48FPS Footage & 24FPS comparison- Shot with RED -Realtime-Not slow motion.

The Hobbit, the “Soap Opera Effect,” and the 48fps (and Faster) Future of Movies
http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/04/...ct-and-the-48fps-and-faster-future-of-movies/


Why movies are moving from 24 to 48 fps
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/128113-why-movies-are-moving-from-24-to-48-fps

"although the jump from 48 fps to 60 fps is hard to detect, so most high-frame-rate
movies will likely settle for 48 fps. While still pricey, high-frame-rate tools will increasingly
become cost effective even for independent filmmakers wanting to take advantage of the new technology"


Pappas
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS

[size=+1]BlackMagic Digital Camera Info:[/size] http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.p...mera-Technology-Announcements-amp-Latest-Info
 
Lammy said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg
Click to expand...

Isn't the whole point of 24fps is that with a 180deg shutter it has about the same motion blur as in real life (observable if you wave your hand infront of your face keeping your eyes still) thus creating a very 'real' looking video (otherwise referred to as film look)?

I don't want high frame rate movies, it is distractingly different from real life and looks like it's sped up mainly due to the lack of motion blur. Motion blur is what sells it, get rid of that and you have a video again and not a film.
 
I've always felt movies should not be contained and defined by the 24fps rate. I want options. I wanted a real choice for cinematographers, instead of the same-old. Just as we've moved away from film stock to the age of digital media, I don't want to be tied down by "that's the way we've always done it."
I'll have to wait and see the finished film to make a judgement call. Maybe 24fps is the happy medium after all, we'll see soon enough.
But from what I've seen of the trailers so far, it looks fine. Granted, they weren't viewed in a theater, but on my computer monitor.
 
Will Turner said:
Motion blur is what sells it, get rid of that and you have a video again and not a film.
Click to expand...

If your goal is motion blur -- and I'm not saying it should be, just that if it is -- you can achieve the same motion blur by selecting the appropriate shutter speed. You can still use 1/60 of a second for your shutter speed, even if shooting 48 Fps, and it is the movement within a single frame that causes motion blur, not the gap between frames. Until your frame rate reaches or exceeds 60Fps, you still have access to the same shutter speed used in 'traditional' cinema.

Cheers,
GB
 
The problem is, when you shoot 24pfs on film, they show you each frame twice or even 3 times in the theater, tricking your brain into seeing smooth motion.
Todays digital projectors just show 24fps. No wonder it judders.

Before the advent of digital projection, I never heard anybody complaining about stuttering frames (or low resolution - whereby the typical theater copy was usually barely 800 lines).

The same mess with displays. Boy was it easy, back in the day of class 1 monitors, Betacams and CRT home TVs.
Now you have to watch 24 or 25 fps interlaced material on 60Hz displays, that are not able to handle interlaced (and so they deinterlace - aka, dumping half of the resolution and interpolate the rest - there goes your HD) and can not handle 24 or 25 material.
And don´t get me into different color spaces where it looks fine on 709, but if you watch it on a computer monitor, skintones go funky.

Frank
 
Last edited:
My first impression was that 48p looked more "video." But kind of a sudo video that is half way between old BBC soap operas & 24p.

I am really going to be interested to seeing 48fps 3D in person.

When I watched Avatar in 3D I was amazed at the CGI & how I felt like I was in a jungle on another planet. I then closed one eye & the magic disappeared & I no longer felt like I was on another planet, just watching really good CGI.

I heard a report a while ago about the Hobbit & 48fps 3D. He was amazed at how much more immersive it was than 24fps 3D & how much more "real" it looked. He then went on to say that there is a point where 3D becomes hyper-real & you get sick. I forget if it was 240fps or 120fps or ... but there is a point where no human being can watch high FPS & 3D for more than a few seconds before their brain overloads & they turn away from the screen. I think it is similar to the craziness that comes with spending too much time in a very silent room.
 
Maybe it looks better for 3d but personally I don't like the 48fps look. What's the point? Just use what works. I don't know, I just personally don't get it.
 
if you look at a single still from a movie/tv or a production still shot from movie/tv, it looks different from movie to tv.

25fps movies don't look like 25fps tv shows.
 
Postmaster said:
The problem is, when you shoot 24pfs on film, they show you each frame twice or even 3 times in the theater, tricking your brain into seeing smooth motion.
Todays digital projectors just show 24fps. No wonder it judders.
Click to expand...
This isn't correct though. The motion is exactly the same. The reason they project the same frame multiple times is to even out the flicker in the whites. But motion is rendered identically whether you show one frame once, or the same frame twice, or the same frame three times before advancing to the next. In all cases the viewer is seeing one discrete motion sample 24 times per second.
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
They're taking a HUGE risk with this 48p venture. Could pay off... but could also become what the film is known for, and not in a good way.

Progress and Foolishness run parallel.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I think Jackson is taking much less of a risk than Cameron is.

Jackson shot 48fps specifically so he could issue a 24fps 2-D version to 24fps theaters, and a 48fps 3-D version to theaters that could handle it. Dropping every other frame will result in a 24fps film, just one with a slightly longer shutter speed than normal.

Cameron, however, is straight-up committed by going to 60fps. There's no practical way to get that down to a good quality 24fps.

Put shortly, there will be two version of The Hobbit shown, one will look like hyper-realistic 3D, and the other will look just like the rest of the Lord of the Rings movies. Exact same story, just presented in two different visual aesthetics. You get to decide which you prefer by choosing which screening to buy a ticket for.

If everyone hates the 48fps 3-D, then -- no big loss, they took a gamble but they didn't bet the future of the film on it because they can always rack up massive ticket sales to the 24fps 2-D version. If, on the other hand, the audiences love the 3D 48fps version, then he will have redefined cinema. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Avatar II, that's a whole different story. That's all-in, all-or-nothing, 60fps 3-D or die, so yes, that's a HUGE risk.
 
Barry, as I understood it with Cameron, one can easily go back from 60p to 24p as well because it's a clean multiple of 12, right?
 
I'm keeping an open mind about this, partly because I think the 3D will help mask some of the effect while at the same time improving the 3D experience. At least that's my guess. The real test for me will be to see a 48fps version in 2D.
 
48 at 1/48th or 120 at 1/120 could be conformed/converted/blend to 24 at 1/48 without artifacts. 48 at 1/48 would be faster and not need any blending.
 
^ I'm exactly in that same situation
I had to watch Avengers in 3D due to timetable constraints, absolutely hated the image (dim, with horrible color), it was difficult to see what was going on in different parts of the frame, and I felt the director left me with the decision of what should call my attention at any point in time, which I didn't like either
 
I've been doing my own tests at various framerates and shutter angles and have some thoughts.

First, the human eye doesn't see in framerates. The brain scans different parts of the image as fast as it can but in more of an interlaced, on-demand manner than progressively all-at-once. Usually people can tell the difference between framerates below 60fps but not above, which is one reason 60hz is a common monitor refresh rate and 60fps is a benchmark for video gaming.

24p was only chosen to begin with for sound sync purposes (it had nothing at all to do with how the brain sees or some higher "artistic" purpose). Today, technology no longer limits us to a certain framerate. We can shoot pretty much anywhere within the range visible to the brain. So, where do we shoot? Aha!

Now it becomes an artistic, subjective choice! No "one" framerate is inherently better. I've heard arguments that perceptively low framerates like 24fps are ideal for fictional storytelling because, since they are not real-time and completely immersive, they actually disconnect the viewer from the content just enough for the viewer to see the film world as "larger-than-life" or "otherworldly." In my opinion, that's just some abstract idea people made up to justify not having to change - and effects like that are better achieved through other methods anyway. But, this is where it becomes subjective.

The real question for me is not which framerate do I pick but which shutter angle. Framerate must be standardized across the nation and world due to the demands of editing and projection. So I won't get any say in what fps I use ten years from now. Shutter angles, however, are up to the individual DP.

In 24p film cameras, 180° shutters are a mechanical and perceptual necessity. In film, mechanical devices have to move the film strip between frames, forcing a moment of black. This is largely why the 180° shutter became standard years ago. And today, despite the removal of the mechanical limitation, it is still preferable to use a slightly faster shutter speed than the framerate simply because the 24fps is so perceptively low that you can see the individual frames' blurriness if there's a 1/24 shutter speed. So 1/48 is preferable at 24p to prevent this. But - this creates a moment in time that is not recorded at all. Specifically, half the time the camera is running there is nothing being recorded. Again, that was a mechanical necessity in the old days, but now...

Today, digital sensors can start recording a new frame immediately after the previous one finished. There is no reason anymore to have a 180° shutter and the lost time that comes with it. I could shoot at 48fps and 1/48 of a second without ever having a moment of black or jitter between frames (which is impossible with 180° shutters) while maintaining the allegedly more "filmic" motion blur of traditional 24p and 1/48.

So standardizing higher framerates opens up possibilities in shutter angles that we never had before in our low-framerate world.

Just some thoughts.

I made a little comparison to illustrate this question:
24p at 180° vs 48p at 0°
 

Attachments

  • shutter degree and fps visualization.jpg
    shutter degree and fps visualization.jpg
    35.2 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top