Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 75
  1. Collapse Details
    Peter Jackson explains why 48fps is the future
    #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    657
    Default
    Today Peter Jackson posted a note and some pictures from the set of The Hobbit on his Facebook page. Much apparently so, he is on the same boat as Cameron:

    .

    "Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these (strobing) issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D"
    ....
    "Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew--many of whom are film purists--are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience."
    ....
    "We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out where we can seriously explore that possibility with Warner Bros. However, while it's predicted that there may be over 10,000 screens capable of projecting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps by our release date in Dec, 2012, we don’t yet know what the reality will be."


    Read Sir Jackson's entry here:
    http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-...50222861171558



    .


    Last edited by ICD Films; 04-11-2011 at 08:15 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Senior Member refocusedmedia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,319
    Default
    Was just about to post this, as he is shooting The Hobbit @ 48fps

    Here is his lengthy explanation:

    We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps, rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920′s). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok–and we’ve all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years–but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or “strobe.”

    Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D. We’ve been watching HOBBIT tests and dailies at 48 fps now for several months, and we often sit through two hours worth of footage without getting any eye strain from the 3-D. It looks great, and we’ve actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring. We’re getting spoilt!

    Originally, 24 fps was chosen based on the technical requirements of the early sound era. I suspect it was the minimum speed required to get some audio fidelity out of the first optical sound tracks. They would have settled on the minimum speed because of the cost of the film stock. 35mm film is expensive, and the cost per foot (to buy the negative stock, develop it and print it), has been a fairly significant part of any film budget.

    So we have lived with 24 fps for 9 decades–not because it’s the best film speed (it’s not by any stretch), but because it was the cheapest speed to achieve basic acceptable results back in 1927 or whenever it was adopted.

    None of this thinking is new. Doug Trumbull developed and promoted a 60 frames per second process called ShowScan about 30 years ago and that looked great. Unfortunately it was never adopted past theme park use. I imagine the sheer expense of burning through expensive film stock at the higher speed (you are charged per foot of film, which is about 18 frames), and the projection difficulties in cinemas, made it tough to use for “normal” films, despite looking amazing. Actually, if anybody has been on the Star Tours ride at Disneyland, you’ve experienced the life like quality of 60 frames per second. Our new King Kong attraction at Universal Studios also uses 60 fps.

    Now that the world’s cinemas are moving towards digital projection, and many films are being shot with digital cameras, increasing the frame rate becomes much easier. Most of the new digital projectors are capable of projecting at 48 fps, with only the digital servers needing some firmware upgrades. We tested both 48 fps and 60 fps. The difference between those speeds is almost impossible to detect, but the increase in quality over 24 fps is significant.


    And he had this to say those who criticize the decision:

    Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew–many of whom are film purists–are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience. It’s similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs. There’s no doubt in my mind that we’re heading towards movies being shot and projected at higher frame rates. Warner Bros. have been very supportive, and allowed us to start shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps, despite there never having been a wide release feature film filmed at this higher frame rate. We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out where we can seriously explore that possibility with Warner Bros. However, while it’s predicted that there may be over 10,000 screens capable of projecting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps by our release date in Dec, 2012, we don’t yet know what the reality will be. It is a situation we will all be monitoring carefully. I see it as a way of future-proofing THE HOBBIT. Take it from me–if we do release in 48 fps, those are the cinemas you should watch the movie in. It will look terrific!


    You can also read what James Cameron had to say about 48 fps being "the future of cinema" when he gave a tech demo @ Cinema Con last month:

    http://www.slashfilm.com/cameron/


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    657
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post
    And he had this to say those who criticize the decision
    I find it very interesting the way he refers the team as suddenly being "converts". I'm sure he, and everyone else working on the film, realizes that people *will* notice that something is very off when they watch it in cinema.

    I think there will be a conflict here, beacuse either EVERYONE has to change to 48fps in the blink of an eye, otherwise people will get seasick watching some Hollywood releases in 48, and the rest in 24........ this is not going to happen. People like Spielberg will shoot film 24 til' the day they retire.

    But, then again, as Sir Jackson states himself, 60fps was tried 30 years ago... who sais 48 is here to stay because two big directors sail their pioneer ship into uncharted waters...?


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,732
    Default
    What I find interesting is that I have NEVER been distracted by "strobing" when watching my favorite films. Of course the cinematographers have to shoot correctly to avoid it. So do I think this opens new doors for certain types of films? - Yes. Do I think every movie should be shot at a higher frame rate - Absolutely not. It's a complete myth that 24 frames per second is outdated or not '"advanced". If thats true why do people love slow motion segments so much - (I know they're derived from higher rates) The cadence of 24 works for character studies, heavy dramas, dialogue driven films....films with a very "photographic" style, etc. So please Peter Jackson, James Cameron.....just do what works for YOUR style of movies and stop saying only YOU know what the future is.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Moderator David Jimerson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    27,934
    Default
    As with everything, and I do mean everything, the customer will decide, no matter what it is the directors want.
    LEARN FILMMAKING - DIGITAL STREAMING AND DOWNLOADS OF GREAT TRAINING PROGRAMS!



    WRITING FOR TELEVISION ARTICLE | "ASSUMPTION BLUES" FILM NOIR RADIO PLAY | "BLUE SCARLET" RADIO PLAY



    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member refocusedmedia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,319
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by pulpfiction007 View Post
    It's a complete myth that 24 frames per second is outdated or not '"advanced".
    Not really... the methodology on which it originally became the standard is no longer relevant. What he says about the fact that "we're all just used to it" is very much true as well.

    But I agree with your other comments.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,732
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post
    Not really... the methodology on which it originally became the standard is no longer relevant. What he says about the fact that "we're all just used to it" is very much true as well.

    But I agree with your other comments.
    I understand that it's origination makes it seem "old" - but the reason I say it's not outdated is that now that there are/will be other options it's just another choice, like choosing a certain color scheme or style. For instance - Ken Burns doesen't HAVE to shoot @ 1 frame per 5seconds/10 seconds! - Sorry this is an extreme example, but some cinematographers do a similar thing with their work -nice slow pans, static wide shots, longer scenes without cuts, etc. - 24 is perfect for that....even slower.
    For a 3D, SCI FI, Action Extravaganza - Absolutely crank it up.
    My whole frustration is that I see BOTH as viable options, where as the proponents of higher rates seem to have to knock down 24fps as being antiquated, annoying, etc.
    Ansel Adams often said more in one frame than most of us could with a million. That's the gist of my argument - Sometimes letting the mood captivate the audience is better than dazzling cgi and technological wizardry- Each has their place.
    Last edited by pulpfiction007; 04-11-2011 at 09:32 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member Mr Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    131
    Default
    Nooooooo


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Senior Member vcassel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    1,153
    Default
    I probably wouldn't normally want to go see a film like The Hobbit, but I believe I'll be checking it out on a purely technical level before I form an opinion on 48 fps. I just haven't knowingly seen anything at that frame rate yet.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Director of Photography TimurCivan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    12,191
    Default
    This just means they will pan to frodo, then sam, then back to frodo...... even faster.......


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •