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...

David Mullen ASC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Likewise, cadence or gap between motion blur would be proportionally similar.

The disadvantage to shooting 48fps at 180 (1/96th) is if you drop every other frame for a 24fps deliverable, the shutter is too short now. A compromise between the two is one option...

In the future, 96fps @ 360 shutter may end up being the sweet spot as you can merge two consecutive frames for the equivalent of a 24p/180deg for 2D release and choose 3 or 4 consecutive for 3D (3 would be like 270deg shutter).
 
This is interesting. Until now, the standard has always been a 180° shutter (so around 1/48th depending on frame rate). But that's also because film cameras didn't allow 360° shutter.

I mean, I hate 360° shutter at 24 fps, way to much motion blur in my opinion. The same way I've always hated any 50p or 60p footage I've seen so far, even when it was well shot. Just looked video-ish to me. Hell, coming from a PAL (25p) country, even the 30p I had to shoot recently in Mexico looked bad in my opinion on that matter.

I'm still very curious to see how 48p will look in 3D. It scares me, but I really want to like it... I'd also be very curious about seing 48fps 360° shutter footage. I can't see why that would look worse than 180° shutter. Now that we can, wouldn't 360° shutter be the way to go when shooting footage for higher fps playback ?

Is the Hobbit shooting at 180° or 360° shutter at 48fps ?
 
Deanan said:
Likewise, cadence or gap between motion blur would be proportionally similar.

The disadvantage to shooting 48fps at 180 (1/96th) is if you drop every other frame for a 24fps deliverable, the shutter is too short now. A compromise between the two is one option...

In the future, 96fps @ 360 shutter may end up being the sweet spot as you can merge two consecutive frames for the equivalent of a 24p/180deg for 2D release and choose 3 or 4 consecutive for 3D (3 would be like 270deg shutter).
Click to expand...

Definitely something worth considering and experiment on... ;)
 
I just want to toss this out there also. A film "Crank 2" shot on video aka HDV at 24fps on Canon cameras filmed at 1/1000 and even 1/2000 shutter speed. I personally found the action to be extremely smooth and it lacked pretty much any motion blur.

I would argue that it helped make the video camera feel less like video and more like film. I can't confirm this but I expect that this is what was done on 28 days later as well.

Frankness of it, the judder is one thing, but the judder effect/problem is part of the film look. I'd say the biggest issue 3D has had is motion blur. The brain can't process 3D motion blur much like it can't process out of focus 3D effects. The problems can be compared.

Frankly the next thing will be to ditch limited depth of field and move back to 2/3" chips. After in the past film had to be larger to get more resolution, no so anymore. Canon proves this with their hairdryer that shoots 4K on a 2/3" chip.

Higher frame rates to me mean a bump up of all the infrastructure to suport it. Lets take 4K 3D at 48fps resolution vs 2K 3D at 24fps. The 4K 3D at 48fps takes 16 times more Data than 2K 3D at 24fps. What systems are ready for that kind of data? IMAX digital can't even handle that. So you would have to have 2 Sony 4K projectors running at 48fps. Is my math and logic right here?

I think we will most likely see 2K 3D at 24FPS for Hobbit, unless you see it on an IMAX digital screen you might get to see 2K 3D at 48fps. It's cost preventative, at least for now to see it any other way in the finished pipe line.

Not to say it won't change but I am not aware of any theater with 2 4K projectors for 3D. If it does change it'll start with IMAX.

I can't say I know everything, so correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Darren Orange said:
Higher frame rates to me mean a bump up of all the infrastructure to suport it. Lets take 4K 3D at 48fps resolution vs 2K 3D at 24fps. The 4K 3D at 48fps takes 16 times more Data than 2K 3D at 24fps. What systems are ready for that kind of data? IMAX digital can't even handle that. So you would have to have 2 Sony 4K projectors running at 48fps. Is my math and logic right here?
Click to expand...

Side note: on the capture side, 5k at 48fps at REDcode 6:1 is still quite a bit less than 2k uncompressed at 24fps.
 
This has been a very interesting thread. Personally, I hope 48fps becomes the new standard.
 
Darren Orange said:
Frankly the next thing will be to ditch limited depth of field and move back to 2/3" chips. After in the past film had to be larger to get more resolution, no so anymore. Canon proves this with their hairdryer that shoots 4K on a 2/3" chip.
Click to expand...

I have the exact opposite opinion on DOF in 3D. I can't stand deep focus in 3D. Everything out of convergence is suddenly doubled. When the non-convergence 3D is out of focus it blends smoothly and is less noticeable. It still feels like it's stereo but the parts which don't need depth just become out mind. On the other hand when I watch something like an animated 3D film with infinite depth of field the background bugs me since I'm seeing double.
 
with digital we will movie to even bigger sensor sizes that were commercially not so viable for everyone, for example there has been verry few films shot on 70mm but they looked damn good and more grandeur and larger than life,but they were used on verry few films compared to the films shot on the standard 35mm films. Well 35mm is expensive and 70mm is just its double price and half the amount of footage,so it was not verry commercially viable for everyone,but with digital we don't need to worry about that, we can easily make the sensor size to 70mm or even larger, and also add more resolution without further shrinking the size of the pixels. If a 35mm mx sensor can give 5k resolution with 13.5 f stops of dynamic range then a 70mm monstro can easily give 10k of resolution with 15 or 16 stops of dynamic range and latitude. and with 4k projection slowly becoming common 10k resolution would be great,a down sampled 4k from a 10k source file would look great,verry clean and verry sharp...........
 
Great to hear the hobbit is being filmed on EPIC.

I'm pretty sure it will be a great test bed for all types of things that will be included in the final release of the camera.
In Peter Jackson's latest comment in his Facebook page he commented that the film would be shot on 48fps.

Now I'm wondering if that is a feature that could also be made available on the RED one? As I'm pretty sure it currently doesn't go up that high.
 
Rohan B said:
with digital we will movie to even bigger sensor sizes that were commercially not so viable for everyone, for example there has been verry few films shot on 70mm but they looked damn good and more grandeur and larger than life,but they were used on verry few films compared to the films shot on the standard 35mm films. Well 35mm is expensive and 70mm is just its double price and half the amount of footage,so it was not verry commercially viable for everyone,but with digital we don't need to worry about that, we can easily make the sensor size to 70mm or even larger, and also add more resolution without further shrinking the size of the pixels. If a 35mm mx sensor can give 5k resolution with 13.5 f stops of dynamic range then a 70mm monstro can easily give 10k of resolution with 15 or 16 stops of dynamic range and latitude. and with 4k projection slowly becoming common 10k resolution would be great,a down sampled 4k from a 10k source file would look great,verry clean and verry sharp...........
Click to expand...

Great point Rohan. Totally agree. Now we just need hard drive capacities to take another evolutionary jump so we can hold all that ultra HD footage.
 
Deanan said:
Side note: on the capture side, 5k at 48fps at REDcode 6:1 is still quite a bit less than 2k uncompressed at 24fps.
Click to expand...

Sure on the capture side, but what theater handles anything but uncompressed or JPEG 2000 or something along those lines? (in a digital world)

Again RED might be able to fix this on the final "release print" but will people accept it? I've heard RED Ray is having issues with DCP endorsement is that true?
 
Darren Orange said:
Sure on the capture side, but what theater handles anything but uncompressed or JPEG 2000 or something along those lines? (in a digital world)

Again RED might be able to fix this on the final "release print" but will people accept it? I've heard RED Ray is having issues with DCP endorsement is that true?
Click to expand...
...and where exactly did you hear this? Source?
 
No issues we know of regarding REDray and distribution issues. Let's see how it goes as we get these out there. Our theory has always been... build something better and people will figure out a way to use it.

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