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

I'm looking forward to seeing 48fps and 60fps movies. 24fps doesn't do motion justice. Last weekend, I experimented with recording belly dancers at 24 (48th sec shutter) with my new camcorder and it looked bad. Setting a higher shutter speed looked even worse. 24fps may be OK for actors talking to each other, but once they start moving, a faster frame rate is needed.

I admit seeing a previously viewed movie on one of the modern LCD TV's looked strange, but that was due to my expectations of what 'movies' look like. I'll expect to adapt quickly just like I did with HDTV and 3D.

One can view the camera as either a clear window or an easel to paint an image on. I prefer the clear window approach. A story should be able to stand on it's own without any visual gimmicks.
 
The Hobbit at 48fps: Too Much Information and the Science of Eye Movement
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthony...-information-and-the-science-of-eye-movement/

“The footage opened up with wide expansive shots of people walking on mountains and over rich green landscapes — those awesome shots that became synonymous with the Lord of the Rings series when it began a decade ago,” he writes. “These shots looked incredible — almost like something you would see in an IMAX 3D nature documentary — so extremely vivid and breathtaking, and more real than we’ve ever seen these shots before.… This is the future of Cinema…"


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
 
It's quite possible that 48FPS movies and blu-ray's may have distinctions just as we have phrases like "FULL HD" , "1080P" 3D, 2D etc. For 48FPS vs 24FPS version we might see "CINEMOTION" for 24FPS and "FULLMOTION" for 48FPS and higher frame rates. Then audiences could go for what motion characteristics they prefer. I feel that over time ( decades ) from now audiences will switch more toward the higher HFR versions.


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
 
Last edited:
I also thought it was weird how jumpy and fast-motion it looked.

I've been curious to experiment with the middle point: 36fps with a multitude of shutters: 36, 48, 54, 72, etc.
 
even people who didn't like the 48p screening said that the "people walking on mountains" landscape shots looked absolutely amazing
it's the closer shots that look awful (among other things, because the set looks like a set)
 
Shoot a good film at 48fps and show people that version. For some it comes off as a "Soap Opera" feel. Spit out a 24fps version of that exact film, and it's now liked,and revered as good Cinema. However both are identical as for the film is concerned. I noticed that at Showscan years ago. Always found it interesting. The concept of it has intrigued me ever since- how humans perceive things.

It's kinda like having a book read to you, versus you reading the book. You absorb the story in a different way. Same story, same book, different experience.

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
 
Last edited:
PappasArts said:
Shoot a good movie at 48fps and show people that version. It's not liked as well, comes off as a "Soap Opera" feel to some.

Spit out a 24fps version of that exact film, and it's now liked, and revered as a good film. However both are identical as the film is concerned. I noticed that at Showscan years ago. Always found it interesting. The concept of it has intrigued me ever since- how humans perceive things.
Click to expand...

Was this an actual experiment? My question would be: how much of that was due to people associating 24fps with cinema and higher fps with TV - even if they didn't know consciously that they are doing so? And: couldn't associations change over time?
 
Jester2138 said:
Was this an actual experiment? My question would be: how much of that was due to people associating 24fps with cinema and higher fps with TV - even if they didn't know consciously that they are doing so? And: couldn't associations change over time?
Click to expand...

It was an experiment, as there were many of them. Yes, I do believe it could change over time, people will come to like the extra temporal resolution- however it will take time for a lot people to adapt- young children didn't care, so I believe they will accept it without issue as they will have grown up into it. . Women we found adapted the best for some reason. Can't explain scientifically why, however I did point out at the time they were the largest viewer demographics in the world that watched televised soap opera's, without complaining of the smooth HFR motion of 60I.

Simple solution in the short term to get people accustomed to High Frame Rate Cinema is to offer the same production as Full Motion 48fps, and one in Cine Motion 24fps. I believe over time people will choose the production that is more immersive with more temporal info. However they need to see both, and realize psychologically that both versions are identical films, just one is more in tune with our temporal resolution.


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
 
Last edited:
Jester2138 said:
...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.
Click to expand...

I don´t eat seafood, cause I don´t like the taste of it.
Wouldn´t it be a bit offensive, to say that´s only because I "refuse to change"?

If this is an "abstract" idea, why can even my 68 years old mother tell between 24 and 50 fps?
She knows nothing about framerates at all, but even she can see the difference.

And when somebody tries to sell me something great, why do I have to getting used to it and adjust myself,
instead of seeing the greatness in the first place? Here my red flags go up.

Jester2138 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, DPs used all sort´s of shutter angles. for artistic or technical reasons of film since years.

Jester2138 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It´s not slightly faster, it´s 180deg, no mater what frame rate you have.
Thats because you want natural motion blur. Everything just gives you that saving private Ryan battlefield look, that most folks find hard to watch and distracting.

Jester2138 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Interlaced recording did that since donkeys years - but it was the lag smearing of slowly dimming phosphor on CRTs that mad it butter smooth.

Judder comes from the CMOS chip (you don't have that problem on a HVX200) in combination with displays running at 60Hz (how would you fit 24 fps into 60Hz) or projectors that show you just 24fps instead of 2 or 3 times the same picture.

Thats the reason, why the new Sony flagship camera has an mechanical shutter.
I advocated that since years, and I can see the other companies following that trend.

Also I can see a Renaissance of interlaced displays coming.
Not CRTs, but simulating interlaced, with slow dimming fields.
That would do away with any judder and we would have a smooth experience again, but still having the full resolution.
BlacMagic already does that in their HDLink boxes.

Frank
 
Last edited:
Personally I do not like the look of 48fps, reminds of the new Tvs with such a high MHZ. Just looks fake, makes everyone look like rubber or something. Personally unless it's a sports broadcast I personally do not like that look for narrative. IMO 24fps just has a certain look to it that makes it feel like a "Movie".
 
I am not a fan of high frame rates for viewing, but there is a really interesting article the bbc put out about using 300fps

they say that the alleged limit of perception of high speed framerates: 60fps, is actually not true, and that it's closer to 240fps
300fps works well because it works universally with 25p, 30p, 50i, 60i, 50p and 60p (but not 24p)
this was proposed for television not cinema

the main reason for the suggested change was that increasing resolution (hd, 4k and beyond) meant the blurring and strobing would become much more apparent and intolerable.


I really don't like HFR, but i would be curious to see what 300fps looks like (apparently like looking through a window)
I also really love the idea of a simple international standard which is backwards compatible with all previous standards, except 24ps cinema :(


blur is part of life, there's no need to fight it.
camera-shake = bad, subject-blur = good



edit: I really hate the idea of using different blended frame rates in the same scene or even the same shot!! It reminds me of cheesy star wipes and things like that. Just because you have the technology to do something different to your images, it doesn't mean that it's a good idea!!!
 
Last edited:
RGBaker said:
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
Click to expand...

Why else would one almost always shoot 180deg if motion blur wasn't desired?
 
I think the curiousity factor will be a huge boon for this film, and love it or hate, it will draw a lot of eyeballs.
 
themagickite said:
they say that the alleged limit of perception of high speed framerates: 60fps, is actually not true, and that it's closer to 240fps!
Click to expand...
That's interesting. I was about to comment that mother nature presents us with what is effectively an infinite frame rate, but nobody complains about that. As mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, our eyes even provide their own motion blur. We don't need an artificial one as well. I think this study is on to something. I'm now recording 60p with a camcorders that doesn't have an internal neutral density filter. I just order some external neutral density filters because higher shutter speeds don't look as good ... even at 60p.
 
The only thing that pops up in my mind is that none of this is new. We've had the ability to shoot 60i for decades. Some of us have even shot movies in that frame rate. The majority of us never accepted it as valid for cinema. We were all so excited to get DV cameras that shot 24p. So why all of a sudden is it a thing of interest now?
 
Will Turner said:
Why else would one almost always shoot 180deg if motion blur wasn't desired?
Click to expand...

The original reason for a 180 degree shutter was mechanical simplicity. When you actually look at the complex machinations necessary to move celluloid, then stop celluloid, expose it, then move it ... well you get the picture. But even then, cameras evolved quickly to offer greater shutter angles to extend the exposure and allow for filming in low light. The unfortunate consequence of that was greater motion blur ... which was my point -- motion blur is a necessary evil to prevent strobing, but not necessarily a goal in itself. Modern methods will allow for greater frame rates & correspondingly higher shutter speeds that will work with higher ISOs. What works and what doesn't, IMHO, remains to be seen. Early in my career I'd have said shaky camera work and jumpy zooms would never catch on, but it's been twenty five years since Hill Street Blues popularized them, and they seem here to stay. On the other hand shallow DOF was 'solved' only to be reborn fifty years later as the latest technique ...

Cheers,
GB
 
180 degrees is a common reference point, but it is by no means the only film shutter. I've owned many film cameras, with shutters ranging from, if I can recall some of them, well, there was the Beaulieu with a 90 degree shutter(!), then there were several with 144 degrees, 150, some with 156, I had a 170, 172.8, then there's 180, I had a 210, 220 was very common in Super8 XL cameras, and then there was one with a 240-degree shutter.

There is nothing "sacred" about 180 degrees, there's no mechanical requirement for it, it's just a reasonable compromise between sensitivity and sharpness/blur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top