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 :)

HFR documentary: to WS or not?

Roberto Battiston

Roberto Battiston

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Andes
Hi RedUsers. I would like to have your opinions on the following format/setup.

Genre: Documentary.
Objective: multi-platform (feature film / TV / internet), at 60 fps native.
Main concerns: compression ratio.

As a note, I´ve been testing ratios and generally would agree 8:1 is a kind of border I prefer not to cross. Anyway, if it´s impossible, we´ll do that. I´ve been also recommended to upgrade to Mini-mag. We just can´t afford that before this project begins.

5K FF or 2:1 59.94FPS minimum rate 8:1 / HDRx is not possible at this frame rate with Epic.
5K WS 59.94FPS minimum rate 6:1 / HDRx, A frame at 1/120-180º, minimum rate is 12:1.

I like the look of WS (I prefer to record at 5K FF or 2:1, of course), I think it´s half 35mm compatible (“CinemaScope”) so less expensive to burn to film, isn´t it?. I could let go the benefits of capturing 2:1 because of compression, but: is that aspect ratio still on “the road” out there.

I would change to 4k / 3K / 2K for slomo...

Any recommendation, colleagues?.
Thanks in advance.
Gino.
 
Hi Terry.

Because it looks beautiful. In fact, more than 24fps. That´s because that frame count is nearer to our perception “combo”. (eyes, brain, etc..)

There are many studies about this, HFR is on top of the list for a “reality” effect. Of course one have to analyze what kind of thing will be in front of the camera, before stating that it will be better for your film & the audience. Among HDRx, pixel count, I put HFR on top of the list.

That´s our destiny, to learn & mimic nature, that´s the best tech you will find around!. There´s no way back from that. I´m sure it´s the unfailing future of audio-visual. Also, we all love it here!.

Anyway, any idea about the WS format on business today?. Thanks.
Gino.
 
Will you be able to deliver in 60 fps or are you saying to capture at that rate is enough?
 
I´m saying it´s more than enough, but it looks more "real" than 24fps. For documentary purposes, that means "better". We will record 60 FPS native, delivery depends on how fast mediums grow. (vimeo / youtube / digital cinema, etc...) TV has a well known background on HFR. (interlaced)

I would like to have someone´s opinion on the WS format, please?.
 
Last edited:
I suppose then as looking 'real' is your desire the question is does ws look as real or more real than the alternatives.

in my opinion that depends on the viewers perspective (like HFR). for me, nothing on a screen looks remotely real. HFR looks like daytime tv or BBC docs from the 80's and 90's.

If I was watching a doc shot HFR i doubt WS would make me feel like what I was looking at was less real. As far as everyone else who would be watching I have no idea.
 
Hi Stace!. Of course, it is a personal preference. I loved 24p also till I knew 60p. That´s why I put better in quotations!. Still... future will happen we like it or not.
 
Ivan McCullough said:
I suppose then as looking 'real' is your desire the question is does ws look as real or more real than the alternatives.

in my opinion that depends on the viewers perspective (like HFR). for me, nothing on a screen looks remotely real. HFR looks like daytime tv or BBC docs from the 80's and 90's.
Click to expand...

That´s because of interlaced 50-60 fps. and the nature of broadcast processings. Take a look to a 60p 180º, even 360º... it´s beautiful. We´re filming mostly nature and real people and it looks just as real, IMHO.
 
I would say, just be aware that if your intended distribution ever ends up being in theaters that you understand that very few theaters can display a 60fps DCP, even though it is within the current DCP spec. Most older DCP servers only support 24fps, sometimes 30fps (which you might be able to get away with). Youtube etc shouldn't have a problem.
Personally for documentary or narrative film making, I'm not a fan of 60P or even 48P for that matter. I feel it cheapens the look. Yes this is subjective, but it seemed to be brought up quite frequently with non film people when Lord of the Rings showed at HFR. Maybe it looks great for your subject matter, just be aware that there is limited distribution for 60P material. 48P might give you more options down the line.
 
Same, a few docs I've watch over the past few years are 24p and I like the choice and would do the same.

Stacey Spears said:
That is a personal preference. I like the cinematic look of Errol Morris docs, which are 24p, which is why I am shooting my doc at 24p.
Click to expand...
 
Stefan Scherperel said:
I would say, just be aware that if your intended distribution ever ends up being in theaters that you understand that very few theaters can display a 60fps DCP, even though it is within the current DCP spec. Most older DCP servers only support 24fps, sometimes 30fps (which you might be able to get away with). Youtube etc shouldn't have a problem.
Personally for documentary or narrative film making, I'm not a fan of 60P or even 48P for that matter. I feel it cheapens the look. Yes this is subjective, but it seemed to be brought up quite frequently with non film people when Lord of the Rings showed at HFR. Maybe it looks great for your subject matter, just be aware that there is limited distribution for 60P material. 48P might give you more options down the line.
Click to expand...


Thanks Stefan for your reply.The Hobbit case, yes... I guess it´s more difficult to "hide" a set behind 48p or 60p. We´re are at a paradise here at S.A., so, we have no “lies” to hide. In fact, 60p shows this better, to our taste and for the people doing our focus group here.

Main concern is the WS format, the compression rate is better than FF or 2:1, but I´m not aware if theaters, labs, are considering the format right now. I guess they do, it´s the anamorphic standard, isn´t it?.

Anyway, thanks for the comments to all. I´ll keep doing tests for a week or so until the decision is made. Thanks!.
 
Wikipedia on HFR: "24 fps was chosen because it was the best frame rate for sound clarity – lower frame rates produced sound tracks with too much surface noise."
 
Roberto Battiston said:
Main concern is the WS format, the compression rate is better than FF or 2:1, but I´m not aware if theaters, labs, are considering the format right now. I guess they do, it´s the anamorphic standard, isn´t it?.
Click to expand...

I would say the aspect ratio is much like the frame rate, personal preference. You might like the 2.39:1 composition over 1.78:1 for one story and not another.
 
Yes. That´s what I´m concluding from the tests also, thanks guys!
 
I prefer WS for Fiction, and 1.78 for Non-Fiction and Commercial.
A lot of non-film viewers don't like the wide look, and the black top and bottom bars.
Also, most people like 24 frames because of the motion blur, it's what we know as a filmic look, 30, 48, and 60 is too fast and makes me feel i'm watching a Mexican soap opera.
But HFR will work for your documentary, hopefully.
Good luck!
 
Thanks for the thoughts Nawaf. Yes to all. I had the same ideas about 24p until we had this Epic at hand, all the time, to do any kind of test. I do personally like 60fps 1/60 (360º) if low light is the situation & 180º for a "normal" look. I´ll do a 1:1 comparison to decide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top