Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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...

Tobias Ashenheim said:
i was thinking, what if u reverse engineered this.. if u downloaded the 24p trailer.. twixor'd it to 50% speed then changed the time base to 48fps and reattached the audio... then uploaded it...

would you get a lawsuite?
Click to expand...
No one cares what people do with trailers.
 
For 100 years we've been spoon-fed the status quo. Now when we finally get a choice in the exhibition marketplace, people are up in arms. Saying you don't like 48fps is akin to saying: "I'm old and out of touch." Your kids will love it. The technology gives you your preferred format, buy your tickets at the venue of your choosing. This disruption is merely the tip of the iceberg for what's coming...
 
Andrew Walker said:
I've seen a lot of tests over at Warner Bros. in the last 8 months or so showing 48fps 3D. I've never liked it as it looks like video and the action seems way too fast and almost sped up. The good thing is that I've seen the footage in 2D and 3D converted from 48fps to 24fps and it looks like it was shot at 24fps. What I've seen of the Hobbit it looks amazing...the 24fps version that is.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Stuart, this harkens back to the conversation we had just about two years ago now: http://reduser.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-45127.html

I'm looking forward to getting a chance to see how this looks finally!

-sc
 
We're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here: The issue is a minor one. Hardly something to be classed as much of an innovation at this point in time. We haven't been "spoon fed" anything, we simply made the best of the tech that was at hand. And we did such a great job, it has led us to this place. The point is not whether the technique is good or bad, it is whether it is good or bad in the context of this particular piece: The Hobbit. And that remains to be seen.
 
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...

Everyone should watch some footage before deciding whether it's good or not, but coming from this statement I'm guessing that one of the characteristics that may throw some people off is motion blur. 1/48 is great for 24fps (180º shutter), but it's the most videoey artifact you can get in 48fps. At that frame rate the shutter speed should be 1/96. That is, of course, if you want to emulate a filmic look. And this IS about a certain look, that some may like and some may not, but it would surely throw me off if I saw it.
I've watched many movies that looked great until they decided to set a 1/24 shutter speed or shot a slow motion take with the same shutter speed denominator as the frame rate... I've even seen movies completely shot on 24fps at 1/24 and it bothers me to the bone. Of course, that's me. A lot of people may not notice (although many might uncounciously feel it) and other people might not care, and even like that style. Personally I try to stay away from that as much as possible (except on some fixed camera low light situations where I might need that little bit of extra light).

But to summarize: perhaps 1/48 shutter speed for a 48fps movie might be practical in terms of frame rate delivery options, but it does go against the goal of making the footage look filmic (if that happened to be the case). Would it be impossible to shoot the movie at 1/96 and then bringing back the 1/48 shutter speed in post if you had to convert it to 24fps? Or maybe it's bad looking...
 
Stuart English said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're messing with my head Stuart. Isn't a 1/48th/sec shutter at 48 frames per second a 360° shutter?
 
Scott Crawley said:
You're messing with my head Stuart. Isn't a 1/48th/sec shutter at 48 frames per second a 360° shutter?
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right.
With this setting you can drop every second frame and voila you get a 24fps-stream with 180°, it will have the same amount of motion blur as being shot on "traditional" settings, but you have the additional frames which will have exactly the "missing" part of time/exposure.

BTW, even if you don't plan to use this on your final master, it offers possibilities for more accurate vfx (tracking etc.).
 
Tobias Ashenheim said:
i was thinking, what if u reverse engineered this.. if u downloaded the 24p trailer.. twixor'd it to 50% speed then changed the time base to 48fps and reattached the audio... then uploaded it...
Click to expand...
What are you trying to accomplish? The result wouldn't represent how the real deal looks, it only shows how a upconvert will look, thats probably the worst case and doesn't help anyone.

If you're trying to say "look, this doesn't look so bad and the real deal can only be better" then ok, try it. ;) But lots of people will misunderstand it, they'll probably think there is no difference between this and the real 48fps-master. But there is a huge difference between interpolated and photographed frames.

The better way to demonstrate how it will look is going out with a EPIC or Scarlet and shooting some motion with 48fps and 270°.
 
Ernesto Mantaras said:
Everyone should watch some footage before deciding whether it's good or not, but coming from this statement I'm guessing that one of the characteristics that may throw some people off is motion blur. 1/48 is great for 24fps (180º shutter), but it's the most videoey artifact you can get in 48fps. At that frame rate the shutter speed should be 1/96. That is, of course, if you want to emulate a filmic look. And this IS about a certain look, that some may like and some may not, but it would surely throw me off if I saw it.
I've watched many movies that looked great until they decided to set a 1/24 shutter speed or shot a slow motion take with the same shutter speed denominator as the frame rate... I've even seen movies completely shot on 24fps at 1/24 and it bothers me to the bone. Of course, that's me. A lot of people may not notice (although many might uncounciously feel it) and other people might not care, and even like that style. Personally I try to stay away from that as much as possible (except on some fixed camera low light situations where I might need that little bit of extra light).

But to summarize: perhaps 1/48 shutter speed for a 48fps movie might be practical in terms of frame rate delivery options, but it does go against the goal of making the footage look filmic (if that happened to be the case). Would it be impossible to shoot the movie at 1/96 and then bringing back the 1/48 shutter speed in post if you had to convert it to 24fps? Or maybe it's bad looking...
Click to expand...

Interesting argument. By that reasoning (and I kind of agree with it) we should shoot at 96 fps for 24p delivery. Combine 2 frames and discard 2 frames for 24p. And discard every other frame for 48p.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Interesting argument. By that reasoning (and I kind of agree with it) we should shoot at 96 fps for 24p delivery. Combine 2 frames and discard 2 frames for 24p. And discard every other frame for 48p.
Click to expand...
Isn't there too much discarding here? Shoot 48fps @ 180° (1/96th) and you'll have everything you need. ;)
 
Maik Müller Menendez said:
Combining two frames of a 48p-1/96th-stream should give you exactly that.
Click to expand...
It's not exactly the same thing. There's a 1/96s gap between the two combined frames as opposed to a continuous 1/48s exposure. With a good interpolation it will look very close, but it's probably one of those things you don't want to fudge if you really care about the aesthetic of your work.
 
Maik Müller Menendez said:
Combining two frames of a 48p-1/96th-stream should give you exactly that.
Click to expand...

Yes it would. But there would be a gap between them. It would be two non-contiguous 96ths instead of one contiguous 48th.

If you shoot 48p @ 1/96th of a second you get:

48p w/ 96th of a second
[1/96th pause][1/96th record] || [1/96th pause][1/96th record] || [1/96th pause][1/96th record] || [1/96th pause][1/96th record]...

24p w/96th of a second
[1/96th pause][1/96th record][1/96th pause][1/96th record] || [1/96th pause][1/96th record][1/96th pause][1/96th record]

You would get a ghost image.

If you shoot though at:

96p @ 1/96th of a second
[1/96th record] || [1/96th record] || [1/96th record] || [1/96th record] || [1/96th record] || [1/96th record] || [1/96th record] || [1/96th record]

Discard every other frame to get 48p @ 1/96th:

[1/96th discard][1/96th record] || [1/96th discard][1/96th record] || [1/96th discard][1/96th record] ||[1/96th discard][1/96th record]

And to get 24p @ 1/48th:

[1/96th discard][1/96th discard][1/96th record][1/96th record] || [1/96th discard][1/96th discard][1/96th record][1/96th record]

Even then there would probably be a sliiiiight amount of ghosting since the sensor's shutter isn't perfectly 360*.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
Ouch.

http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/24/cinemacon-2012-the-hobbit-underwhelms-at-48-frames-per-secon/

http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html


Honestly, these articles make me all the more curious to see this projected at 48fps.
Click to expand...


My answer has always been the same, and here it gets validated, trusted Peter's decision from the start, and I continue to do so, very glad that He has come out and spoken about it!!


KETCH ROSSi said:
And hope now this validates in off what I have been saying since my first post in this thread, and when I say it was mostly do to the "UNFINISHED" product, is because I know what I'm talking about it.




Peter Jackson Responds to 'Hobbit' Footage Critics, Explains 48-Frames Strategy


Because the film clips shown at Cinemacon were not finished, he adds, “People haven’t experienced it yet in the way it should be experienced.”


"Jackson also explained the footage presented at Cinemacon would look different once it goes through the post-production process."


READ ARTICLE HERE: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/peter-jackson-the-hobbit-cinemacon-317755
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top