Humberto Rivera
Well-known member
After a good night sleep, and thinking about the question some more, I still have the question that continues to plague my mind. Let say that we can all agree that 1/32 of a second equals a 270° degree shutter @ 24 Fps, that’s a given, no argument there. The next logical question is a 270° degrees shutter angle interchangeable with 1/32 of a second exposure? That’s an important question, because it conflicts with; 48 Fps at a 270° degrees angle shutter at 1/64 of a second. That’s the part that is giving me trouble; I keep on thinking that there is got to be more to-it.
Let’s go back to Peter Jackson’s statement; “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
All that the people in New Zeeland are doing is taking out every other frame for the 2D print, nothing about shutter angle, reinterring Peter Jackson; “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."
Why do they prefer this; well it gives them slightly more “Motion Blur”, thus the 270° degree shutter angle, which is the same as saying 1/32 of a second shutter speed. If it were not that way it would be 1/64 of a second or a 135° shutter angle, that’s the part that is challenging my logic. I understand there is formula that says it should be 1/64 of a second but that would make it 135° degrees.
Now as far as I understand they’re using Arri Ultra Primes; so let’s say they are. You take one T Stop for the S3D Rig (T2.8), another T Stop for the 48 Fps (T4), now that makes more sense to me, and you would have slightly more “Motion Blur”.
Now what Mitch said? “11-23-2011, 07:36 AM Think of it as not relative to the shooting speed but to the playback speed. Conventional motion blur (ie, what we're all used to seeing) is a time reference from half the actual time gap represented. Meaning that images viewed 24 times per second are gathered of time from 1/48th of a second, and our brains are taxed at a consistant rate in order to have persistance of vision fill out the other half of the event arc. When the relationship of half exposure time to event time is changed, our perception of it does as well. This remains true even at high frame rates, so the 180 degree rule still holds, in general.
That said, there are plenty of situations where altering that exposure window can go completely unnoticed and plenty of other times when it can be a useful effect. Remember that it is all artifice in some form or another, but there are conventions that we are used to seeing. The world of extreme high speed (frame rates beyond what the RED cameras are capable), I find that I can open up my shutter angle to a virtual 360 degrees and can rarely perceive a difference. But that is part of the emotional contextual artifact of extreme slow motion playback. 1/1000th of a second v. 1/2000th of a second becomes a very different issue to 1/48 v. 1/96th. Mitch Gross Applications Specialist AbelCine”
So let’s see what Mitch said; “Think of it as not relative to the shooting speed but to the playback speed.” Maybe Mitch you could expand on this just so we can all understand what it means, or whatever other tip-bids you may have, thanks.
I’m not trying to be a contrarian; I’m just trying to settle this lingering doubt that I have. It really will “be-what-it-is”, no matter what anyone says, including me, I’m just wrestling with this question that I have.
Humberto Rivera
Let’s go back to Peter Jackson’s statement; “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
All that the people in New Zeeland are doing is taking out every other frame for the 2D print, nothing about shutter angle, reinterring Peter Jackson; “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."
Why do they prefer this; well it gives them slightly more “Motion Blur”, thus the 270° degree shutter angle, which is the same as saying 1/32 of a second shutter speed. If it were not that way it would be 1/64 of a second or a 135° shutter angle, that’s the part that is challenging my logic. I understand there is formula that says it should be 1/64 of a second but that would make it 135° degrees.
Now as far as I understand they’re using Arri Ultra Primes; so let’s say they are. You take one T Stop for the S3D Rig (T2.8), another T Stop for the 48 Fps (T4), now that makes more sense to me, and you would have slightly more “Motion Blur”.
Now what Mitch said? “11-23-2011, 07:36 AM Think of it as not relative to the shooting speed but to the playback speed. Conventional motion blur (ie, what we're all used to seeing) is a time reference from half the actual time gap represented. Meaning that images viewed 24 times per second are gathered of time from 1/48th of a second, and our brains are taxed at a consistant rate in order to have persistance of vision fill out the other half of the event arc. When the relationship of half exposure time to event time is changed, our perception of it does as well. This remains true even at high frame rates, so the 180 degree rule still holds, in general.
That said, there are plenty of situations where altering that exposure window can go completely unnoticed and plenty of other times when it can be a useful effect. Remember that it is all artifice in some form or another, but there are conventions that we are used to seeing. The world of extreme high speed (frame rates beyond what the RED cameras are capable), I find that I can open up my shutter angle to a virtual 360 degrees and can rarely perceive a difference. But that is part of the emotional contextual artifact of extreme slow motion playback. 1/1000th of a second v. 1/2000th of a second becomes a very different issue to 1/48 v. 1/96th. Mitch Gross Applications Specialist AbelCine”
So let’s see what Mitch said; “Think of it as not relative to the shooting speed but to the playback speed.” Maybe Mitch you could expand on this just so we can all understand what it means, or whatever other tip-bids you may have, thanks.
I’m not trying to be a contrarian; I’m just trying to settle this lingering doubt that I have. It really will “be-what-it-is”, no matter what anyone says, including me, I’m just wrestling with this question that I have.
Humberto Rivera
