What if i an Peter Jackson and want to shoot 48fps .

[Vigen Vartanov]

Good day .
What if i am Peter Jackson and want to shoot my next movie 48fps .

On Hobbit Making of Movie Mr.Jackson speaks about 48fps , "We are shooting 48fps ....... " Ok it will be nice , but what is secret , and what to do with sync audio ?
Did my actors need to speak 2 times faster ? From my music video experience some times Directors are asking to sing 2 time faster , and we shoot 48 FPS . In Music Video you are getting nice effect with it .
What will be playback rate in Cinema ? will it be 48fps x 2 in 3D ?

Looks like i did not understand idea of 48fps Any comments , really want to try it.

 

[Phil Holland]

The main idea behind shooting at 48fps is to make the visual effect of 3D "more pleasing" on the audience when playing the material back at 48fps. It does indeed work (at least to me).

If you think about that it means per shot they are shooting 4x the information of a standard 2D 24fps shot motion picture.

I'm very curious how 48fps penetrates the industry.

 

[Kevin Marshall]

Good day .
What if i am Peter Jackson and want to shoot my next movie 48fps .

On Hobbit Making of Movie Mr.Jackson speaks about 48fps , "We are shooting 48fps ....... " Ok it will be nice , but what is secret , and what to do with sync audio ?
Did my actors need to speak 2 times faster ? From my music video experience some times Directors are asking to sing 2 time faster , and we shoot 48 FPS . In Music Video you are getting nice effect with it .
What will be playback rate in Cinema ? will it be 48fps x 2 in 3D ?

Looks like i did not understand idea of 48fps Any comments , really want to try it.

The difference between The Hobbit and your music videos is the playback speed. Your music videos were (presumably) shot at 48, and played back at 24 - making a slow-motion effect. By having the artist sing twice as fast, the playback seems in sync, but "floatier."

With The Hobbit, they are shooting at 48, and playing back at 48. There is no slow-down on playback, and sync audio is unaffected.

 

[Vigen Vartanov]

Sow play back in Cinema will be 48FPS ? but sound will be played normal .
But are DCP players in Cinema ready to play 96fps ?

The main idea behind shooting at 48fps is to make the visual effect of 3D "more pleasing" on the audience when playing the material back at 48fps. It does indeed work (at least to me).

If you think about that it means per shot they are shooting 4x the information of a standard 2D 24fps shot motion picture.

I'm very curious how 48fps penetrates the industry.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Sync sound will play back at the base frame rate, typically 23.976 (nominal 24) fps or 29.97 (nominal 30) and with proper equipment can also use a time base like 48fps.

Over cranking or under cranking is when you present the images at a different frame rate than the base rate. Typically slo-mo as in the 24fps base rate with 48fps acquisition rate example.

I recently shot some 2D footage at 48fps with a thin shutter and am looking for an opportunity to view it at 48fps playback rate so the speed is normal. My interest is to judge the difference in perception of the thin shutter, which typically exhibits quite a bit of strobing/judder played back at 24fps. My theory, is that you could have the best of both worlds by dramatically reducing motion blur yet still have a "smooth" look due to the rapid refresh rate and the natural persistence of human vision.

If there is anyone out there in the SoCal area with a playback system that can handle 48fps base rate material who would like to offer some assistance please reach out.

blair (at) alacritymedia (dot) com

Cheers - #19

 

[Bruce Allen]

Sync sound will play back at the base frame rate, typically 23.976 (nominal 24) fps or 29.97 (nominal 30) and with proper equipment can also use a time base like 48fps.

Over cranking or under cranking is when you present the images at a different frame rate than the base rate. Typically slo-mo as in the 24fps base rate with 48fps acquisition rate example.

I recently shot some 2D footage at 48fps with a thin shutter and am looking for an opportunity to view it at 48fps playback rate so the speed is normal. My interest is to judge the difference in perception of the thin shutter, which typically exhibits quite a bit of strobing/judder played back at 24fps. My theory, is that you could have the best of both worlds by dramatically reducing motion blur yet still have a "smooth" look due to the rapid refresh rate and the natural persistence of human vision.

If there is anyone out there in the SoCal area with a playback system that can handle 48fps base rate material who would like to offer some assistance please reach out.

blair (at) alacritymedia (dot) com

Cheers - #19

Blair, why not just speed it up 4% and watch as PAL 1080p50 through a monitor or projector that supports that? Should look nearly identical...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Tehben Dean]

Sync sound will play back at the base frame rate, typically 23.976 (nominal 24) fps or 29.97 (nominal 30) and with proper equipment can also use a time base like 48fps.

Over cranking or under cranking is when you present the images at a different frame rate than the base rate. Typically slo-mo as in the 24fps base rate with 48fps acquisition rate example.

I recently shot some 2D footage at 48fps with a thin shutter and am looking for an opportunity to view it at 48fps playback rate so the speed is normal. My interest is to judge the difference in perception of the thin shutter, which typically exhibits quite a bit of strobing/judder played back at 24fps. My theory, is that you could have the best of both worlds by dramatically reducing motion blur yet still have a "smooth" look due to the rapid refresh rate and the natural persistence of human vision.

If there is anyone out there in the SoCal area with a playback system that can handle 48fps base rate material who would like to offer some assistance please reach out.

blair (at) alacritymedia (dot) com

Cheers - #19

Can you not playback 48fps on a computer in RCX?

 

[Humberto Rivera]

“Time Base”

“Time Base”

Think of-it in terms of “TIME” one second of Audio, or One Second of Film weather its recorded at 24 Fps, 48 Fps, or whatever, as long as you played it back at “One Second”! And you obviously need to have some sort of reference to time, such as a “Time Base” device of some sort.

Humberto Rivera

 

[Matthew Scott]

I personally detest the idea of 48p in 2D. Anything above 25p for that matter.....it's not a movie anymore! It makes sense for better 3D, but ruins 2D IMHO.

 

[Humberto Rivera]

I think the question is, if you shoot S3D at 48 Fps and extract a 24 Fps 2D version, what happens to the sound, and the answered is “Nothing”! Because you were shooting “Double System Sound”, so “One Second” of “Audio” is the same as “One Second” of “Picture”.

Humberto Rivera

 

[Per von Koch]

I personally detest the idea of 48p in 2D. Anything above 25p for that matter.....it's not a movie anymore! It makes sense for better 3D, but ruins 2D IMHO.

That's because we're used to 24 fps. If they could have done 48 fps in the 1920, I'm sure they would have. 24 is something we have been forced to watch since the beginning of time...

 

[George Butterfield]

That's because we're used to 24 fps. If they could have done 48 fps in the 1920, I'm sure they would have. 24 is something we have been forced to watch since the beginning of time...

Exactly, 24fps is the most economical speed that filmmakers could get away with, 48fps in film costs twice as much as 24fps. It still costs more in processor time etc to shoot at 48fps. Once we solve all the processing costs associated with producing humongous amounts of data, we will be shooting at 60fps. Right now, 60fps produces way to much data, The lighting costs/problems also increase with the higher frame rates.

 

[Humberto Rivera]

The Question? If I were Peter Jackson! The answered!

“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." Peter Jackson

Humberto Rivera

 

[James Brundige]

I personally detest the idea of 48p in 2D. Anything above 25p for that matter.....it's not a movie anymore! It makes sense for better 3D, but ruins 2D IMHO.

I worked with a director who was into high speed shooting (and playback) on 16mm film. Years ago. We shot some stuff at 96 fps, and it was amazing (played back at that speed) There was a clarity and depth to the image that was noticeably better than 24 fps. Motion blur is like grain, an artifact of a primitive optical system.

Having worked on lots of international projects, I have watched lots of shows shot at 30 fps converted to 25 fps. 30 is better, especially when the camera pans or moves.

I hope theaters will go to 48, because it really does look better, which is why Peter Jackson is going there. When digital distribution becomes normal, it will be a 2x larger file, but that will become insignificant as Moore's law observes; bandwidth will increase as storage costs decrease.

24 fps is a kind of temporal compression, reducing reality to that many shots. Higher frame rates capture more, and you can see the difference. If you think a "movie" needs to have stuttering pans and blurry motion, that's what you come to expect from a compromise made 100 years ago. So shoot 12 fps on really grainy film (can you find super 8 any more?) , and you'll have something really "filmic."

 

[James Brundige]

The Question? If I were Peter Jackson! The answered!

“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." Peter Jackson

Humberto Rivera

So this means he is shooting Hobbit at 1/72 second shutter speed?

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Shutter Speed of 1/32 Second - 270° Shutter Angle for S3D @ 48 FPS

Humberto Rivera

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Let’s start with a wide open shutter @ “360°” shutter angle, which is “1/24” of a second, shooting at 24 Fps with a 180° DEGREE SHUTTER ANGLE (1/48 SECOND), so a 270° shutter angle is between the two or 1/32 Second.

Humberto Rivera

 

[Stephen Wheeler]

Ok for reference this is not a new idea Douglas Trumbull did a lot of work with frame rates and the emotional responsiveness of the viewers. His format Showscan, 65mm shot and played back a 60 fps. The idea is that when it comes to the persistence of vision 18 to 24fps is good enough but 60fps is closer to the refresh rate of human vision. when working with film 24fps i agreeable with a films budget where 60fps in 65mm is a bit too pricey. In the Digital age this is not an issue though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan

We have been shooting 3D test with our Epics to compare 24fps, 48fps and 60fps for a new 3D projector that can hand these frame rates in play back. I am exited to see and hear the feed back on the results.

Stephen Wheeler
Daufenbach Camera
Specializing in RED, Digital Cinema, & 3D
www.daufenbachcamera.com

 

[James Brundige]

Let’s start with a wide open shutter @ “360°” shutter angle, which is “1/24” of a second, shooting at 24 Fps with a 180° DEGREE SHUTTER ANGLE (1/48 SECOND), so a 270° shutter angle is between the two or 1/32 Second.

Humberto Rivera

Actually 1/36 second, so for 48 fps, that's 1/72. Correct?

 

[Matthew Scott]

That's because we're used to 24 fps. If they could have done 48 fps in the 1920, I'm sure they would have. 24 is something we have been forced to watch since the beginning of time...

Okay cool, thanks for the 101 lesson, not to be rude but I'm pretty sure most of us know that. The point is, the closer we get to the look of real life with higher fre rates, the further we get from a "movie". And, personally, I dot like the lookof fluid silky smooth movies. Next some director will try and mainstream 96fps....and then 120fps.....

Just saying, to me, personally, I like what my brain does with 24fps.