HFR: Let's Figure This Out

[BrendanLeahy]

Hey everyone,

I've been fascinated for some time by HFR, admittedly because I hated watching The Hobbit at 48p. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I watched Collateral last night and was bothered by the 24p/360-degree shutter.

This had me thinking that there must be some sort of happy medium between the two where HFR is still applicable, so did some very rudimentary tests this evening in existing light.

What I ended up doing was filming the following:

24p + 1/48 (180° shutter)
48p + 1/48 (360° shutter)
48p + 1/96 (180° shutter)

Files can be downloaded here.

From these basic shots, I've concluded that the 1/48 shutter looks best for both 24p and 48p because our eyes are adjusted to that shutter speed (this is why I left out 60p since you can't do the 1/48th shutter there). I understand this defies all logic when thinking of everything in the shutter angle (180°, 360°), but I approached this test thinking in terms of photography and motion blur within a single still frame.

For me, the 1/96 shutter brings in too much clarity to motion, and it stands out for music videos, action scenes, etc. when used on 24p shoots - that seems to be true on 48p as well (see: Leaves test).

I will admit that 48p still looks a bit odd, and some other motion still looks wonky, so I'm not convinced yet. However, I want to start figuring this out and see what can bring the best sense of realism without being too visually disruptive.

I'll continue posting more tests, but encourage everyone to take a look, give feedback, and try it out for themselves as well!

 

[Phil Holland]

This is a complicated subject with lots of opinions and "answers". However, one thing worth experimenting with is the Soft Shutter on the Motion Mount as this enhances detail, changes the character of the motion blur, and deals with the temporal aliasing.

 

[Marc Wielage]

There is also software that can introduce motion blur in fast shutter-speed video. I believe this is ultimately what they wound up doing with the 48fps release of Hobbit 2 last year, because of the number of complaints on the HFR version of the first movie.

I agree with Brendan that the slow-speed shutter on some digitally-shot films looks way too electronic and "smeary" to me.

 

[Adam Montville]

You sure the 48fps shots weren't shot on your mum's Sony Handycam?

lol jk. That's the vibe I get from HFR though. It feels no where near "cinematic" or "filmic". With the TV market going "120 Hz"+, it makes me want to punch the TVs while in the store. (I know you can disable it, but they are showcasing it, making the "casuals" think it's good).

I really hope 48fps+ does not catch on. And your tests stapled that for me even further. To me, HFR takes me OUT of the story, and doesn't bring me in, like 24p does.

(All my opinion)

 

[Marc Wielage]

lol jk. That's the vibe I get from HFR though. It feels no where near "cinematic" or "filmic". With the TV market going "120 Hz"+, it makes me want to punch the TVs while in the store.

I have the same reaction, particularly when it removes the "filmic" look and winds up making everything looking very artificial and digitized. Takes me right out of the movie. I think it might be appropriate for certain kinds of projects actually shot in 48fps or 60fps, just as a creative choice; I could also see it being used for an Imax experience, like a travelogue or a documentary, or a big theme park ride.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I don't know if it's just me but I've found that sequences which 48p are supposedly meant for like action sequences and fast movement don't actually work very well for 48p and that 48p is better for something like a big slow pan.
In Desolation of Smaug for instance when I saw the barrel sequence in the cinema at 48 I came away feeling that it wasn't shot very well but when I watched it on Blu-ray at 24fps it was actually a pretty cool sequence (apart form the odd insert shot which looked as though it had come from a go-pro) where as a sequence such as the opening of the day after tomorrow I think would work better at 48 because when I saw it on the big screen it had quite a lot of judder in the movement though watching it on a small screen it looks fine so I'm not sure what to make of that.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

It feels no where near "cinematic" or "filmic". With the TV market going "120 Hz"+, it makes me want to punch the TVs while in the store. (I know you can disable it, but they are showcasing it, making the "casuals" think it's good).

I really hope 48fps+ does not catch on. And your tests stapled that for me even further. To me, HFR takes me OUT of the story, and doesn't bring me in, like 24p does.

(All my opinion)

Hah! Understood. Yes, I'm just trying to sort out where HFR might be appropriate, and as Marc said, it might work for a travelogue or documentary. I'll play around with it at a music festival next time I get to film (perhaps this upcoming weekend).

HFR is, unfortunately, invading video games. I'm admittedly a die-hard Halo fan, and they're now releasing the games at 60fps. Take a look at the videos of gameplay here. It makes me feel like I'm on crack.

Again, I feel like the 60fps and 48fps are both way too smooth, even when I've applied the 1/48th shutter to the former. 24fps is nice and cinematic, but my hope is that we can come together and find the right HFR combination to make it look like real life, not the cracked-out version!

 

[BrendanLeahy]

I don't know if it's just me but I've found that sequences which are supposed 48p are supposedly meant for like action sequences and fast movement don't actually work very well for 48p and that 48p is better for something like a big slow pan.

Yes! I've noticed that too - there's too much clarity in the movements, so every little bump gets noticed when you'd expect objects to blur a bit.

 

[Adam Johnson]

You have to see Douglas Trumbull's 'UFOTOG' to see what the model for HFR SHOULD be. And a big part of it outside of the technology which Doug has down like none other at 120fps 360 shutter and blurring motion as needed, etc. The story telling model has to be altereted to sell the effect. The story needs to become more first person like Doug's amazing Universal Studios 'Back to the Future Ride' that Spielberg commisoned Doug to figure out. Movies like 'The Hobbit' will work best as Variable Frame Rate movies using Doug's special forumula. But I truly believe HFR is best suited for immersive movies only like Avatar or movies that lend themselves to being more first person like a 2001: A Space Odyssey which Stanley would have apparently loved to of used this type of technology on in 70mm format...this is one of the reasons Doug developed Showscan was Kubrick's love for immersing audiences and Doug wanting to push the fold. I really really really hope Jim Cameron gets back in touch with Doug about using the Magi HFR process to do the next Avatar's it is sooo good.

 

[Maik Müller]

You have to see Douglas Trumbull's 'UFOTOG' to see what the model for HFR SHOULD be. And a big part of it outside of the technology which Doug has down like none other at 120fps 360 shutter and blurring motion as needed, etc. The story telling model has to be altereted to sell the effect. The story needs to become more first person like Doug's amazing Universal Studios 'Back to the Future Ride' that Spielberg commisoned Doug to figure out. Movies like 'The Hobbit' will work best as Variable Frame Rate movies using Doug's special forumula. But I truly believe HFR is best suited for immersive movies only like Avatar or movies that lend themselves to being more first person like a 2001: A Space Odyssey which Stanley would have apparently loved to of used this type of technology on in 70mm format...this is one of the reasons Doug developed Showscan was Kubrick's love for immersing audiences and Doug wanting to push the fold. I really really really hope Jim Cameron gets back in touch with Doug about using the Magi HFR process to do the next Avatar's it is sooo good.

Yep, UFOTG is exactly where HFR has to go. I hope i'll get the chance to see that stuff.

There are so many options to work with higher framerates and different shutter speeds and thanks to the motionmount even types of shutter, that stuff should be altered from scene to scene. Shooting style has also to be adjusted and rules must get broken. Then HFR has a chance.

Hopefully Avatar will have more success than Hobbit when it comes to sell HFR to mainstream.

P.S.: 2001 in HFR, cool idea.

 

[Maik Müller]

Just a wild idea, what do you think about using gyro-information to adjust shutterspeed depending on pan-speed?

 

[Todd T]

Just a wild idea, what do you think about using gyro-information to adjust shutter speed depending on pan-speed?

That might be achievable with the motion mount: it could simultaneously adjust shutter speed and keep the exposure leveled through the take.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Built schema

Built schema

Have been using 48fps/360° shutter so that I have both 48fps HFR with enough blur to look reasonably "natural" (fits pre-existing conditioned expectations) and can simply extract every other frame to have a 24fps/180° equivalent that cuts seamlessly with 24fps/180° material.

I'm not touting this approach as the pinnacle of what HFR can do in appropriate applications, but until HFR viewing opportunities become more widespread it's a pretty good compromise.

I have often speculated that if viewers had spent the last couple of decades watching 48fps and then were shown 24fps it would look "funny" to them too. How much of our reactions are a product of conditioning and how much are they about how the human brain/visual system functions natively? Where could one find a "control group" to test...

Cheers - #19

 

[BrendanLeahy]

Have been using 48fps/360° shutter so that I have both 48fps HFR with enough blur to look reasonably "natural" (fits pre-existing conditioned expectations) and can simply extract every other frame to have a 24fps/180° equivalent that cuts seamlessly with 24fps/180° material.

I'm not touting this approach as the pinnacle of what HFR can do in appropriate applications, but until HFR viewing opportunities become more widespread it's a pretty good compromise.

I have often speculated that if viewers had spent the last couple of decades watching 48fps and then were shown 24fps it would look "funny" to them too. How much of our reactions are a product of conditioning and how much are they about how the human brain/visual system functions natively? Where could one find a "control group" to test...

Cheers - #19

Very cool! I'm glad to hear others out there have been playing with 48/360° shutter!

 

[BrendanLeahy]

I've opened up a support ticket with RED to see if they wouldn't mind giving us a few more options for HFR to play around with. I originally requested just 36p, as it's nice middle ground between 24 and 48. We have x2 and x2.5 for HFR, so why not x1.5 to see if that retains enough motion blur and frames for realistic imagery?

Would anyone else like to support asking for others? My line of thought would be to try:

36p
72p
96p
120p
​

 

[Maik Müller]

I've opened up a support ticket with RED to see if they wouldn't mind giving us a few more options for HFR to play around with. I originally requested just 36FPS, as it's nice middle ground between 24 and 48. We have x2 and x2.5 for HFR, so why not x1.5 to see if that retains enough motion blur and frames for realistic imagery?

Would anyone else like to support asking for others? My line of thought would be to try:

36 fps
72 fps
96 fps
120 fps
​

Shooting that isn't a problem, you can already do that. There is an advanced menu (shortcut: up on the d-pad), where you can enter any fps-rate you want, and you can put that even in custom lists for quick-selection. Only problem, the project time base can't be set freely. It would be nice if RED adds more options here.

BTW, 36fps is Scarlet's maximum fps at 4kWS.

 

[Maik Müller]

That might be achievable with the motion mount: it could simultaneously adjust shutter speed and keep the exposure leveled through the take.

Exactly, the MM would help a lot here and there is already some auto-exposure-logic integrated into current firmwares.... Should be simple to integrate.
And taking that idea a bit further, why not automatically adjust the framerate too?

Ok, this is just about camera movement, which is only one piece, but i'm curious how that would look.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

Shooting that isn't a problem, you can already do that. There is an advanced menu (shortcut: up on the d-pad), where you can enter any fps-rate you want, and you can put that even in custom lists for quick-selection. Only problem, the project time base can't be set freely. It would be nice if RED adds more options here.

BTW, 36fps is Scarlet's maximum fps at 4kWS.

Hm... I'm not seeing that for the base project setting. I must have meant "project time base"

 

[Maik Müller]

Hm... I'm not seeing that for the base project setting. I must have meant "project time base"

Yeah, probably, but time base isn't necessary for shooting 36fps. It's just meta-data. Adjust it in post.

Only drawbacks are, you don't have 36fps playback in camera (and RCX) and you can't record audio because the camera will be in VARISPEED.

 

[PC Greene]

For some time I've been thinking the real answer here is a high "master frame rate" (96fps?) with the ability to ramp or drop per each scene depending on the effect, emotion and wishes of the DP / Director. Having decades in music and audio production, I liken this approach to using "low fi" elements in a dynamic "high fi" mix (as I've done for years). In a perfect world, I'd prefer not to be stuck delivering just one frame rate as each deliver such a different feel. I'm not sure how this could ultimately be technically achieved, but if / when it becomes possible to always speed at HFR (possibly with MM and / or advanced HDR) and then interpolate in post without degradation, that would be a very cool and perhaps even future proof solution...