So is 24 frames per second "good enough"

[Ken Waller]

I've seen the 3D LUXOR Showscan film that was projected sideways? Yes the screen was taller than it was wide! I I'm not sure if that was at 60 frames (I'd read that Douglas Trumbull did test and thought 60 frames was the perfect rate for his showscan system) or 48 but it looked good. They had 3 films there- one part of a motion ride, the second a "TV show" where the actors and host were projected in front of you and the 3D film. I enjoyed all three and had been waiting to see a "showscan" film for many years before going to Las Vegas. Then a few years later I went to the Showscan theater at Universal Walk and was disapointed by the small size and poor film story. Maybe the VEGAS show was at 60 frames and the LA show 48? Those were the only times I've seen high frame rates projected in a theater and one was great and the other time not so much. Most of the public are happy with youtube videos so what can you do?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

I believe that we will end up shooting a version of my S3D project 48 or 60fps, as I do believe that the images acquired this way and projected this way, which all new Digital cinema equipped have the native capability to project at 48 60fps, and it will be interesting to see viewers point of view on this once is out, personally I like it, and for S3D is much better then 24fps, IMO off course.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I believe that we will end up shooting a version of my S3D project 48 or 60fps, as I do believe that the images acquired this way and projected this way, which all new Digital cinema equipped have the native capability to project at 48 60fps, and it will be interesting to see viewers point of view on this once is out, personally I like it, and for S3D is much better then 24fps, IMO off course.

When you shoot at 48 or 60, what kind of shutter time do you use for S3D? In my opinion, for S3D I'd think you'd want faster frame rates and faster shutter speeds to reduce motion blur as much as possible.

That is one thing I DO NOT like about some 3D films, motion hasn't translated that great to my eyes.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Ketch, I don't know you, but I would guess that you are going to be lauded by women everywhere if you can pull off "Rape of a Beauty" the way you want to. I wish you the best of luck in manifesting this vision, which is clearly driving you with great passion to take on such a gut-wrenching subject head on.

That is what I was talking about when I said that I saw 48/60 as a framerate that needs a concept motivation, and the corresponding execution.

That is one thing I DO NOT like about some 3D films, motion hasn't translated that great to my eyes.

There is so much that will be figured out by the cinematographer community over the next few years... or, if it isn't, 3D will die yet again to be reborn at a later time.

I am slowly digesting and absorbing 3D cinematography, but already I can see that a little less motion blur would be fitting for the 3D experience. 30fps might be more than enough for my taste thus far, since I don't mind 24. I would love to see 48/60 3D projected though.

Either way, good thing for the M-X generation of sensors, there is plenty of room left after factoring in shorter shutters to still be able to take advantage of small sources.

 

[Jason Murphy]

if you want a good idea of what 360 shutter looks like on a cinematic movie watch the 2nd half of 2012

Here's the thing, though. That's not what 360 shutter would look like at 48 FPS. That's only what 360 shutter looks like at 24 FPS, ie. 1/24th of a second. 360 at 48 frames per second would have the same exposure time, and therefore blur characteristics as 180 at 24 FPS. I don't know how double the time samples would make the motion of the shot look overall, though. But it wouldn't look like 360 degrees at 24 FPS.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

I have a friend who likes watching films, but he rarely goes to the cinema because the images are flickering for him. He prefers watching them on a television screen. I know his opinion is not unique. In fact, it seems common.

I think the 24 fps "film look" seems to be more favourable to film makers than the viewers. I may be wrong here, but talking to a large number of people that are just viewers, I seem to be reinforced in my belief.

I personally like high frame rate look because higher temporal resolution makes spatial resolution and perception more crisp and clean.

At the end of the day it is an artistic choice, but it would be interesting to survey what is it that the viewer wants to see rather than what she or he is forced to watch.

 

[Brandon Kraemer]

Here's the thing, though. That's not what 360 shutter would look like at 48 FPS. That's only what 360 shutter looks like at 24 FPS, ie. 1/24th of a second. 360 at 48 frames per second would have the same exposure time, and therefore blur characteristics as 180 at 24 FPS. I don't know how double the time samples would make the motion of the shot look overall, though. But it wouldn't look like 360 degrees at 24 FPS.

A 360 degree shutter at 48 fps is a 1/48th of a second exposure, so half the time and blur as 1/24@24, but you have twice as much temporal information per second.

Assuming you are playing back at native frame rates and not throwing away frames playing 48@24, the 1/48@48 will look very tight and smooth while the 1/24@24 will be half as smooth with an extra look of motion blur than "film-standard" 1/48@24 fps cinematography.

With cameras that don't have actual mechanical shutters, I tend to disregard the notion of shutter angle and stick to speed vs. rate as a guide.

 

[paulherrin]

visual precedence.

DOF, 24P, "Film Look", "HD"

it will all be broken in time.

 

[Rick Burnett]

DOF? People shoot both shallow and deep now, is there some other DOF we've not used yet?

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

I personally like high frame rate look because higher temporal resolution makes spatial resolution and perception more crisp and clean.

Most definitely agree. It is obvious that our brain averages out stills into motion, so who is to say that our brain can't average out noise? Add to that higher count/probability of frames with "acceptable" blur.

 

[Michael Hastings]

I have a friend who likes watching films, but he rarely goes to the cinema because the images are flickering for him. He prefers watching them on a television screen. I know his opinion is not unique. In fact, it seems common.

I think the 24 fps "film look" seems to be more favourable to film makers than the viewers. I may be wrong here, but talking to a large number of people that are just viewers, I seem to be reinforced in my belief.

I personally like high frame rate look because higher temporal resolution makes spatial resolution and perception more crisp and clean.

At the end of the day it is an artistic choice, but it would be interesting to survey what is it that the viewer wants to see rather than what she or he is forced to watch.

I'd like to see some of that testing/surveying as well.

Walking around NAB I usually notice flicker when I look at PAL (25fps). Is that because of the slower frame rate or an interference with 60Hz lighting? But it does also seem like I am sometimes aware of flicker in cinemas as well.

And I agree, I think it is more a bias of filmmakers than a reality to the public. I just find it hard to believe that somehow the move to 24fps for sound inclusion just coincidentally hit on the "magical, cosmic" mental harmonic frequency of FPS that is most "cinematic" - it seems to me it is "cinema" because that is what cinema has been and when cinema is 30 or 48 or 60 fps then that will be cinematic. Although there will probably never again be as clear a delineation between source formats as there was for fifty years between film and video. Motion pictures will evolve to whatever they will evolve to and pretty much everything we have seen for the last 100 years - be it 4:3 aspect, 24 or 30 fps, or video, or even film will have a look that may seem a little dated.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

This is a long dead horse that every new generation of film makers gathers to beat; it's the result of the admirable quest for improvement and the intuitive thinking that higher numbers of anything must always be better. Yes, 4K is indeed better than 2K, but four times as much medication may actually kill you.

There are many reasons why we've stuck with 24fps/180° shutter, many, admittedly, because change can cost money and we're generally reluctant to fix what is not broken.

I'm not saying that higher frame rates may not be better for certain applications, but for dramas, 24fps has a lot going for it. The 1/48 second motion blur is undoubtedly pleasing, and some studies have suggested that the brain activity increases filling in the blanking period. This activity increases the viewer's involvement and is more pleasurable.

Years ago I too thought that a higher rate would be better, so I shot a 35MM food spot at 30fps instead of 24fps. To my eye, it looked far too "video;" the film magic was degraded considerably.

Yes, I'm a very old dog, but I do try to learn new tricks when they are helpful, but I'll pass on the higher frame rates.

Good shooting at whatever rate you please and best regards,

Leo

 

[Ketch Rossi]

When you shoot at 48 or 60, what kind of shutter time do you use for S3D? In my opinion, for S3D I'd think you'd want faster frame rates and faster shutter speeds to reduce motion blur as much as possible.

That is one thing I DO NOT like about some 3D films, motion hasn't translated that great to my eyes.

Most likely we will end up with 1/48 @ 48 or 60fps 2:1 but Shutter speeds and Frame rates still to under go some additional testing before making a decision, good thing is I have Tony's assistance, one of Avatar's Stereographers ;~).

Ketch, I don't know you, but I would guess that you are going to be lauded by women everywhere if you can pull off "Rape of a Beauty" the way you want to. I wish you the best of luck in manifesting this vision, which is clearly driving you with great passion to take on such a gut-wrenching subject head on.

That is what I was talking about when I said that I saw 48/60 as a framerate that needs a concept motivation, and the corresponding execution.

Well Roberto,

my goal is to show my Passion and understanding of the Pain, together with the Powerful and deep sensation this brings, and look to do anything I can with my knowledge and that of those involved in order to to bring a compelling story to life, and give it all the tools available to make it so.

Frame speed on S3D is something that I really tend to go over and over, as I love the Cinematic fill and over all look of shooting 24fps, but I believe more and more that 48 or 69fps is of a much more impacting and glorified effect to the story, giving more clarity to its images, extremely important especially in S3D with so much more Dimensionality and need of clearer scenes.

But "Rape of a Beauty" is not the only one we are testing for, "Chronicles of Perseverance" will also be shot in S3D, and at this point we don't know which one will be first, and if there will actually be a "NO BUDJET MONOSCOPIC" version first.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Temporal resolution

Temporal resolution

At NAB in 2007 I sat in the first row for "Crossing the Line". The first person I saw when I walked out of the screening was Graeme and the first thing I said to him was the motion blur was so much greater when the camera or subjects were moving than when they were static that I felt 60fps was going to be required to really appreciate the clarity the RedOne offered.

It is my belief that the gate weave, flicker, poor quality release print stock, IN/IP generation loss, the relatively fast degradation of those prints the more they are run through the projection system and other physical realities of 35mm film as an exhibition medium limit the absolute clarity of the viewed image. Because of all those factors the motion blur and low frame rate (24fps but 48 "flashes" through a double bladed shutter) become part of the overall perception matrix (Mark Schubin probably has a more technically accurate term).

Digital projection at high resolution (like the Sony 4K SXRDs) has its own technical limitations but due the absence of many of the factors mentioned, it's a much clearer image. I believe this is why I, and others, were so aware of the motion blur inherent in a 1/48th of a second shutter speed. Reference point: who shoots stills of fast moving subjects at less than 1/250th unless its a creative choice to accentuate the speed or a lack of light level.

I am very interested in shooting and mastering all my projects at 4K (downsampled from 5K when available at 60fps and am considering shutter speeds from 1/60th to 1/120th.

Will the EPICs offer a 59.94 and/or 60 fps time base?

If so, could RedCineX offer a "flagged frame" feature ala Panasonic that would allow easy output of 60 fps time base original media into 29.97 and 23.98 output?

If time bases beyond 30 fps are not currently planned for Epic I would cast a vote that they should be. IMHO temporal resolution is a key factor in the new aesthetic many of the artists in motion media are embracing.

I am not saying that 24fps on analog film is bad and digital is magically delicious. What I want is more creative options. Imagine a narrative film where some scenes are more "real" looking and others more interpretive; there are lots of techniques typically employed to get that feel across: filtration, foggers, lower contrast, different stocks, grading, etc all of which are finessed in relationship to the cleaner scene which is limited by the limitations of the medium. What if the clearer scenes were much clearer, wouldn't you have more latitude in manipulating the moodier scenes with more subtlety? Sure sounds like fun to experiment with.

I think Lucas makes a key point about the potential for better temporal resolution helping make 3D more appealing and easier to watch. On a personal level I don't particularly care for most of the 3D I have viewed as I find it too poor in quality.

Cheers - #19

 

[Rick Burnett]

Most likely we will end up with 1/48 @ 48 or 60fps 2:1 but Shutter speeds and Frame rates still to under go some additional testing before making a decision, good thing is I have Tony's assistance, one of Avatar's Stereographers ;~).

Awesome. The beginning of Avatar with the sleep chambers was THE best 3D scene I have ever been in awe over. I wasn't expecting that quality.

Having also seen Alice in Wonderland, I was seriously disappointed over the 2D to 3D conversion. Whoever it was that said they couldn't tell the difference between real shots and that needs to find a new carrier because it was VERY obvious to my eyes.

I know this is off topic, but since we are talking about S3D, one thing I am not fond of is shallow DoF. It doesn't look right to me when I see it in 3D and really takes away from the scene in my opinion. I feel like my eyes are fighting with what they are seeing. Thoughts?

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Hrvoje: that has been my unscientific gut feeling for a long time. In the analog Betacam days (;-) I wrote 7-d but I meant Betacam) video had a distinct look far from the smooth, high DR look of film, and I believe the deep dof and interlace plus the overall "electric" look of video became associated with 30fps and the film look was associated with low frame rates.

However, I believe a transition was begun once cameras went digital and you could more easily adjust gamma, knee, and such plus some better color processing to make it more "filmic". Then in the last ten years or so extensive color grading became so prevalent that it often really is hard to tell with certainty which is which. So I think the "deprogramming" has already begun and it is being accelerated by cameras like the R1, and even dSLRs which (as much as we rail against line skipping/half assed resolution and moire) do tend to have a comparatively "filmic" look in terms of DOF, DR and color response.

I think you are spot on.

I only slightly disagree on the last few factors you mentioned with dSLR "filmic" look - with comparative DR and color response, but I get it was merely to make a point about general public perception of "filmic".

The thing is - not sure I want to see newscast with "flimic" picture and event coverage with 35mm DOF, etc...


Leo makes a great point, "mind filling the gaps" definitely has some magic in it. I remember David Mullen also mentioning the effect and it's pretty logical. My opinion is that the "mind the filling the frame gaps" value can be used creatively, enabling a storyteller to choose the "temporal bridge" between the story and the viewer. Since the viewer's involvement into the story is crucial, storytelling techniques might evolve and adapt to the new "temporal bridge", enabling the viewer to be involved in a different way.

Maybe previous tests were being done with unadapted stories/shooting styles, maybe the tests weren't done in an optimized way, maybe the audience at the time was too biased for 24...there are far too many variables to be sure and we will need availability of options and sufficient time to decide for ourselves. Any mayor switch in a complex art form like this one cannot be done over night or judged as an exact science with a few tests. Also, it's always important to take into consideration that our perception and perception of new generations are not the same.


For 3D, higher temporal resolution is a no brainer IMO. 24 is just plain wrong. "Immersiveness" - realism breaks with any movement in 24p.

One thing I'm sure of is that as soon as the first blockbuster is shot in 48 fps or higher, with an adequate execution, fewer people will be biased to "only 24".

Creative choice is welcome. As a choice between a "canvas story" and a "spacial story".
There are always misuses but that cannot negate the potential of proper usage.

If time bases beyond 30 fps are not currently planned for Epic I would cast a vote that they should be.

+1


Somehow I think they have that planned.

 

[Jason Murphy]

A 360 degree shutter at 48 fps is a 1/48th of a second exposure, so half the time and blur as 1/24@24, but you have twice as much temporal information per second.

Assuming you are playing back at native frame rates and not throwing away frames playing 48@24, the 1/48@48 will look very tight and smooth while the 1/24@24 will be half as smooth with an extra look of motion blur than "film-standard" 1/48@24 fps cinematography.

With cameras that don't have actual mechanical shutters, I tend to disregard the notion of shutter angle and stick to speed vs. rate as a guide.

Exactly. Shutter angles are almost completely useless for cameras with a non-mechanical shutter, particularly when multiple display framerates are taken into account.

 

[Patrick Grossien]

4K-ameron

4K-ameron

James Cameron has the opinion, that "4K is a concept born in fear" and that "4K doesn't solve the curse of 24 frames per second. In fact it tends to stand in the way of the solutions to that more fundamental problem."

Similar to the reason why widescreen was invented in the first place, because people weren't going to the movies anymore when TV became popular.

Be it as it may, but he brings up an interesting point about 24 and 48 fps and dismisses 30 and 60 fps.
...I don't know if anyone posted this on reduser before, but at least it seems not in this thread...

Well the thing which interests me would be ... why not try to set up 4k @ 48 fps as a new standard?
EPIC could pull it of! RED RAY could probably do it!? (or be made to do so)
So what's your opinion Jim, or anyone?


...

I attached it for your reading convenience and the full article is linked below

full variety article
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=1009&cs=1

"Variety:
Other than that, for digital 3-D, would you rather see energy going into moving from 2K to 4K, or into moving from 24 fps to 48 or 72 fps, and why?

Cameron:
4K is a concept born in fear. When the studios were looking at converting to digital cinemas, they were afraid of change, and searched for reasons not to do it. One reason they hit upon was that if people were buying HD monitors for the home, with 1080x1920 resolution, and that was virtually the same as the 2K standard being proposed, then why would people go to the cinema? Which ignores the fact that the social situation is entirely different, and that the cinema screen is 100 times larger in area. So they somehow hit on 4K, which people should remember is not twice the amount of picture data, it is four times the data. Meaning servers need to be four times the capacity, as does the delivery pipe to the theater, etc.

But 4K doesn't solve the curse of 24 frames per second. In fact it tends to stand in the way of the solutions to that more fundamental problem. The NBA execs made a bold decision to do the All Star Game 3-D simulcast at 60 frames per second, because they didn't like the judder. The effect of the high-frame-rate 3-D was visually astonishing, a huge crowdpleaser.

I would vastly prefer to see 2K/48 frames per second as a new display standard, than 4K/24 frames per second. This would mean shooting movies at 48 fps, which the digital cameras can easily accommodate. Film cameras can run that fast, but stock costs would go up. However, that could be offset by shooting 3-perf, or even 2-perf, because you'd get the resolution back through the higher display rate. The 48 fps negative or digital master can be skip-printed to generate a 24 fps 35mm DI negative for making release prints, so 48 is the magic number because it remains compatible with the film-based platform which will still be with us for some time, especially internationally. 30 and 60 fps are out for that reason. Anyway the benefit of 30 is not great enough to be worth the effort, especially when 48 is so easy to achieve. SMPTE tests done about 15 years ago showed that above 48 frames the returns diminish dramatically, and 60 fps is overkill. So 48 is the magic number.

Of course, the ideal format is 3-D/2K/48 fps projection. I'd love to have done 'Avatar' at 48 frames. But I have to fight these battles one at a time. I'm just happy people are waking up to 3-D.
Maybe on 'Avatar 2.' "

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Cameron must have not heard about Epic before this interview, with which you will be able to shoot 48/48 at 5k, finish at 4k, with easy 2k and 24fps alternatives. Everything he said he would want.

 

[Deanan]

Cameron must have not heard about Epic before this interview, with which you will be able to shoot 48/48 at 5k, finish at 4k, with easy 2k and 24fps alternatives. Everything he said he would want.

or 5k 72fps
or 5k 96fps
or 5k 120fps

4k@48 deliver works quite nicely because you can derive a normal 2k 2D@24, 2k 3D@48, 4k 2D@24, 4k 2D@48, or 4k 3D@48 depending on how you want to edit/post/deliver.