It was/is a convincing surrogate, and is quite effective and necessary, because we are not experiencing life and its dimensions first hand, we are sitting far back from a 2d screen. And no amount of action or movement on screen will compete with a similar action in life. That is where the high frame rate might just fail for many of us, we will not experience the blur, the motion. We will see it all as one continuous smooth motion, ironically, lacking the sense of the reality it lays claim to.

 

[Mike P.]

I saw the trailer at the beginning of Life of Pi and it was coverted to 24fps... Looked exactly the same as if it were shot at 24fps (the 3D still looked really good). So if your eyes have trouble keeping up with 48p, you can always go watch it in an older theatre and it'll be 24fps without you being the wiser...

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

How is color gamut on the Dragon?

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

I don't think that is what He meant, at list I hope not, it is always sad to see people loose their businesses and jobs, but the fact of the matter is that there is such a thing called PROGRESS, and one must adapt or be left to the dust, it is not only valid for Film vs. Digital, but for many form of Manufacturing as well, and the type of Fuels they consume, such is life, we must always be ahed of the curve, and allow our selves to learn and re-learn when needed as needed, or we will not succeed in staying in business.


Film had its run, now its time for an other technology to take over, so all of those that worked in Film need to learn or re-leanr or adapt to the new ways of the Digital world, or change the line of work entirely, as Film is literally at its last droplets of Rolls.

Well put. The march of progress has been sidestepped in certain industries for far too long. How many people have been denied jobs due to the exclusivity and cost of entry to the traditional way of doing things? The way I see it, innovation creates more jobs and industry than it excises. Opportunity is a big deal, and RED has factored that along with its business model and resulting tools.

 

[Steven Caesare]

... From what I understand, Jackson shot at 48fps with a 360 shutter. So when the film is presented at 24fps projection, they only need to present the odd frames (or even if they choose) and we have a properly timed 24fps feature with 180 degree (1/48s) exposure.

From what I've read it was actually a 270-degree shutter @48fps. So that's a 135-degree shutter for the 24fps extraction... so it should look a little "crisper' thank a typical 180/24fps movie. I've wanted to see what 360/48fps footage extractions for 24fps look like though... my thoughts are similar to yours.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Something tells me that the movie-going masses are going to disagree with most of these negative reviews. The primary market for this movie is a demographic that plays tons of video games and is used to squeeky-clean motion with little blur, no stuttering, etc.

I think the movie is going to succeed or fail on the strength of the story and performances, not the look of the film. But I think a large number of negative reviews of the film could knock the box office down a few percent. For example, if the film were to make $800M (not impossible), but 5% of the audience stayed away because they didn't like 3D and/or 48fps, then that'd be a potential loss of $40,000,000. At the same time, I don't think the audience cares if a movie is shot on film or shot digitally, as long as the cinematography is good, the story entertains them, and they can identify with the characters.

It'll be tough to make a box office comparison between Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, since ticket prices have gone up quite a bit in 9 years. But I would be extremely surprised if Hobbit 1 was a failure. Still, there are old school critics who decry the current trend for movies to resemble video games, like this one:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts...l-filmmaking-over-3-d-any-day/article6089739/

 

[Michael AvMen]

Im just Glad Im entering a Business in the Transition phase. IT would suck if Im in School Learing to Shoot Film, and Bam, Digital is what the Job market has. At least Universities have a Greater Chance of expanding their Creative learning classes. I came from a Telecom Engineering Background using POT lines and DTMF( plain ol'Telephone Analog lines) then VOIP was the Thing to Learn, the Analog is still there but No Longer relevant. I see Film going the Same way.

 

[Dan Frenkel]

Im going to tell you something, I started in this industry back in 1989, back when nobody knew what the word digital film even meant. I can also tell you that if you were on the set of even a lower budget film that was obviously shooting 35mm film you didn't even talk about the camera or put ONE finger on that camera unless you were a DP or AC and you had to know people in the right places to work on camera or its dept.

Cinematographers from the ASC on down took that very seriously, as most of us still do. What I noticed as far as what has changed mostly about this industry thus far is that back then ALMOST everybody went to PANAVISION or ARRI or OTTO N. to rent everything they needed. Now with RED in our world more DP's are operator/owners of Professional cinema quality cameras. There are pros & cons about that but thats another topic.

I remember getting chewed out by a very well known DP and legendary director for being within 10' feet of the PANAVISION 35MM we had on set. I can say to you now I am HIS DP when he works as a director and he is like a father to me!! I really love this industry and the people in it! I am proud to be a RED camera owner and still working amongst you all. BY THE WAY MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY HANNUKAH!!! GOD BLESS