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...

Wednesday's Daily Variety had some interesting comments from "Tech Bytes" columnist David Cohen:

Ten days before the "Hobbit" footage debuted, James Cameron told me about the high-frame-rate (HFR) look, "I think there will be people that love it. And there will be people that say it looks like video, because video is the only way they can process something that looks too real. But it's really quite magical."

Cohen draws some interesting conclusions about HFR (high-frame rate):

• The 48 fps format of "The Hobbit" will not be widely adopted, because it's a compromise that doesn't deliver the full impact of HFR;

• Eventually, but probably not soon, the default frame rate for most studio movies will be something around 60 fps, with directors choosing higher or lower frame rates for creative effect;

• Bizzers in both TV and movies are going to be making creative and financial decisions about HFR for years -- maybe forever.

Cohen basically says: 48fps is not enough. Only visionaries like Jim Cameron, about to embark on a 60fps project, will really make a big change.

Interestingly, the article manages to forget that Doug Trumbull was shooting 60fps Showscan back in 1981.

If I had to make a prediction, I'd say that the success of The Hobbit will depend on how good the story is, plus the acting, the direction, the editing, and the effects (not necessarily). I don't think audiences will care about the frame-rate or the camera used, though I'm sure a certain percentage of the viewers will notice it on some level.
 
Marc Wielage said:
Wednesday's Daily Variety had some interesting comments from "Tech Bytes" columnist David Cohen:

Ten days before the "Hobbit" footage debuted, James Cameron told me about the high-frame-rate (HFR) look, "I think there will be people that love it. And there will be people that say it looks like video, because video is the only way they can process something that looks too real. But it's really quite magical."

Cohen draws some interesting conclusions about HFR (high-frame rate):

• The 48 fps format of "The Hobbit" will not be widely adopted, because it's a compromise that doesn't deliver the full impact of HFR;

...
Click to expand...

I think this controversy is basically about how powerful habituation is for the human brain.
Some years ago I read a history of colour film. It contained an anecdote about one of the very first natural colour films, "Frauen sind ja bessere Diplomaten". One of the people involved in the shooting had taken his maid to a preview. Afterwards, he asked her what she thought about the colours. Her reply was "In the beginning it was a bit confusing, but when I got into the story it did not bother me any more".

72fps is the lowest frame rate where most people do not see objectionable flicker. At lower frame rates the brain has to do prosessing to make us see smooth motion. I believe some people who have seen very much low-framerate film are so habituated that they get some kind of abstinence signal when the brain has to do less or no processing. I would like to know how many of the people who believe 24fps is necessary are able to enjoy a theatre performance. For me, the magic of a live performance has never been approached by any recorded media. I believe it could be approached given a big enough field of view at high enough resolution (> 2x the maximum resolution of the human eye) at a high enough framerate with a sufficient dynamic range.
 
Bjørn Vermo said:
I think this controversy is basically about how powerful habituation is for the human brain.
Click to expand...


We are creatures of habit, so we brake away not so easy from what we have become used to, however we do get used to almost anything in time exactly because we are creatures of habit... ;)
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
We are creatures of habit, so we brake away not so easy from what we have become used to, however we do get used to almost anything in time exactly because we are creatures of habit... ;)
Click to expand...

Hehe i would like to test that theory Ketch... How about you let me try get used to those Leica s.c primes ;)

EDIT: Dam just remberd i got nothing to put them on lol :(
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Yes it would. But there would be a gap between them. It would be two non-contiguous 96ths instead of one contiguous 48th.
Click to expand...
Oooops.... The gaps, ouch. There are gaps, yes of course they're there. Man, how did i miss that. :)
You're right, thanks for clarifying.

So thats a simple rule to keep in mind: if you want the freedom to recreate the 24p/180-look while shooting higher fps then the fps must be a multiple of 24 and the shutter angle has to be 360.

P.S. I need a EPIC. :)
 
Last edited:
Yes Maik, that was going to be my question about this controversy, how long was the shutter, I want to try 360 degree at 50 fps (can drop every second frame and do a minor slow down and audio adjustment for 24fps).


I united something a while ago. I saw the fith element being played on a new high contrast screen years back, and they looked like they were wearing costume on a artifical, painted, set from memory. On film it looked OK, but the increased contrast made it look different. You have to be careful with these items and lighting. Just simply getting it right might also be ruined by somebidies TV expanding the contrast.

Bjørn Vermo said:
I think this controversy is basically about how powerful habituation is for the human brain.
Some years ago I read a history of colour film. It contained an anecdote about one of the very first natural colour films, "Frauen sind ja bessere Diplomaten". One of the people involved in the shooting had taken his maid to a preview. Afterwards, he asked her what she thought about the colours. Her reply was "In the beginning it was a bit confusing, but when I got into the story it did not bother me any more".

72fps is the lowest frame rate where most people do not see objectionable flicker. At lower frame rates the brain has to do prosessing to make us see smooth motion. I believe some people who have seen very much low-framerate film are so habituated that they get some kind of abstinence signal when the brain has to do less or no processing. I would like to know how many of the people who believe 24fps is necessary are able to enjoy a theatre performance. For me, the magic of a live performance has never been approached by any recorded media. I believe it could be approached given a big enough field of view at high enough resolution (> 2x the maximum resolution of the human eye) at a high enough framerate with a sufficient dynamic range.
Click to expand...

Funny thing, that directly applies to this, that I have noticed before. I am staying in a place with fluorescent lights. I turned off the light and walked into a very dark room, my eyes however where pulsing a bright image to match the previous light frequency. I don't know if it was to match the bright portion, or the dark portion, but persisted for a brief time.
 
48fps is needed in order to "fix" some problems 3D has. PJ and his pals think "videolike" footage is not as bad as the problems with 24fps that people have been criticizing 3D about. They "fix" one problem and get another. Now they are saying that 48fps is somehow better since it's more realistic. This is clearly BS. These people say 48fps looks better just because they have to use it. All this will be confirmed when PJ makes his next 2D movie and it's 24fps.
 
Josh Snyder said:
48fps is needed in order to "fix" some problems 3D has. PJ and his pals think "videolike" footage is not as bad as the problems with 24fps that people have been criticizing 3D about. They "fix" one problem and get another. Now they are saying that 48fps is somehow better since it's more realistic. This is clearly BS. These people say 48fps looks better just because they have to use it. All this will be confirmed when PJ makes his next 2D movie and it's 24fps.
Click to expand...


Josh,

Peter already said that 48fps is not for all movies, 3D in the other end IMO is, even so I am not signing in to make all my movies in 3D, as at times depending on what my story calls for, I would want to use specific lenses and effects redundant in 3D.
 
Why not chill a little and not use terms like BS when referring to the efforts of Peter Jackson and other people that are genuinely trying to produce as good as possible, from their enormously educated perspective, a better cinematic experience?
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
Josh,

Peter already said that 48fps is not for all movies, 3D in the other end IMO is, even so I am not signing in to make all my movies in 3D, as at times depending on what my story calls for, I would want to use specific lenses and effects redundant in 3D.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is what I mean. If they could shoot 3D in 24fps without having any problems they would. All the "looks better because it looks more realistic" is BS.

Rudi Herbert said:
Why not chill a little and not use terms like BS when referring to the efforts of Peter Jackson and other people that are genuinely trying to produce as good as possible, from their enormously educated perspective, a better cinematic experience?
Click to expand...
I love PJ too but it's the truth. They have to try to "sell" the 48fps "videolike" look because they have to use it.
 
Last edited:
Josh Snyder said:
Yes, this is what I mean. If they could shoot 3D in 24fps without having any problems they would. All the "looks better because it looks more realistic" is BS.
Click to expand...

So you think that strobing and temporal/spacial perception have nothing to do with how "real" it feels to the viewer?
 
Josh Snyder said:
Yes, this is what I mean. If they could shoot 3D in 24fps without having any problems they would. All the "looks better because it looks more realistic" is BS.
Click to expand...

i think this is quite true.. it really is born out of servicing 3D, not from benefiting traditional motion picture; though attempting to change perceptions quicker by broadening audiences exposure to it, would really smooth out the road to their 3D asperations.
 
Stuart English said:
That illustrates a key point about shooting at 48fps. You can get two products out of one digital RAW master.

Shooting 48fps at a nominal 1/48th shutter speed (as EPIC can do) maintains the exposure and motion blur of traditional 24fps capture, which allows you to simply drop alternate frames in post and extract a "normal" 24 fps presentation.

So, 24fps for those who prefer a "traditional" look and 48 fps stereo for those who prefer an "immersive" look.
Click to expand...


And this is exactly what we are doing with "RAPE of a BEAUTY" apart form some 96fps footage for Still Extraction for Print... LOVE EPIC!!
 
Why do I always read "Rape and Beauty"? :D
 
I've actually been wondering if maybe 48 FPS isn't enough of a jump. Maybe to get out of the valley, it really does need to move up to 80 plus or so with a higher shutter speed closer to the normal 180 degree, just to give people more of a "This is different, Ya'll" feeling instead of going for the Goldilocks approach? It seems the shutter is what's throwing people off, so maybe that's the thing we all need to fix. I know, at that realm of frame speed, it makes things pretty ridiculous to handle data-wise, but why go for a half-measure? It doesn't seem to be making people happy... That said, I'm extremely excited (and open minded) to check it out.
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
Why, do they only rape ugly people??


Wait til the first trailers hit the net, then you'll get it... ;)
Click to expand...

I don't know. Sometimes there are some things you always read wrong no matter how many times you have read them :p

Yeah can't wait to see the first footages. Just remember to grade before uploading hehe ;)
 
Josh Snyder said:
I don't know. Sometimes there are some things you always read wrong no matter how many times you have read them :p

Yeah can't wait to see the first footages. Just remember to grade before uploading hehe ;)
Click to expand...


Don't worry, I too have learned my lessons about posting and or showing "UNFINISHED" material... ;)

The footage will go to one of the best Post facilities that exist today, which also specialize in R3D file post processing while I'll be following every step of it.
 
Does anyone here know if there will be 4K 48fps 3D screenings of The Hobbit? Or will it just be 2K?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top