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 :)

The Hobbit 3D - 48 fps

Paulo Kobayashi

Paulo Kobayashi

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Manhattan, NY
I have been waiting a trailer for the Hobbit to clear up a bad feeling I'm having.

Here is my bad feeling:

48 fps tends to look like 60i, and 60i is culturally connected to home made videos and soup operas.

I see many directors like James Cameron pushing for 48 fps, and what I realized was that when you are shooting in film (at least Panavision, I do not have experience with Arri Film cameras) and you look through the glass view finder or even when you are siting on the video village watching the radio signal, it looks 60i ish. In other words, directors such as James Cameron are used to see their movies in a 60i kind of look, but the audience is not.

If the Hobbit being shot at 48 fps comes out looking like soup opera this will cause a LOT OF MISCONCEPTION and Arri, Sony and the other guys will use that to bash the Epics and RED in general.

So, have anyone had a chance to see anything shot in 48 fps (and played back in 48 fps) from an EPIC?

When I receive my Scarlet Ti PL mount I'll be able to do some tests myself, at least 3K 48 fps.

I hope there is something you can do with the shutter that will prevent the "video" look at 48 fps.

Thanks.
 
I just saw Hugo recently and overall I thought the movie looked wonderful in 3D. I have not been advocate of 3D very much here or anywhere else on the web for that matter. I applaud the efforts of the filmmakers but most of the time, it doesn't do it for me. Hugo was different. However, I do think there may be something to the 48fps recipe that Cameron and Jackson are using. The first 15 minutes of Hugo I was having a difficult time getting comfortable. My eyes were straining, and I wasn't sure I was going to enjoy the movie very much. I think what might have been causing it was how much the camera is moving in those first 15 minutes. Perhaps 48fps would have helped. I think any improvements to moving shots in 3D will be welcome. I'm not sure 48fps will automatically give it a soap opera look. There are a lot of other factors going into it that will give it a cinematic look.

Hugo may be the film that restored my interest in 3D. Even my wife who really struggles with 3D and who is pregnant (nausea is already a factor) said afterwards that it was the best 3D she had ever seen, and actually really enjoyed it. So I guess this goes to show that it's not necessarily the format that is at fault with 3D, it's how it's executed. Hugo has amazing set and art design, the 3D is so meticulously planned out, and the story and performances are great. It truly is a celebration of film history and in a way what they are doing with 3D is perhaps similar to what Melies was doing with his films. Pushing the technology to offer new way of looking at motion pictures. Melies was literally painting on film and filmmakers today are painting with three dimensions.

I look forward to see what is done with The Hobbit. I'm hoping it is as effective as Hugo.
 
I really don't care, because I doubt most anyone will get to see it at 48FPS 3D. Right now I believe the only way to view material that way is on IMAX screens. That is for any wide spread solution. So I do expect most people to view it in 24FPS. Wide open concerns me however, I hope they are not doing that because then it really will look like video. The shutter to me has a huge impact on looking like video. Look at Public Enemies.
 
An open shutter at 48fps is the same as a 180 degree shutter at 24fps so the 24fps 2D version should look completely normal.
 
Why do film people tabout about degree shutter? I find it annoying as many people will not understand that 180 degree shutter at 24fps means something completely different to at 48fps. Why not just say.. 1/48 sec shutter at 48fps. means the same as open shutter at 48fps, while 24fps shot with 180 degree means the same 1/48 of s second.

I have seen the James Cameron example footage, and faster frame rates will be as significant to cinema as going from SR audio to digital audio. Ie, people will specifically wait until they can get into the faster frame rate cinemas. Its that much better and more interesting to watch.

The bigger problem is that stunt people will have to improve their game. In the demo, it was far easier to see the stunt people putting it on and not a real fight. It was far more realistic to watch. more "Like being there"

I think faster frames rates will be a big winner with audiences.

This issue about it looking like video.. It can, but its something that can always be made to look more like 24fps in post. But at the end of the day. The ART of film, the look etc, will be left behind as the wider appreciation of viewers wanting the experience that makes them feel more and more like they are really there.. will win. (Thats what digial Audio and multi channeling was about, and no dought it was a vast improvement.)

James
 
Hi Paulo,
JJ Abrams in “Super 8” shot an entire scene at 48fps instead of 24fps. (Blu-ray TC-1:06:05 +/-) He shot S8 on film, but he did use the Red One for pick-up shots and a couple of scenes. I don’t know if this specific scene was shot on Red, but at least will give you the start on the whole 48fps world.
 
Douglas Trumbull, the genius behind photographic effects on 2001: A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Blade Runner once upon a time proposed 70mm format 60fps with his Showscan system. He is currently talking about 120fps in 3D.
 
Paulo Kobayashi said:
48 fps tends to look like 60i, and 60i is culturally connected to home made videos and soup operas.
...
it looks 60i ish
...
If the Hobbit being shot at 48 fps comes out looking like soup opera this will cause a LOT OF MISCONCEPTION and Arri, Sony and the other guys will use that to bash the Epics and RED in general.
...
I hope there is something you can do with the shutter that will prevent the "video" look at 48 fps.
Click to expand...
It may be that we will have to give up the stutter look and wagon wheels running backwards forever ..... but we will always have soup. Film is dead, the "film look" will follow. For now, 24fps still has an economic advantage.
 
Last edited:
Brian Iannone said:
I'm not sure what open shutter means... Could someone please explain?
Click to expand...

Is the use of the shutter at 360 degrees angle in film cameras/digital cinema cameras or 1/24 sec in video/digital cinema cameras.
 
Christian Munoz D said:
Is the use of the shutter at 360 degrees angle in film cameras/digital cinema cameras or 1/24 sec in video/digital cinema cameras.
Click to expand...



yep, and because of that, at 48 fps, it's smooth, and thus really great for 3d, cause motion blur is a brain killer, but dialed back down to 24 fps, the 2d version will look identical to if they shot it in 2d and a 180 degree shutter. They are very smart people, with the resources of the best in the industry. They got all their bases covered fellahs. 3d will look amazing, the 2d will look amazing, and they are the first of man movies that will be shot in 3d in this fashion.
 
Thanks Christian.

Thor, great links that pretty much clears it up for me. My main concerns were addressed on Peter Jackson's Facebook page.
 
"Thoughts from editor Peter Sciretta: “Seeing the characters from the Lord of the Rings trilogy in 48 frames per second 3D is a completely new experience. The teaser*doesn’t*cop out as you will get to see a lot of footage. It looks epic and I can’t wait to see more.”"

This was shown at BNAT at Alamo Drafthouse. They use Sony 4k projectors there. Didn't know the Sony's can do 48fps 3D.
 
48 fps tends to look like 60i, and 60i is culturally connected to home made videos and soup operas.
Click to expand...

I have worked with ShowScan at 60 fps.
Trust me, it still looks like film, not interlace video daytime soap operas.
 
3D and mono is not the same thing. You do not get as epileptic when watching 3D in 48fps. that is why they shoot this way. Normal mono version, as many stated here will be 24p and they use the shutter so when they pull out every second frame out of the 48 p master eye then it will look just like film.

They shoot up to 360 shutter and that is in 24p equal to 180shutter. they also shoot tighter shutter just as you some times go down to 90 degree and such to get a not so motion blurred image. fast camera moves and action footage usually are looking better with a crisper motion blur. So the extra frames will only do good and give rest and peace in the movie theater.

I watch 2x 100 fps with shutter glasses and that looks 4 times as good as 25p so the only reason he stopped at 48 was because thats the number of frames the movie theaters can handle by the time the film comes out.

It's also a quite large task for the compositors and CG people, basically the more frames you show per second, the better the masks, animation textures etc has to be. And this is something that is exponential so doing post in 48 fps stereo is so much more post work than 24p mono so I think a multiple of 20 is not to exaggerate. It's such a difference so I doubt they even realized how rough it will be. The amount of data increase and further more the eye will spot every little incorrect detail of the composites and 3D like never before. So Mr Jackson is really doing something large here by all means. But I have no doubt that the 48fps, the dual epic rigs, and the film itself will be like the worlds biggest marketing campaign for Red for sure. Peter Jackson will push it trough and set the new standard once again for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top