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...

Peter Proniewicz-Brooks said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks Peter. This pretty much confirms what Brandon posted and makes it all the more clear.
 
George Tsai said:
Will any of these HFR showing be in 4K?
Click to expand...

As far as I know there is not a single theater being able to playback 4K 3D 48fps right now due to the lack of players.

Of course there will be some test systems that can do it, but are they in use somewhere?
Do they even have a DCP for that at all?

I guess "The Hobbit" will be the most important movie for the success of RED RAY and ODEMAX.
 
Yeah, i guess REDRAY is the one and only option today to show it in HFR/4k/3D. :)
I hope RED gets a private screening with P.J. together, would be a nice reward for all the hard work....
 
Jeremiah Kuehne said:
I have my tickets to see it at the AMC Rosedale 16 in Minnesota in the evening on the 15th. HFR 3D. If by any chance there is someone who sees this message and is going to the same show, let me know!
Click to expand...

doubt there are tickets left :(, or I'd try to ditch out and join you!
 
Peter Proniewicz-Brooks said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are absolutely right, the feel of film is a complex recipe.

I just think that 24/25 fps ads a filter to the images that removes the sense of reality. It kind of creates an alternate reality. A friend of mine, who has nothing to do with the film business, had a look at the 48fps trailer for The Hobbit and her reaction was that it looked like it was all filmed inside a studio....

I use 50 fps alot my self. And I have done so since I received my Red One two years ago. Its perfect for reality shows, wildlife documentaries, most corporate videos and much more. Because it looks so real! But for features I'm not so sure. Not for me, anyway!
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
I don't know if I'll see it in 48fps. I don't care enough about stereoscopic - oops, sorry, 3D is the official term, isn't it? .
Click to expand...


No, not really. If we actually had 3D, it might be interesting. We don't. We have stereoscopy, which is hardly the same thing.

I really wish people would stop trying to explain to others why they should like either 48fps or stereoscopy. Sensory experience is a personal thing, and one's reaction to it is equally as personal. None of the explanations are worth anything. People have the right to decide for themselves whether they like it or not, and should not be influenced by either technical or physiological arguments, nor should they be influenced by the opinions of others, including Peter Jackson, Jim Cameron, and, yes, Jim Jannard. One either likes it or they don't. By early evidence, an awfully large percentage seem to be in the "don't" category.

I have seen it (not the Hobbit picture, but numerous examples of both HFR, stereoscopy, and a combination of the two). I also fall in the "don't" category. But my opinion is basically meaningless to anyone else. And it should be.
 
Operant conditioning

Operant conditioning

While I, as usual, mostly agree with Mike there is one aspect of the HFR equation that I feel is overlooked. Conditioning (see Pavlov, Skinner).

I don't have the research grant to properly vet my thesis but I contend that if viewers were to watch nothing but 48/50/60 fps material for a couple of months and then were offered a 24fps presentation they would find it choppy and blurry. The way in which the human visual system processes input is built upon a lifetime of experience interpreting real world and artificially created scenes. There are whole books about schema theory, optical (sic) illusions and visual processing dynamics. Moreover, as Mike noted, there are far greater discrepencies in perception from one person to the next than most people realize.

Fortunately humans adapt incredibly quickly, so much so, some reviewers noted that by the 3rd act they were far less bothered by the HFR.

Cheers - #19
 
Matt Gerard said:
doubt there are tickets left :(, or I'd try to ditch out and join you!
Click to expand...

Ah! I do suppose it is the primetime Saturday showing for the movie..it'd sure be cool to see some other members of the community there!

Also, I have a question about the 24fps showings..the shutter angle can't be adjusted after shooting if I'm not mistaken, so how would they really get the "film" feel in 24fps anyway? Or was it shot at 1/48th second shutter? or was it 1/96th and then the 24fps format will have added motion blur or something?
 
Jeremiah Kuehne said:
(snip) Also, I have a question about the 24fps showings..the shutter angle can't be adjusted after shooting if I'm not mistaken, so how would they really get the "film" feel in 24fps anyway? Or was it shot at 1/48th second shutter? or was it 1/96th and then the 24fps format will have added motion blur or something?
Click to expand...

I believe it was shot with a 270° shutter, 1/72nd in temporal terms, in part to keep the 24fps version from looking too stuttery.

Cheers - #19
 
M Most said:
No, not really. If we actually had 3D, it might be interesting. We don't. We have stereoscopy, which is hardly the same thing.

I really wish people would stop trying to explain to others why they should like either 48fps or stereoscopy. Sensory experience is a personal thing, and one's reaction to it is equally as personal. None of the explanations are worth anything. People have the right to decide for themselves whether they like it or not, and should not be influenced by either technical or physiological arguments, nor should they be influenced by the opinions of others, including Peter Jackson, Jim Cameron, and, yes, Jim Jannard. One either likes it or they don't. By early evidence, an awfully large percentage seem to be in the "don't" category.

I have seen it (not the Hobbit picture, but numerous examples of both HFR, stereoscopy, and a combination of the two). I also fall in the "don't" category. But my opinion is basically meaningless to anyone else. And it should be.
Click to expand...

"Like" :-)
 
M Most said:
No, not really. If we actually had 3D, it might be interesting. We don't. We have stereoscopy, which is hardly the same thing.
Click to expand...


It's hardly the same thing in precisely the way 2D film or videos areanything like real motion. Our whole industies based around magic eye tricks, and stereo effects is pretty much as close as it gets for them.

M Most said:
I really wish people would stop trying to explain to others why they should like either 48fps or stereoscopy. Sensory experience is a personal thing, and one's reaction to it is equally as personal. None of the explanations are worth anything. People have the right to decide for themselves whether they like it or not, and should not be influenced by either technical or physiological arguments, nor should they be influenced by the opinions of others, including Peter Jackson, Jim Cameron, and, yes, Jim Jannard. One either likes it or they don't. By early evidence, an awfully large percentage seem to be in the "don't" category.
Click to expand...

Leading statement, you say people shouldnr be influenced by others, then only list names of those suppoorting the view you oppose, theby implying only theose who like 48fps are trying to spread their viewpoint. Both sides are doing it a lot.


M Most said:
I have seen it (not the Hobbit picture, but numerous examples of both HFR, stereoscopy, and a combination of the two). I also fall in the "don't" category. But my opinion is basically meaningless to anyone else. And it should be.
Click to expand...

No your opinion isnt meaningless to anyone who isnt you. Otherpeoples opions usually have value especially if they are thought out and reasoned, even kneejerk blind responses have value to others. (Note I'm not saying yours is.) Then again just beacuse it has useful meaning dosnt mean people should take it into account all the time.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
I believe it was shot with a 270° shutter, 1/72nd in temporal terms, in part to keep the 24fps version from looking too stuttery.
Click to expand...


If you have any source to this I'd be very interested to to see it. Personally I would think that when shooting at 48 fps that they could just employ a 360 degree shutter which would be the usual 1/48th of a second. Since it can still be 1/48th of a second shutter all they would have to do is remove every other frame and it would be just like traditional 24 fps 180 degree shutter. I don't know if they did this but that's what I would do. It seems to me that having a shutter less than 360 defeats half the purpose of shooting 48 fps in the first place which is to remove the gaps in motion blur that occurs when 180 shutter is employed as it always has been in cinema.
 
Adam Watson said:


If you have any source to this I'd be very interested to to see it. Personally I would think that when shooting at 48 fps that they could just employ a 360 degree shutter which would be the usual 1/48th of a second. Since it can still be 1/48th of a second shutter all they would have to do is remove every other frame and it would be just like traditional 24 fps 180 degree shutter. I don't know if they did this but that's what I would do. It seems to me that having a shutter less than 360 defeats half the purpose of shooting 48 fps in the first place which is to remove the gaps in motion blur that occurs when 180 shutter is employed as it always has been in cinema.
Click to expand...

The point of 48fps was actually to lesson motion blur so that the images would be clearer. They probably would've shot 180 degree (1/96th) if it weren't for taking the 24 fps version in. Here, I'll go dig up Andrew Lesnie's comments...
 
Adam Watson said:

If you have any source to this I'd be very interested to to see it.
Click to expand...
P.J. on his facebook-page:
"However, we're going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master."

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150235459531558
 
I don't care about the 3D. I think 3D (presently constituted) adds very little if anything to the whole experience and sometimes it even gets in the way. But I welcome the high frame rates.
I for one never thought that cinema has to end at 24 fps and that anything beyond that is "video looking". I find myself filming more and more at 48 fps on my Epic and I for one love it.
I can understand why so many people in the industry would be up in arms about a high frame rate and how it threatens the magic of cinema but on the other hand it would be nice to see an
action sequence without all that motion blur that comes with shooting 24 fps.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
I believe it was shot with a 270° shutter, 1/72nd in temporal terms, in part to keep the 24fps version from looking too stuttery.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

270° shutter at 48fps is actually 1/64s. ;)

1/72s would be a 240° shutter at 48fps.

Anyway, I couldn't ever seem to get a clear answer, but it seems the 360° to 270° or about 1/48 to 1/64 makes the most sense. Anything tighter than that on the shutter and playback at 24fps, dropping every other frame, would appear very sharp and stuttery or they would need to add blur in post. 1/72 might still be OK. I guess we'll have a better idea when we finally see it. To me, the trailers, which I have only seen on my desktop monitor or at 24fps in the cinema, look as if they were acquired at a relatively normal shutter speed for 24fps, which would imply the longer exposure relative to the 48fps acquisition -- in other words the 270° to 360° shutter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top