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...

Having tested from 24-60FPS in 2D and 3D, I'm very excited to see how The Hobbit looks at 48. I'm not concerned, I'm extremely excited to see the results.

It is interesting to point out that most of the people who are losing sleep over this have never shot 48 for 48 in 3D and taken it all the way through to DCP. With that said, the people who are choosing to shoot their movies at 48+ FPS certainly have... many times over.

Just as there comes a point where you can't judge a camera's performance in Photoshop, there comes a time when you cannot judge a format or frame rate without seeing it as it was intended.

In other words, relax! You'll see...
 
it can play 2k at 48fps but in 4k the limitations are upto 25fps......
 
Hi, I´m new to the forums!
Awesome video!!

Since they shoot in 48p, they could use only 50 % of the frames recorded to get a 24p version if they finally don´t like 48p but I´m pretty sure they shoot mostly on an 180 Degree Shutter -> meaning 96 or 100 so a 24p version would be a little saving private ryan style^^
 
Has anyone thought about the fact that there is no DCI spec for stereo 48fps (96fps total) playback? I'm not sure if I/O in cinemas can handle that at 2K. Perhaps chroma subsampling will have to occur to handle the bandwidth.

Greg
 
Daniel Hicks said:
Peter Jackson talks about the clarity and smoothness of 48fps http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/4877161/Jacksons-Hobbit-to-be-more-lifelike
Click to expand...

I agree with all the points he makes but just because something is technically superior does not mean that it is aesthetically superior. I might be old-fashioned (even though I'm only 20) but there is something beautiful about 24p that higher frame rates are lacking. Yes, I love it because I am used to it but I am alright with admitting that I prefer the inferior format simply because I am used to it. I like Coca Cola because that is what my parents bought, that is what I was raised with. Thus, Pepsi tastes strange to me. Higher frame rates look strange and distracting even if they are technically higher res and easier on the eyes. And if you think about it, the only reason we are considering increasing the frame rate is to aid 3D. If it were not for this stupid 3D trend, we would never be having the 48 fps discussion. I just hope jackson focuses more on bringing the story to life than trying to out FX Cameron. I sincerely hope that Peter does not turn into the next Lucas.
 
Last edited:
Rohan B said:
Iannis Holwech said:
:confused: Pretty confusing reaction....
Click to expand...
Let me make it simple, 48fps if shot on 1/48 means using a 360 degree shutter but 24fps shot on 1/48 means a 180 degree shutter. 1/48 on 48fps is not the same as 1/48 on 24fps and so it will not have the same kind of motion characteristics or blur. if you shoot 48 fps with 1/48 shutter you will get same kind of blur that you will get if you shoot 24fps on 1/24 shutter. If you want the 180 degree motion characteristics on 48fps you will have to set the shutter at 1/96 of a sec,just the way hobbit is being shot... hope this helps clear the confusion.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but it is you that made the confusion because you never read my post properly. Please pay attention another time!

Only thing I was saying was that you have the same motion blur on 48fps at 1/48sek shutter as 24fps at 1/48 shutter. I never spoke of 1/96sek or any other shutterspeed.

This was my reaction to all the 48fps naysayers that haven't figured out that the motion blur from the most common used shutterspeed on 24fps projects will also be available at 48fps projects. So there are no reason for them to claim it will look "videoish" over and over again.
 
Iannis Holwech said:
I'm sorry, but it is you that made the confusion because you never read my post properly. Please pay attention another time!

Only thing I was saying was that you have the same motion blur on 48fps at 1/48sek shutter as 24fps at 1/48 shutter. I never spoke of 1/96sek or any other shutterspeed.

This was my reaction to all the 48fps naysayers that haven't figured out that the motion blur from the most common used shutterspeed on 24fps projects will also be available at 48fps projects. So there are no reason for them to claim it will look "videoish" over and over again.
Click to expand...

I believe that the claim of "videoish" footage has more to do with the increased frame rate rather than the shutter speed. Yes, you can get a 180 degree shutter look with 48 fps but you need to use a shutter speed of 1/96 which would mean that if you did a 24 fps extraction, than you would have 24 fps with a 1/96 shutter which would give a Saving Private Ryan stacato look. But yes, the 180 degree look is possible at 48 fps but it will still look like video because of the increased frame rate.
 
Andrew Rieger said:
I agree with all the points he makes but just because something is technically superior does not mean that it is aesthetically superior. I might be old-fashioned (even though I'm only 20) but there is something beautiful about 24p that higher frame rates are lacking.
Click to expand...
There's some validity in that. Visual effects pioneer Doug Trumbull also comments on 48fps at this link in Daily Variety.

While Trumbull is gung ho about higher frame rates, he points out that the experience is not appropriate for all films. The article also says the same thing I've been saying for a long time:

...many feel the look of 24p, film grain and other artifacts of filmmaking actually help the audience suspend their disbelief. Without this "proscenium effect," the argument goes, auds see actors in makeup on a set instead of characters in a story, or, at least, everything starts to look like a soap opera, so those picture improvements may be counter-productive to dramas.

To back up that fear: I have occasionally checked color-timing on reels in DI theaters at 48fps just to go through the reels twice as fast (to minimize the client's time). During those screenings, we found that 48fps from film absolutely does look more electronic and artificial at this frame rate, but this was with the DI projector itself in 24fps mode, so it's not a fair comparison. My suspicion is that it'll look unusual and striking, and it may take a while for audiences to get used to it.

However, I would never underestimate the skill and knowledge of Jackson, DP Andrew Lesnie, and their extremely-capable staffs. I'm positive they tested the beejezus out of the whole workflow, tried out every possible combination of shutter angle and frame-rate, as well as different projection set-ups. And I bet they already have covered a way to "downconvert" (for lack of a better word) the final film to 24fps for theaters that can't handle 48fps. One assumes that the 24fps output will look more or less like a regular 24fps film.

So without actually seeing it, I think it's too soon to judge what The Hobbit looks like. What I will say again is that I really sympathize with any post house that has to deal with 208MB per frame of data -- 52 megs for a 4K DPX file, 104 megs in 3D, and then double that for 48fps. The data storage requirements for two 3D 4K features that are being shot over an 8-month period is stunning to consider. I suspect at the end, they could easily wind up with over a hundred Petabytes of material for all the footage. All the companies I've dealt with in the last 10 years have trouble and delays just dealing with a more typical 50 or 60 Terabytes for a standard 2K feature -- especially when they're trying to deal with multiple projects at one time.
 
Iannis Holwech said:
I'm sorry, but it is you that made the confusion because you never read my post properly. Please pay attention another time!

Only thing I was saying was that you have the same motion blur on 48fps at 1/48sek shutter as 24fps at 1/48 shutter. I never spoke of 1/96sek or any other shutterspeed.

This was my reaction to all the 48fps naysayers that haven't figured out that the motion blur from the most common used shutterspeed on 24fps projects will also be available at 48fps projects. So there are no reason for them to claim it will look "videoish" over and over again.
Click to expand...

i read ur post properly man and ur still confused , you do not have the same motion blur on 48fps at 1/48sec shutter as 24fps at 1/48 shutter. Simply because 1/48 on 48fps means a 360 degree shutter and its characteristics are not the same as 180 degree shutter. If you want the same kind of motion blur as 24fps at 1/48sec on 48fps then set the shutter at 1/96 of a sec,not at 1/48...........
 
1/48 does not mean 180 degree shutter at all frame rates. 1/48 is equal to a 180 degree shutter only when we are shooting 24fps. when we are shooting 48fps to replicate the 180 degree shutter angle we need to set the shutter at 1/96 of a sec ,not at 1/48,not at 1/48,not at 1/48 !!!
 
I believe it is you who is misunderstanding.

A 24fps rate w/ 180 degree shutter will render an exposure time of (1/24)*(180/360)= 0.21 seconds per frame

A 48fps rate w/ 360 degree shutter will render an exposure time of (1/48)*(360/360)= 0.21 seconds per frame

Therefore the motion blur on each frame will be identical.

Now, with 48fps you are projecting twice as many frames per second, so even though moving objects will blur the exact same amount on each frame, there will be less judder as the will not be the "gap" in between frames associated associated with the 180 shutter (which is also .21 seconds). I suspect this will simply make fil look more fluid, and less "juddery", espcecially on pans. But I've never seen 48fps/360 shutter, so that's just a guess.

I, for one, woulld be very interested in seeing some 48fps/360 tests.

-Steve
 
i will still stick to what i said,i don't want to discuss it anymore.......
 
Actually, Steven is right.
A 180° shutter at 24fps is the same as a 360° shutter at 48 fps, both exposures being 1/48th per frame. So they have both exactly the same motion blur characteristics. I'd be curious to see how that looks.

Plus, that would allow to just skip half the frames to have a perfectly normal looking 24 fps playback in theaters that can't handle 48 fps playback. Sounds pretty smart.
 
1/48th is 1/48th! The motion blur is the same if the exposure TIME is the same, the frame rate doesn't matter.

The confusion is assuming that 180 degrees equals 1/48th, which is only true at 24 fps. So if you shoot 24 fps with a 180 degree shutter (i.e. 1/48th) and 48 fps with a 360 degree shutter (i.e. 1/48th) then the motion blur per frame is the same, because it's 1/48th in both cases.

The problem is that if you are shooting at 48 fps for the improved motion characteristics, you generally don't want to shoot with an open shutter because the motion looks a bit smeary, you're better off at 180 degrees, i.e. 1/96th per frame, which would have the same motion blur per frame as 24 fps shot with a 90 degree shutter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top