Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 shot on Epic at 48fps

I personally don't feel that the tech existed to do it well at a reasonable price before RED ONE, You could do a whole film on RED ONE at 3K and get your 48fps. With EPIC you get the full 5K, EPIC obviously wins this and is the only economic choice. Yes Phantom I know you are out there but price points don't work, and number of cameras don't work. I wonder what IMAX thinks?
 
Jannard said:
People often generate preconceived notions on a variety of things.

1st and foremost... "thats' the way it has always been done and this is different so I probably won't like it".

Second is "a friend in the industry (substitute any number of titles here) told me it wasn't any good". His opinion most likely came from #1 or #3.

Third is "well, I know I don't like that other thing, and this might be like it... so I probably know for sure that I won't like this".

Truth is... not many of us have actually seen 3D 48fps with a 48fps playback. So we have to defer to one of the above three, or "wait and see..."

Jim
Click to expand...

I bet 3D at 48fps will look great. Probably easier on the eyes and a more comfortable experience. Curious how I will respond emotionally to it. I HAVE seen 48 fps 2D projected at 48fps on a huge screen at the DGA. It was truly awful.
 
Can most digital projectors in theaters now project at 48fps? Can't wait to see what it looks like.
 
48fps in 3D (and specifically in 3D) is much easier on the eyes. Less fatigue and more natural to watch.
More dreamlike than 24 which was unexpected.
 
M Most said:
My guess is that if a RealD type system is used that it might revert to double flash for a higher frame rate, but the reason for the triple flash is to minimize viewer discomfort by minimizing the temporal differences between left and right eye delivery. I don't know the physics of how that might work at a lower presentation rate but with twice the number of original frames. That's a question for Lucas, perhaps. Or Lenny Lipton, if he's reading this...
Click to expand...

Whipping out the Lenny Lipton shout out, nice! Seriously though, I have been generally unimpressed by 3D presentations I have seen so far so IMHO its worth trying 48fps to see if it helps. I also am willing to give Park Road Post some credit for having done proper tests before making the choice. Just sayin'

Cheers - #19
 
Darren Orange said:
Yes Phantom I know you are out there but price points don't work, and number of cameras don't work. I wonder what IMAX thinks?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure IMAX is actually using Phantom 65 cameras as their "digital IMAX cameras".
 
Darren Orange said:
I personally don't feel that the tech existed to do it well at a reasonable price before RED ONE, You could do a whole film on RED ONE at 3K and get your 48fps. With EPIC you get the full 5K, EPIC obviously wins this and is the only economic choice. Yes Phantom I know you are out there but price points don't work, and number of cameras don't work. I wonder what IMAX thinks?
Click to expand...
Has anyone heard what framerates Epic S will do?
 
24p is great

24p is great

For the last 30 years I have been interested in getting the “Film Look” with video. Ten years ago it was a revolution to have a video camera do 24p, the DVX-100. We have wanted 24p for a long time. Now you are about to throw it our the window. Do I want my media productions to look like soap operas? Yuck! When I saw “Avatar” on a 260 htz set it looked like a soap opera. The motion was wrong. I purposely use a data projector to watch movies at home so there will be no post processing.

There is a reason motion pictures have standardize on 24p, it looks right to the human eye. When I watch a film, I want to be lifted out to reality into a good story. I don’t want to see reality, I want to escape to the movies. I first saw Doug Trumbell’s Showscan at Showwest before it was released to the public. It was truly amazing. I then called it “Live Film”. It looked like real life. I thought the person on the screen was there. But it proved to not work well for long form dramatic films. It did work great for theme park rides where you want to simulate reality. Even IMAX uses 24p for it frame rate. There is something pleasing about watching a good film. Don’t through the baby with the bathwater.

Don’t get me started about the silliness of 3D and how it takes you out of the film experience.
 
halfmac said:
For the last 30 years I have been interested in getting the “Film Look” with video. Ten years ago it was a revolution to have a video camera do 24p, the DVX-100. We have wanted 24p for a long time. Now you are about to throw it our the window. Do I want my media productions to look like soap operas? Yuck! When I saw “Avatar” on a 260 htz set it looked like a soap opera. The motion was wrong. I purposely use a data projector to watch movies at home so there will be no post processing.

There is a reason motion pictures have standardize on 24p, it looks right to the human eye. When I watch a film, I want to be lifted out to reality into a good story. I don’t want to see reality, I want to escape to the movies. I first saw Doug Trumbell’s Showscan at Showwest before it was released to the public. It was truly amazing. I then called it “Live Film”. It looked like real life. I thought the person on the screen was there. But it proved to not work well for long form dramatic films. It did work great for theme park rides where you want to simulate reality. Even IMAX uses 24p for it frame rate. There is something pleasing about watching a good film. Don’t through the baby with the bathwater.

Don’t get me started about the silliness of 3D and how it takes you out of the film experience.
Click to expand...

Yes 24fps is great and we all respect that. But one of the reasons the DVX100 succeeded commercially was it offered the option of shooting 24p or 60i, i.e. horses for courses. So we should not be decrying "losing" 24 fps, we should be embracing new options of 48 p and 60 p and maybe 72 p. This won't look like TV, because TV is low definition, low dynamic range, edge sharpened, interlaced etc etc etc.
 
Stuart English said:
Yes 24fps is great and we all respect that. But one of the reasons the DVX100 succeeded commercially was it offered the option of shooting 24p or 60i, i.e. horses for courses. So we should not be decrying "losing" 24 fps, we should be embracing new options of 48 p and 60 p and maybe 72 p. This won't look like TV, because TV is low definition, low dynamic range, edge sharpened, interlaced etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

I would argue that one of the main reasons for the success of the DVX100 was that it offered 24p and was the first HDV camcorder to do so. Everyone could do 60i already. It wasn't about choices, it was about getting a relatively cheap camcorder that could do 24p. To me that's a bad example, even though I don't necessarily disagree with your point.
 
M Most said:
I would argue that one of the main reasons for the success of the DVX100 was that it offered 24p and was the first HDV camcorder to do so. Everyone could do 60i already. It wasn't about choices, it was about getting a relatively cheap camcorder that could do 24p. To me that's a bad example, even though I don't necessarily disagree with your point.
Click to expand...

i agree - 24P was the "Holy Grail"- we were all waiting for HD cameras to FINALLY be able to do 24P at 1080. It was quite a deal when the DVX could do it in SD and the F900 could do it in HD. Remember companies like Filmlook who tried to give a 24P "look" to 60i footage. We all worked so hard to get film motion out of video. It does seem strange that just when this looks like it's getting perfect, people are going back to smoother motion. The other funny thing is that we've been trying for so long to have smaller and smaller cameras. out comes the HVX, the 5D, and now the Epic. Awesome, finally cameras are so small - imagine the flexibility. So exciting. BUT wait no let's put 2 of them on a huge rig for 3D and make it big and cumbersome again! Oh well....
 
No one will forget the 24P boom and what it meant to panasonic and then to canon. But lets not forget, video is far behind us. And ugly motion is more a product of "shutter crime" (360 degrees) than frame rates. Likely we'll all look back on the days when we only shot with one camera.
 
Just in case you missed it from the FB page this is what PJ had to say about it to the average Joe.

"Time for an update. Actually, we've been intending to kick off with a video, which is almost done, so look out for that in the next day or two. In the meantime, I thought I'd address the news that has been reported about us shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 frames per second, and explain to you what my thoughts are about this.

We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps, rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920's). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok--and we've all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years--but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or "strobe."

Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D. We've been watching HOBBIT tests and dailies at 48 fps now for several months, and we often sit through two hours worth of footage without getting any eye strain from the 3-D. It looks great, and we've actually become used to it now, to the point that 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!

Originally, 24 fps was chosen based on the technical requirements of the early sound era. I suspect it was the minimum speed required to get some audio fidelity out of the first optical sound tracks. They would have settled on the minimum speed because of the cost of the film stock. 35mm film is expensive, and the cost per foot (to buy the negative stock, develop it and print it), has been a fairly significant part of any film budget.

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.

None of this thinking is new. Doug Trumbull developed and promoted a 60 frames per second process called ShowScan about 30 years ago and that looked great. Unfortunately it was never adopted past theme park use. I imagine the sheer expense of burning through expensive film stock at the higher speed (you are charged per foot of film, which is about 18 frames), and the projection difficulties in cinemas, made it tough to use for "normal" films, despite looking amazing. Actually, if anybody has been on the Star Tours ride at Disneyland, you've experienced the life like quality of 60 frames per second. Our new King Kong attraction at Universal Studios also uses 60 fps.

Now that the world's cinemas are moving towards digital projection, and many films are being shot with digital cameras, increasing the frame rate becomes much easier. Most of the new digital projectors are capable of projecting at 48 fps, with only the digital servers needing some firmware upgrades. We tested both 48 fps and 60 fps. The difference between those speeds is almost impossible to detect, but the increase in quality over 24 fps is significant.

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. It's similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs. There's no doubt in my mind that we're heading towards movies being shot and projected at higher frame rates.

Warner Bros. have been very supportive, and allowed us to start shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps, despite there never having been a wide release feature film filmed at this higher frame rate. We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out where we can seriously explore that possibility with Warner Bros. However, while it's predicted that there may be over 10,000 screens capable of projecting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps by our release date in Dec, 2012, we don’t yet know what the reality will be. It is a situation we will all be monitoring carefully. I see it as a way of future-proofing THE HOBBIT. Take it from me--if we do release in 48 fps, those are the cinemas you should watch the movie in. It will look terrific!"
 
WELL WELL WELL, DEFINITELY LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS NEW EXPERIENCE,I AM A BIT SKEPTICAL ,AND I WOULD ADMIT IT ,ABOUT 48FPS, BUT FRANKLY I HAVE NEVER SEEN 48FPS PLAYED BACK AT 48 FPS,SO I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMMENT,SO WHO KNOWS MAYBE WE SKEPTICAL ONES WILL BE THE ONES WHO WOULD LIKE IT THE MOST, WE HAVE A TENDENCY OF SCOFFING AT ANY NEW IDEAS OR INNOVATIONS,SO I WOULD SAY TO ALL THOSE COMPLAINING,LETS JUST WAIT AND WATCH FOR THE MOVIE TO COME OUT AND THEN START CRITICIZING............................
 
How are they going to project this film ?
does DCP support 48fps ?
also i am wondering if 50P is allowed as well.....let say that for artistic reason (more Life like images) we want shoot and deliver (theater) at 50P is it possible ?
thanks

g
 
sorry guys , i think i found out the DCI support 48fps (even for 2D images right ?) (but i guess no 50P ??)

1 more question : shooting 48fps ...what happen for home video like bluray ??there is some sort of pulldown that create 60P off the 48P ?

thanks

g
 
i do apologize ... 1 more question :

how is possible to day to edit 48fps ? i mean having a proper sdi video signal etc... ?

thanks

g
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top