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 at 48fps...

I must say I really don't understand this exitement over 48 fps! We have all seen 50 or 60 fps for years on television! Not long ago everybody was demanding electronic cameras that could shoot 25p or 24p so that their productions would look like film and not television. Why do so many now want to go BACK to what they (presumably) didn't want a few years ago?

I must be missing something.....? :-p
 
Last edited:
We are the 1 in 25 here in Georgia. Think I'll see it twice for a comparison. Wish it was in 4K too, the theater has all 4K projectors, they just need to be fed.
 
Onar Stangeland said:
I must say I really don't understand this exitement over 48 fps! We have all seen 50 or 60 fps for years on television! Not long ago everybody was demanding electronic cameras that could shoot 25p or 24p so that their productions would look like film and not television. Why do so many now want to go BACK to what they (presumably) didn't want a few years ago?

I must be missing something.....? :-p
Click to expand...

The prevelance of 24p filmed material on TV shows these days has done a lot to reduce the 24p=film not television.

Like any visual tool framerate needs careful consideration. A pertinant example is 3D, there are a number of ocassions where it really has helped draw mw into a movies world and storytelling, but pleanty where its hurt the movies ability to immerse me (though on a couple of ocasions this hasnt hurt the enjoyment of the movie). Where it's hurt has tneded to be poor conversion, or disrespecting the 4th wall.


The common 3D offense of breaking the 4th wall is relevant here. The whole objects leeping out of the screen, if done right can really help draw you in, or it breaks the 4th wall, simarly if you are using higher frame rates, you have to ask does the effect help draw me in or push me out, I've seen both happen. Compounding the issue is that for HFR the HFRs effect on how drawn in you are varies depending on the content, and its common for films which have scenes benifit from it to also have those that are diminished by it.

It should also be noted that 24 frames per second creates eye strain (tests by Edison sugegsted 46 was the lower limit), film projectors don't show it, they show 48 or 72 with mutiple bladed shutters.
 
Peter Proniewicz-Brooks said:
The prevelance of 24p filmed material on TV shows these days has done a lot to reduce the 24p=film not television.

Like any visual tool framerate needs careful consideration. A pertinant example is 3D, there are a number of ocassions where it really has helped draw mw into a movies world and storytelling, but pleanty where its hurt the movies ability to immerse me (though on a couple of ocasions this hasnt hurt the enjoyment of the movie). Where it's hurt has tneded to be poor conversion, or disrespecting the 4th wall.


The common 3D offense of breaking the 4th wall is relevant here. The whole objects leeping out of the screen, if done right can really help draw you in, or it breaks the 4th wall, simarly if you are using higher frame rates, you have to ask does the effect help draw me in or push me out, I've seen both happen. Compounding the issue is that for HFR the HFRs effect on how drawn in you are varies depending on the content, and its common for films which have scenes benifit from it to also have those that are diminished by it.

It should also be noted that 24 frames per second creates eye strain (tests by Edison sugegsted 46 was the lower limit), film projectors don't show it, they show 48 or 72 with mutiple bladed shutters.
Click to expand...

Sorry for not explaining propperly; I was talking about recording frame rate, not projection or viewing fram rate! I do know how projectors work :-)
 
Onar Stangeland said:
Sorry for not explaining propperly; I was talking about recording frame rate, not projection or viewing fram rate! I do know how projectors work :-)
Click to expand...

That was more of an aside, not the main point. The main point was that like most of a filmakers tools slavery to one form limits your creativity, and that 24ps status as a film ratehr than TV look has been heavily eroded.
 
Peter Proniewicz-Brooks said:
That was more of an aside, not the main point. The main point was that like most of a filmakers tools slavery to one form limits your creativity, and that 24ps status as a film ratehr than TV look has been heavily eroded.
Click to expand...

I agree with the first part, but I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by "...and that 24ps status as a film ratehr than TV look has been heavily eroded."...?

I guess what I was asking in the first place was this: What makes, to many people, the smoother motion of 50/60 fps acceptable today, When it wasn't just a few years ago? What did I miss?

I think 48fps makes what's on the screen look like reallity! And that is perfectly fine if reality is what I'm whatching. But I don't want reallity when I watch a fantasy-movie!
 
I find it interesting that people are dead set against something they probably haven't seen yet. Not many of us have had a chance to see a 48fps/270-degree 3D movie acquired at 5K and mastered down to 2K for viewing on a cinema sized screen.

Why not give it a spin? I can't imagine saying "I refuse to look at that water color painting... I've seen water colors before and it always looks like the work of school children."

It's a new medium. And one the director/artist chose specifically for his work. Unless the $14 is a show stopper for you, give it a shot, and see if you care for it... at least that way you can make an informed decision.

That having been said, there's a lot that sets the "film look" apart from video, and frame rate is only one of them. There's gamma response, color reproduction, rolloff/clipping, color space, shutter angle/duration, etc... seems rather foolish to draw the conclusion that changing just one of them automatically will destroy any aesthetic that might be pleasing without seeing for yourself...

-sc
 
Jannard said:
Only 1 in 25 will have the opportunity to see The Hobbit at 48fps. Too bad. It is a new viewing experience.

24 of 25 of you will see it at 24fps. (yawn) Don't get me wrong... it looks incredible at 24fps. But you are missing the point.

Jim
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure more than half of the people (maybe all?) on this board will seek out a 48fps showing. We're all curious. Your comments advocating it alone have made me rethink it a bit.

Looking forward to posting in a couple of weeks after taking both versions in.
 
Many of the posts so far pertain to what the poster likes or dislikes. I assume most people here on Reduser are in some way related to the business of making movies. ITBT, then why are you basing your judgment on what you like or dislike? You are an audience of one. Make more money by making movies that the larger audience, current or future, likes or will like.
 
Onar Stangeland said:
I agree with the first part, but I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by "...and that 24ps status as a film ratehr than TV look has been heavily eroded."...?

I guess what I was asking in the first place was this: What makes, to many people, the smoother motion of 50/60 fps acceptable today, When it wasn't just a few years ago? What did I miss?
Click to expand...

Apart from the obvious mistype of rather, the point was that sufficent TV is shot at 24p these days that its no longer something that sets film apart from TV, to much TV was shot at it.

That effect to a certain degree is a major factor in why HFR my well become accpeted. 24p is no longer special in TV.

Onar Stangeland said:
I think 48fps makes what's on the screen look like reallity! And that is perfectly fine if reality is what I'm whatching. But I don't want reallity when I watch a fantasy-movie!
Click to expand...

I find this a tiny bit limiting, once again a lot of the time you are right, to much reality can be a bad thing, but sometimes it can help draw you in.

The feel of film is a complex recipe, theres an accepted way of doing it, and missing an ingredient can be fatal, unless you hit upon a concoction of other ingredients which makes up for this loss, and palates slowly change. The frame rate issue is quite like this, it needs careful blending in with other filmic methods to create the filmic effect, but over time the recipies that will delight using it for filmic results rather than video results will broaden.
 
Elsie N said:
Many of the posts so far pertain to what the poster likes or dislikes. I assume most people here on Reduser are in some way related to the business of making movies. ITBT, then why are you basing your judgment on what you like or dislike? You are an audience of one. Make more money by making movies that the larger audience, current or future, likes or will like.
Click to expand...

For many of us that is an unfortunate reality. Arts whether cinema, painting, sculpture etc shouldnt be defined by what the audiences pay for, it just is for those that depend on the money it brings to create it or live.

Pleanty of movies have been spoilt by the quest for money over artistic vision.

You can also dislike a technique but accpet that in some cases it better fits your artistic vision.
 
Onar Stangeland said:
I must say I really don't understand this exitement over 48 fps! We have all seen 50 or 60 fps for years on television! Not long ago everybody was demanding electronic cameras that could shoot 25p or 24p so that their productions would look like film and not television. Why do so many now want to go BACK to what they (presumably) didn't want a few years ago?

I must be missing something.....? :-p
Click to expand...
Demand for 24p/25p and even 30p was there because previous cameras mostly did just 1080i at 50/60hz, which is not 50p/60p. Sure there where cameras with 720p at 50/60p, but that was different too. There was (and still is) a big missunderstanding about shooting 24p being the magic trick to make your stuff look like film. It's just on piece of the puzzle, lots of people learned that the hard way.

So, yes, we had the higher framerates with video before, but not in a proper way, with bad sensors, mostly used with full 360degree shutter (we know that looks bad with 24p too, remember Public Enemy?), cheaper lenses and totally different use-cases. We know it from tv and soap-operas, live-stuff or just home-videos, thats worlds apart from shooting a big budget movie with proper lighting, make-up, sets, post-production and so on. Its not the framerate that makes those things look cheap or bad, it's just one piece of the look, not the most important one if you ask me.

The whole difference is, that we now have a high end movie carefully shot with more fps, not just a reality-tv-show shot on a video-camera or some badly realtime-interpolated crap which todays tvs do. So try to erase the memory of those things and give it the chance it deserves.

24p has its flaws and i know some people who are just whining about that for years, they're more excited about HFR than 3D. From a pure technical standpoit they're right, more fps mean less blur and more clarity, more details. Sounds fine to me. I expect it to look more realistic, but i know we all have to get used to the look, we just have been seen 24p/180deg for sooooooo long.

And we will have to experiment a bit more with different shutter angles and framerates, it doesn't have to be 48fps/270degree all the time, but i find thats a nice compromise to start with.

I would even love to use different framerates from scene to scene, this would allow so much more creatitivty...
 
Last edited:
Maybe this is the wrong thread to be asking this, but does anyone know how 48 fps plays over the REDRay player? I assume the player is not limited in anyway to play the 48 fps and that any limitation will be in the display or 4k projector... I'm just trying to learn how this will affect me as a movie maker.
 
Already have my tickets!!! I am very excited to see The Hobbit in 48fps and in 3D!!!
 
Elsie N said:
Maybe this is the wrong thread to be asking this, but does anyone know how 48 fps plays over the REDRay player? I assume the player is not limited in anyway to play the 48 fps and that any limitation will be in the display or 4k projector... I'm just trying to learn how this will affect me as a movie maker.
Click to expand...

PLAYBACK FRAME RATES: 24, 25, 30, 48, 50, 60 fps

What will limit you is what you are displaying the video on. If you use a RED projector you're all set though.
 
Elsie N said:
Maybe this is the wrong thread to be asking this, but does anyone know how 48 fps plays over the REDRay player? I assume the player is not limited in anyway to play the 48 fps and that any limitation will be in the display or 4k projector... I'm just trying to learn how this will affect me as a movie maker.
Click to expand...

As I read it the REDRay player will output full 48 fps 4k, or downscale it to 1080p. That 4k 48p is a full 4k 48p per eye if its 3D. Limits on the player are all to do with TV or projector or indeed the HDMI format. the ones built into the REDRay projector or the CRIMSON projector have even higher outputs.
 
Brandon J.F. said:
PLAYBACK FRAME RATES: 24, 25, 30, 48, 50, 60 fps

What will limit you is what you are displaying the video on. If you use a RED projector you're all set though.
Click to expand...

Thanks Brandon. Forgot about the frame rates spec. I ken more now. '-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top