The Hobbit...

[Kris Anderson]

I just heard that The Hobbit is filming at 48fps. I am really sad to hear this. I was hoping to see one of the first films shot on Epic and be blown away. With 48fps it will make Red look like they are just a cheap video camera. It's not Reds fault but Peter Jackson. 48fps should be for slow mo. I won't even go see the film because of this. 24fps is what makes a movie look like a movie. I don't want to watch a film that looks like a soap opera.

I am not putting Red down but am very disapointed in the Directors decision on this. I have also heard they may do the same thing with Avatar 2. I don't know what camera they are using but any film shot the way the news is shot then I won't even go see it.

Why would they decide to do this when LOTR and Avatar were some of the biggest money making movies of all time. Would you change the way you filmed something if it was the biggest money making film of all time?

I still love Red and can't wait to buy an Epic but I will only be using higher frame rates for slow mo or documentary work.

And why would you listen to comments like this when you are the guy responsible for "some of the biggest money making films of all time"? Don't you think the Hobbit guys have been through serious testing to arrive at the 48fps conclusion? Don't you imagine they perceive some sort of considerable benefit that warrants it? Think about it. These guys are hardly amateurs. They know what they're doing and I'm sure they will cope if you decide not to see the film for fear it will look like a "soap opera". (btw... I'd like to know which 48fps productions you have seen that lead you to this conclusion?)

 

[Lorenzo Straight]

I just heard that The Hobbit is filming at 48fps. I am really sad to hear this. I was hoping to see one of the first films shot on Epic and be blown away. With 48fps it will make Red look like they are just a cheap video camera. It's not Reds fault but Peter Jackson. 48fps should be for slow mo. I won't even go see the film because of this. 24fps is what makes a movie look like a movie. I don't want to watch a film that looks like a soap opera.

I am not putting Red down but am very disapointed in the Directors decision on this. I have also heard they may do the same thing with Avatar 2. I don't know what camera they are using but any film shot the way the news is shot then I won't even go see it.

Why would they decide to do this when LOTR and Avatar were some of the biggest money making movies of all time. Would you change the way you filmed something if it was the biggest money making film of all time?

I still love Red and can't wait to buy an Epic but I will only be using higher frame rates for slow mo or documentary work.

Oh, Mr. Corey. Have you not read Peter's comments on the subject of 48fps. Maybe you should. Cheap video camera, Lol.

 

[Maik Müller]

It looks like most people think 48p-movies will look like the upconverted movies they've seen on lcd/plasma-tvs with their crappy interpolation or like (live-)tv or bad daily soaps shot on video-cameras.

And thats a big failure... The framerate is just one single aspect of the whole film-look.

Lots of camera-makers think they can sell 24p-shooting as holy grail to archive cinematic look, but thats just marketing or does everything shot on those cheap videocameras look like film, just because you've set it to 24p?

Just stay open-minded until you've seen real footage. There is enough time for analyzing after you've seen the results.
And keep in mind, it should be easy to generate a great looking classical 24p-transfer from 48p-sources, they'll have to do it anyway (for older cinemas and home-video-releases). You can go back from 48p to 24p, its not a one-way-ticket.

Whatever, i'm sure it will look great, i applaud to Peter choosing the 48p-path, it's about time to leave the old 24p-barrier behind us.
RED finally made it possible, i can't thank you enough, not only as future customer, also as simple movie-lover.

I'm really excited about that new experience, 3D/48p-movie, can't wait to see how it looks.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

It looks like most people think 48p-movies will look like the upconverted movies they've seen on lcd/plasma-tvs with their crappy interpolation or like (live-)tv or bad daily soaps shot on video-cameras.

And thats a big failure... The framerate is just one single aspect of the whole film-look.

Lots of camera-makers think they can sell 24p-shooting as holy grail to archive cinematic look, but thats just marketing or does everything shot on those cheap videocameras look like film, just because you've set it to 24p?

Just stay open-minded until you've seen real footage. There is enough time for analyzing after you've seen the results.
And keep in mind, it should be easy to generate a great looking classical 24p-transfer from 48p-sources, they'll have to do it anyway (for older cinemas and home-video-releases). You can go back from 48p to 24p, its not a one-way-ticket.

Whatever, i'm sure it will look great, i applaud to Peter choosing the 48p-path, it's about time to leave the old 24p-barrier behind us.
RED finally made it possible, i can't thank you enough, not only as future customer, also as simple movie-lover.

I'm really excited about that new experience, 3D/48p-movie, can't wait to see how it looks.

Not true about the clean 24fps transfer. In order to get the 180 degree shutter look at 24fps, you need to shoot with a shutter speed of 1/96 which means that the 24fps will also have a 1/96 shutter speed giving it that odd Saving Private Ryan stacato shutter look.

I am not a fan of this 48 fps crap. They are boosting the frame rate just to make 3D easier to swallow. It's not about making movies better, it is about selling tickets and 3D allows then to jack up the prices. Simple economics. Oh well. I liked Jackson but he is quickly becoming the next Lucas and let's face it, his films post LOTR have been anything but good. When will Hollywood learn that good stories sell tickets, not 3D 120 fps theme park attractions. What is happening to this industry?

 

[Lorenzo Straight]

Another argument for increased frame rate shooting.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/james-cameron-fully-intends-make-172916

 

[Emiliano Ranzani]

In the past years, I've been doing some EFP work at 50fps: the hyper-movement works very well for TV (especially when you're shooting sports and animals) and it looks better than interlaced, but honestly, I don't really see why movies should be shot that way. Sure, there will be some minor advantages, like little-to-no flicker - even the infamous rolling shutter would be less frequent, but movies will loose the unreal, dreamlike quality delivered by 24fps.

 

[Nils Ruinet]

In the past years, I've been doing some EFP work at 50fps: the hyper-movement works very well for TV (especially when you're shooting sports and animals) and it looks better than interlaced, but honestly, I don't really see why movies should be shot that way. Sure, there will be some minor advantages, like little-to-no flicker - even the infamous rolling shutter would be less frequent, but movies will loose the unreal, dreamlike quality delivered by 24fps.

I don't think the rolling shutter changes with the frame rate.
Other than that, I totatlly agree with you when you speak of the "dreamlike quality" of 24 fps. That will definately be lost with 48p, and that's my biggest concern...

 

[Emiliano Ranzani]

I don't think the rolling shutter changes with the frame rate.

It does. Get a CMOS camera (say the EX1\EX3) and set it to 50p: you'll see that the rolling shutter is highly reduced.

What most people don't realize is that what we now call "rolling shutter" pops out when shooting film as well, because of the 24fps frame rate.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

It does. Get a CMOS camera (say the EX1\EX3) and set it to 50p: you'll see that the rolling shutter is highly reduced.

What most people don't realize is that what we now call "rolling shutter" pops out when shooting film as well, because of the 24fps frame rate.

Hmmm... it seems to me you may be confusing rolling shutter with motion blur. Rolling shutter is not dependent on frame rate or shutter speed, it is caused by the read-reset time of the sensor; the time it takes to read each line of the sensor, progressively from top to bottom. I believe RED has gotten it down to less than 10 ms in Epic so it has pretty much been eliminated as a visual problem. It is my understanding that some cameras with severe rolling shutter issues have read-reset times of as much as 30 ms.

Film does indeed have a "rolling shutter" as Jim has often pointed out, but it is about 4 ms. and we are so used to it, it seems very "normal." The film "rolling shutter" is the time it takes for the opening film blade to move across the shutter to fully expose the whole film frame. In this 4 ms. time frame, things do "wobble" slightly. This might be why a global shutter seems so sterile.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Rolling shutter is not dependent on frame rate or shutter speed, it is caused by the read-reset time of the sensor; the time it takes to read each line of the sensor, progressively from top to bottom.

Correct. And the read/reset timing is the same, no matter the shutter speed or frame rate. As far as "rolling shutter" or "skew" is concerned, frame rate has nothing to do with it. It's all about the exposure time of each frame (shutter speed) and the speed of the motion of what's being photographed. Same with motion blur, all about the exposure time and subject motion. Longer exposure times can hide rolling shutter skew, because the overall exposure time for the image plane is greater in proportion to the reset or shutter action. Likewise, shorter exposure times can exaggerate the skew because the overall exposure time for the image plane is shorter in proportion to the reset or shutter action period. Film or digital, this applies. If you want to see extreme skew (film or digital) us a very fast shutter speed. Even easier on digital, like the RED One, where you can set insane shutter speeds like 1/20000s. Any motion at all shows almost nothing but skew because the sensor reset period on the RED One would account for nearly half of the total exposure time at that insane shutter speed.

I believe RED has gotten it down to less than 10 ms in Epic so it has pretty much been eliminated as a visual problem. It is my understanding that some cameras with severe rolling shutter issues have read-reset times of as much as 30 ms.

It's a bit under 9ms on the RED One. Epic is about 4.5ms, or very close to the action of many mechanical shutters in film cameras.

Film does indeed have a "rolling shutter" as Jim has often pointed out, but it is about 4 ms. and we are so used to it, it seems very "normal." The film "rolling shutter" is the time it takes for the opening film blade to move across the shutter to fully expose the whole film frame. In this 4 ms. time frame, things do "wobble" slightly. This might be why a global shutter seems so sterile.

Yep. As fast as a mechanical shutter may seem, there is still a temporal difference in the start and end of exposure across the film plane. Much the same way there is a temporal difference on the reset action of a digital sensor. The primary difference here is not so much a difference in timing, but how it looks. Most film shutters cut across the image on an angle and they are defocused as they sit in front of the image plane. So you have an organic, soft transitional edge. With digital, it is very defined by the pixel raster and in extreme cases can be more apparent. A good example of an extreme case would be a split exposure from a strobe light or a muzzle flash on a firearm, which occurs when part of a frame has finished exposing before a certain event takes place. So you may see the strobe in only half of the frame or only a portion of the muzzle flash. You can get split-frame exposure with film, but it's very organic, once again the soft-edge transition and light can leak around the still-closing shutter. In digital, once a photosite on the sensor is closed and being read, that's it. So if one row of photosites and everything before that row exposed a dark room, that's what you see on that half of the frame. If everything after it was exposed with a flash from a strobe, then that's what you see on that half of the frame... With film, there will be an organic bleed and soft edge between the two exposures. With digital, it's a razor-sharp, hard-lined, on/off difference.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Not true about the clean 24fps transfer. In order to get the 180 degree shutter look at 24fps, you need to shoot with a shutter speed of 1/96 which means that the 24fps will also have a 1/96 shutter speed giving it that odd Saving Private Ryan stacato shutter look.

I am not a fan of this 48 fps crap. They are boosting the frame rate just to make 3D easier to swallow. It's not about making movies better, it is about selling tickets and 3D allows then to jack up the prices. Simple economics. Oh well. I liked Jackson but he is quickly becoming the next Lucas and let's face it, his films post LOTR have been anything but good. When will Hollywood learn that good stories sell tickets, not 3D 120 fps theme park attractions. What is happening to this industry?

Andrew, this debate has raged on soooooo many times. 24p won't die, it will alway be part of the film experience. How can we judge 48fps 3D when none of us have truly seen it done by a master Director/DP/Stereographer?

And it in terms of Hollywood being profit-driven ... duh. It's always been that way. Making great films is a lucky byproduct of the Hollywood profit machine. And while today you could argue that the emphasis on effects, 3D, etc (with less emphasis on story) is hurting the quality of movies today compared to the past ... social media (including review sites like Rotten Tomatoes) are giving us far more checks and balances that severely punish bad films -- especially here in the United States. All the marketing hype in the world can't stop someone from jumping online, checking RT and seeing that a film like Little Red Riding Hood got a 12%, which means I'll never see it -- though in past times, without such tools, I might have fallen victim to the hype.

All this is to say that 48fps is not going to kill cinema. Nor is Hollywood's focus on profits. On the contrary, because of competition for consumer dollars and social media, I think the burden of quality is going to be even higher on films in the future. Of course, we may never surpass the timeless classics ... but we may have new classics.

Some of which will be in 24fps ... while others could very well be shot in 48fps.

Exciting time to be part of all this

Anthony

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Thanks for the confirmation and elaboration, Jeff!

 

[Emiliano Ranzani]

Hmmm... it seems to me you may be confusing rolling shutter with motion blur. Rolling shutter is not dependent on frame rate or shutter speed, it is caused by the read-reset time of the sensor; the time it takes to read each line of the sensor, progressively from top to bottom. I believe RED has gotten it down to less than 10 ms in Epic so it has pretty much been eliminated as a visual problem. It is my understanding that some cameras with severe rolling shutter issues have read-reset times of as much as 30 ms.

Film does indeed have a "rolling shutter" as Jim has often pointed out, but it is about 4 ms. and we are so used to it, it seems very "normal." The film "rolling shutter" is the time it takes for the opening film blade to move across the shutter to fully expose the whole film frame. In this 4 ms. time frame, things do "wobble" slightly. This might be why a global shutter seems so sterile.

I am not confused.

Motion blur is the "blurred" effect appearing in movement, very evident at 24\25 progressive. It contrasts with the hyper-movement obtained at 50p or interlaced and it's the source of the "dream-like" appearance of traditional films I was referring to in my previous post.

What I am referring with "rolling shutter" in this case is the deformation occurring in images during fast camera movements (swish-pans being the most common) with medium and long lenses. It is greatly reduced with higher frame rates (again, 50p). While in the digital world is caused by a "glitch" in CMOS sensors (CCDs capture every line at the same time - that's why Sony keeps using them in their high-end broadcast cameras), it also manifests in film. If you don't think the term it's right when talking about film cameras, fine, let's call it "skewing".

Even though reading times have been improved in the latest incarnations of the MX, the little gremlin is still around and faster frame rates can reduce it.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I am not confused.

Motion blur is the "blurred" effect appearing in movement, very evident at 24\25 progressive. It contrasts with the hyper-movement obtained at 50p or interlaced.

What I am referring with "rolling shutter" in this case is the deformation occurring in images during fast camera movements (swish-pans being the most common) with medium and long lenses. It is greatly reduced with higher frame rates (again, 50p). While in the digital world is caused by a "glitch" in CMOS sensors (CCDs capture every line at the same time - that's why Sony keeps using them in their high-end broadcast cameras), it also manifests in film. If you don't think the term it's right when talking about film cameras, fine, let's call it "skewing".

Even though reading times have been improved in the latest incarnations of the MX, the little gremlin is still around and faster frame rates can reduce it.

Sorry but you are really going to have to explain how faster frame rates effect rolling shutter artifacts. Rolling shutter is caused by the difference in time between when the first line in the frame is read and the last. As has been said, this can be anywhere from 4+ ms in Epic to as much as 30 ms (or more?) in some less competent DSLRs. Exposure time, which can't be any less than the inverse of the frame rate, is the time each line is "open" to gather light. And, as we both know, typically a shutter speed is selected which is twice the inverse of the frame rate; i.e. at 24 fps, you'd choose a shutter speed of 1/48th. Motion blur is what happens when a whole object moves during the course of the shutter being open; in this case, the 1/48th of a second. It generally looks like the whole object has a little blur on it depending on which way it moves in the frame.

Rolling shutter "skew" is what happens when something moves between the time it is exposed in the first line of the sensor and when it is exposed in the last line. If that time is short, the top of the frame doesn't "skew" much from the bottom. If, however, that time is longer - say, 20 or more ms, and there is rapid horizontal movement in the frame, then any vertical lines in the frame appear to bend in the direction the object is moving. This is not about a blurring look but the bend or "skew" of vertical lines. The two things are very different and caused by different phenomena. Like I said, you really will have to enlighten me as to how one will effect the other. :huh:

 

[Jannard]

Frame rates don't effect skew. Read-reset times do.

Jim

 

[Steve Dent]

Jackson's (and James Cameron's) take on higher framerates is that they feel it's necessary to improve the experience for 3D. 24 fps is fine for 2D, and higher framerates often don't look great in 2D. But 24 fps is one of the things about 3D that can give you a headache (bad convergence being the other), because the stacatto motion is more apparent. The higher framerates, apparently, make 3D more immersive and natural, almost like you're really "there", and in 3D, it doesn't look like "bad video" at all.

It seems like those guys are doing paradigm shifts in cinema every time they make a new movie, but they're not doing change for the sake of change. They heard the all the points of criticism of 3D after Avatar and other 3d films, and they're trying to fix them, to try to improve the 3D viewing experience for the general audience. And hopefully make a shitload of money

 

[Nils Ruinet]

Frame rates don't effect skew. Read-reset times do.

Jim

That's what I thought. Thanks for the confirmation

 

[Filip Orlandic]

Peter Jackson's facebook note....

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.

More soon ....

Cheers,
Peter J

It must be good

 

[Jörgen Persson]

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.

But isn't this a contradiction?
270 degrees on 48 fps would give the converted 24 fps a 135 degree shutter "look" - which is more stroby than regular 24 fps/180 degree shutter.

For example: If you shoot 720/50p with no shutter (360 degrees) and then either remove every other frame or slow it down to 50% - you can show it as 25p with the 180 degree shutter "look".
The 24 fps master for The Hobbit seems like a compromise the way he describes it. Either I am missing something in the equation or there's something in the mentioned "digital processes during post production" that I'm not aware of.

Thoughts?

 

[michael zaletel]

Peter Jackson's facebook note....



It must be good

Why would 270 degree shutter at 48fps give a silky look at 48fps that also looks great at 24fps (even better than 24fps at 180 degree shutter). Can someone elaborate?

-michael zaletel