The Hobbit shot on Epic at 48fps

[Klas Persson]

I guess we will have to wait and see. Perhaps the 2D versions will be 24 fps conversions and the 3D versions will be 48 fps, so any of that "video-ish" smooth motion will help reduce stutter and perhaps even ghosting problems in 3D, while one could go and see the 24 fps 2D version for a more traditional experience.

Peter Jackson has already stated the 2d versions will be 24 fps.

The news about us filming The Hobbit at 48 frames per second generated a lot of comments. Of course, it's impossible to show you what 48 fps actually looks like outside of a movie cinema, but there were several interesting and insightful questions raised.

We will be completing a "normal" 24 frames per second version—in both digital and 35mm film prints. If we are able to get the Hobbit projected at 48 fps in selected cinemas, there will still be normal-looking 24 fps versions available in cinemas everywhere.

Converting a film shot at 48 fps down to 24 fps is not a hugely difficult process, but it requires testing to achieve the best results. Some of this involves digital processes during post-production. We are also shooting the film a slightly different way, which is a question several of you asked. Normally you shoot a movie with a 180-degree shutter angle. Changing the shutter angle affects the amount of motion blur captured during movement. Reducing the shutter angle gives you the stroby (or jerky) "Saving Private Ryan" look.

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.

So the 2d versions will actually be less smooth than a normal 180 degree shutter would be.

 

[kenneth gruyaert]

Kenneth, you're ignoring personal taste -- it's like you're telling someone that they are wrong to prefer one thing over another thing, that their tastes are wrong.

It is simply conditioning not taste, if the situation was the other way around and cinema had always been 60fps with home video on tv being 24fps your oppinions would be completely different.
24fps exists to cut costs, not because it is an ideal.

Film aficionados have claimed that flicker aides the suspension of
belief, but such claims were and have never been supported by any science.
The phrase "Suspension of disbelief" is a phrase more likely to have come from Kodak wordsmiths than Kodak scientists.

This ''suspension of disbelief'' nonesense is the rationalization i was thinking about.

So on top of conditioning we also have brainwashing by marketing people. I had read about suspension of disbelief in articles before, the argument basically is that it makes film more believable because it looks less real? That makes a lot of sense. Why go for hd or 4k if you can have VHS for a truly immersive experience? It is unbelievable that some nonesense spread by marketing for proffit is now almost universally accepted as scientific fact as to why 24fps is the holy grail of cinema.

They don't rationalize anything, they simply respond emotionally, immediately, directly to images that remind them of other cinematic images that have brought them pleasure in their lifetimes.

This is just confirmation that it is conditioning, its exactly what was said in this post:

I'm on the belief that 24fps as the only way for films to look "cinematic" is a result of a life time of conditioning.

 

[kenneth gruyaert]

Yeah I'm curious too. The high fps footage I've seen always felt 'faster', I don't know how to better describe it.

I think that is probably because 48fps+ is perceived as real motion while because we see the individual frames skipping by in 24-30fps it is simply too slow for the brain to interpret it as motion and therefore we dont experience it as such.

 

[kenneth gruyaert]

they have a natural "gut" reaction to 24 fps film photography that has nothing to do with thinking about how expensive it was or anything like that.

I have seen many comments about avoiding the 'dreadful soap opera look', so it is clear that cost has something to do with it, they want to avoid big budget productions looking like cheap tv shows not because it is worse but because it has become associated with being cheap.

Another example of conditioning is the silly mailbox slot 2.4:1 aspect ratio, i have seen many examples of programs made only for TV that have been shot in that aspect ratio simply because many people have come to associate it with big budget productions and are immediately impressed by it.

Have you forgotten this post quoting Peter Jackson?

So we have lived with 24 fps for 9 decades--not because it's the best film speed (it's not by any stretch), but because it was the cheapest speed to achieve basic acceptable results back in 1927 or whenever it was adopted.

Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew--many of whom are film purists--are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience.

He did say all of them are converts not just most of them. Also it was clear that in that post he was talking about 48fps for 2D and not just for 3D.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I agree that conditioning is an aspect of this, but we are still talking about taste -- you used the word "rationalization" which is the almost opposite of conditioning. Either they are conditioned to prefer 24 fps or they are rationalizing liking it when they actually don't like it. If they are rationalizing themselves to like something that they don't actually like, then they haven't been conditioned to like it. Conditioning, cultural bias, personal experience, peer pressure, parental influence, etc. are all elements that inform personal taste.

My point is that if people like movies -- and I'm not sure why anyone is hanging out on a filmmaking forum if they don't -- it doesn't follow that all this time they have actually hated the way that they have looked for 100+ years because they were shot at 24 fps. So there is not only conditioning involved in liking the look of 24 fps, there is also pleasurable association of that look with the look of movies they have loved. It's part of our cultural history. Doesn't mean that people won't embrace new looks over time, or become conditioned to new things, but it's pointless to argue that people can't possibly like the look of 24 fps when clearly they do.

 

[kenneth gruyaert]

I agree that conditioning is an aspect of this, but we are still talking about taste -- you used the word "rationalization" which is the almost opposite of conditioning. Either they are conditioned to prefer 24 fps or they are rationalizing liking it when they actually don't like it. If they are rationalizing themselves to like something that they don't actually like, then they haven't been conditioned to like it. Conditioning, cultural bias, personal experience, peer pressure, parental influence, etc. are all elements that inform personal taste.

I didnt say they dont like it, i can understand many people could perceive the blurry skipping frames as being artful in a way. And i think there is some nostalgia involved in it which you pointed out in your previous post. What i meant by rationalizing it was the arguments that it is the best framerate because of the reason of suspension of disbelief, they are looking for objective reasons for liking it and why this framerate should stay.

My point is that if people like movies -- and I'm not sure why anyone is hanging out on a filmmaking forum if they don't -- it doesn't follow that all this time they have actually hated the way that they have looked for 100+ years because they were shot at 24 fps. So there is not only conditioning involved in liking the look of 24 fps, there is also pleasurable association of that look with the look of movies they have loved. It's part of our cultural history. Doesn't mean that people won't embrace new looks over time, or become conditioned to new things, but it's pointless to argue that people can't possibly like the look of 24 fps when clearly they do.

I also like movies but thats despite them being 24fps, the judder obviously isnt bad enough to make them completely unwatchable but it is definitely very distracting, i dont see why you would automatically like 24fps just because movies you liked were at that framerate? For me it is simply something i have to put up with because its all we have.

I am sure Peter Jackson likes movies and he agree's with this:

other film experiences look a little primitive. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring. We're getting spoilt!

This is not subconscious at all as was said in a quote about showscan you posted in another thread, this judder is clearly visible to me not just at 24fps but also at 30fps.

Something to keep in mind is that even if things go the way i expect them to eventually you will always have the option of watching movies at 24fps with 180 shutter. I dont know if cinemas will keep playing 24fps versions but at least it will be available as a configuration option at home, there is no need to release special discs or downloads for it and it obviously doesnt need to be recorded that way.

It would be interesting to see if you will use that 24fps option in 10 years

 

[Eric Rodemann]

I've always thought there was a little to much judder in 35mm film from the 24 frames per second.

I like a little less judder, whether it's 2d or 3d.

I think audiences can easily get used to seeing a motion picture with less judder. It's just one aspect of what makes something look "cinematic".

Give them all the rest, the lighting, contrast ratio, depth of field, dolly shots, etc., maybe a little grain, and they won't even miss the judder. A little grain? Yes, it gives the picture a nice organic feel. Judder? It just makes my eyes hurt.

When I got my first HD camera I thought 24p was a big deal, but I don't use it. I prefer the 30p look, or shoot in 60p for slo mo.

 

[Matthias Hutter]

I can see where 24p people are coming from (kinda 'dreamy' look for dialogue etc.)
But I prefer 50p. 'Medium' speed pans profit the most IMO.

 

[kenneth gruyaert]

You should also look for scenes where people move across the screen, they are unrecognisable.

 

[Troy Smith]

Be cool if someone had some examples showing 48p where it looks nice in a scene, with some drama and some action or even either one, just people moving around, showing how the motion can look great at 48, I understand pans etc benefit, but as soon as someone starts moving around,
even a slow drama scene, it always just looks well, not pleasing, forget whether it looks film like or how ever you want to label it, just would like to see something that we can all see and say, yes this looks great.

If anyone has shot a short or anything like that at a higher rate then 24 and finished at that rate, pls
show us the goods.

 

[kenneth gruyaert]

as soon as someone starts moving around,
even a slow drama scene, it always just looks well, not pleasing

This could simply be because 48fps is not enough, you see smooth moving blurry images rather than something you cant see clearly at all at 24fps. Its like watching a still photo with significant motion blur. This might also be the reason why so many people hate 120-240fps upconverting tv's since they are interpolating blurry images resulting in pretty much the same look as 48fps with 360d shutter plus artifacts.

I have also been hoping to find some 1920x1080p60 videos from the EPIC on vimeo or as a download here but havent found any yet.