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

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/128113-why-movies-are-moving-from-24-to-48-fps
"3D is one of the driving forces for high-frame-rate movies. By shooting at 48 fps, it’s possible to show 24 fps to each eye through a pair of active glasses"

Not sure if this makes sense. Wouldn't you want the same frame hitting both eyes, even with active glasses. It would seem to me that if one eye is seeing a slightly advanced frame from the other eye, it would be more of a strain on the eyes.

Doesn't it make more sense to have say a ~1/48th shutter on both cameras at 24p, and have the TV flip between the same time time slice 48times a second for the active shutter glasses?

*I'm not sure how the delivery happens for 3D content, and if you have to setup your box to active versus passive glasses, and how the decoding works. Maybe it's just the "simple" way to have 48p 3d content becuase you don't have to do anything different between the different types of 3d technology. Sucky for active glasses if that's the case, as they'll get crummy motion and strained eyes.
 
active glasses completely black one eye at a time
I had one of those ten years ago, to use with my computer
you definitely don't want to use that on a 48 Hz screen - anything below 120 Hz is unbearable, 160 Hz is the minimum I found confortable
all 3D theaters I've been to use passive glasses, which are cheaper and a lot more confotable, but lead to duller colors (which, BTW, I think is what they were trying to avoid with all that extra saturation in the makeup etc on The Hobbit)
 
dwhite601 said:
I don't think computer displays would display 48fps properly. Most are locked to 60Hz and would introduce judder.
Click to expand...

Same issue with 24p -- 60/24 = 30/12 = 15/6 = 5/2 = 2.5


EDIT: Oddly enough, I just checked and I'm currently sitting at one that offers a choice of 60Hz or 59Hz... 59!?!?!?!?!?
 
Samuel H said:
active glasses completely black one eye at a time
I had one of those ten years ago, to use with my computer
you definitely don't want to use that on a 48 Hz screen - anything below 120 Hz is unbearable, 160 Hz is the minimum I found confortable
all 3D theaters I've been to use passive glasses, which are cheaper and a lot more confotable, but lead to duller colors (which, BTW, I think is what they were trying to avoid with all that extra saturation in the makeup etc on The Hobbit)
Click to expand...
Thanks Samuel, I know how shutter glasses work. Indeed I had some that came with a nvidia graphics card way back when, maybe 15 years ago? What I don't understand is how the 3d bluray for example encodes/decodes the 3d for the different formats.

For example:
* Shutter glasses alternate images from one eye to the next, the screen/footage has to be synced so that alternating frames of the video are shown at the right time. They could either duplicate the same frame in time (but from the other perspective), or they could "shoot" in double the frame rate, and each eye could receive the next frame in time but at the appropriate perspective.
* Passive glasses typically use polarized lens' which allow you to see both video streams at the same time. This technique seems better since you could show the same frame in time at the same time to each eyes. You could watch 24p from native 24p footage.
* Glasses free 3d is similar to passive glasses but usually use a parallax layer that obstructs the eyes from seeing the same view, but in general behaves the same as passive glasses.

Anyways, when you encode/decode 3d bluray content I guess there is two separate video streams (one for each eye), and then there must be some toggle on the bluray players that fit the right kind of output for active/passive types.

In either case though, I would think that shooting 48p is totally unnecessary "to assist in 3d", since passive you can show each frame of time at the same time, and active, you can just show show each frame time just alternating at double the rate (show each frame for half the time as normal).
 
Postmaster said:
Interesting Interview with Douglas Trumbull

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/05/02/douglas-trumbull-hobbit-frame-speed/
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call that "interesting" -- I'd call that "required reading." Trumbull really understands and explains the issue thoroughly. He's not a mindless advocate for higher-frame-rates-for-all, and he's not telling people "you're wrong to hate the 48fps in the hobbit". He's explaining WHEN higher frame rates are appropriate, and when they're not. And he's got some really intriguing patents and ideas for advancing the cinema experience beyond what we've had for so long.

I think the problem I've had with this whole 48fps thing is the notion that "we'll just have to ram it down people's throats". That's a terrible attitude. People like what they like, and the fact of the matter is that there are definitely times where 24fps just looks far superior to 60fps, and there are times when 60fps looks far superior to 24fps. Look at the crowd-scanning scenes in "The Hunger Games", where Katniss is first brought up on stage and they pan around the crowd, handheld footage moving quickly on 35mm film -- it looks awful. Just plain awful. And compare that with any wide-angle beauty shot on Discovery HD, shot in 60fps -- looks gorgeous. Yet, as Trumbull said, he wouldn't use high frame rates for a drama or a love story, that's the wrong place for it, that's why you get people complaining about the scenes with Gollum, because frankly 60fps DOES look awful on scenes like that, where 24fps just looks magical.

There is a place for each. And Trumbull's system of being able to choose the frame rate for the scene sounds confusing and problematic at first but may ultimately be the ideal way to resolve the issue, and his assertion of today's projectors running at 144fps means that it's a practical and approachable solution -- pick the frame rate appropriate for the scene...
 
Barry_Green said:
I wouldn't call that "interesting" -- I'd call that "required reading." Trumbull really understands and explains the issue thoroughly. He's not a mindless advocate for higher-frame-rates-for-all, and he's not telling people "you're wrong to hate the 48fps in the hobbit". He's explaining WHEN higher frame rates are appropriate, and when they're not. And he's got some really intriguing patents and ideas for advancing the cinema experience beyond what we've had for so long.

I think the problem I've had with this whole 48fps thing is the notion that "we'll just have to ram it down people's throats". That's a terrible attitude. People like what they like, and the fact of the matter is that there are definitely times where 24fps just looks far superior to 60fps, and there are times when 60fps looks far superior to 24fps. Look at the crowd-scanning scenes in "The Hunger Games", where Katniss is first brought up on stage and they pan around the crowd, handheld footage moving quickly on 35mm film -- it looks awful. Just plain awful. And compare that with any wide-angle beauty shot on Discovery HD, shot in 60fps -- looks gorgeous. Yet, as Trumbull said, he wouldn't use high frame rates for a drama or a love story, that's the wrong place for it, that's why you get people complaining about the scenes with Gollum, because frankly 60fps DOES look awful on scenes like that, where 24fps just looks magical.

There is a place for each. And Trumbull's system of being able to choose the frame rate for the scene sounds confusing and problematic at first but may ultimately be the ideal way to resolve the issue, and his assertion of today's projectors running at 144fps means that it's a practical and approachable solution -- pick the frame rate appropriate for the scene...
Click to expand...
You are priceless, Barry : ) It is posts like these that show why dvxuser is so unique. I guess Jarred got it in the 1st minute he met you. Same to me, 1st time I read you a few years ago.

You're welcome (E :-)
 
Good find, added the interview to the front page- Did research at Showscan on temporal resolution
and it affects on audiences many years ago. Showscan was gorgeous and it's 3D was jaw dropping.
HFR of 48 and 60 has it's place along side 24.


Douglas Trumbull-tech pioneer on 'Hobbit' footage: 'A fabulous and brave step in the right direction'

TheHobbit_PeterJackson_PappasArts_MichaelPappas_DouglasTrumbull.jpg

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/05/02/douglas-trumbull-hobbit-frame-speed/

"So I’m just thrilled that Peter Jackson has done The Hobbit in 48 frames.
It’s definitely a fabulous and brave step in the right direction. And I talk to
him regularly and we’re talking about all this brouhaha and trying to figure
out, “Well, how do we deal with it?” You know, do we back off, which I think
would be a tragic mistake. I hope that he has a lot of success with this movie.
I think people are going to learn to appreciate the 48 frames over 24.
I hope it doesn’t have any adverse effect on Jim’s ability to make Avatar at 60.
It would be tragic not to. So we’re all trying to band together and figure out
how to get to the next phase of what the movie experience is."



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
 
I only think though, all this craziness to stay for the record only 'cause "I re-invented a new standard" is much poor when everything has already been tested for years. I've seen soap operas on TV since I am kid. Even though, I don't give a damn for more than a minute in front of screen. This HFR is not a good step towards the good direction. Cinema doesn't need it for nothing. Quite the contrary, the people are going out of the theatres, it is not giving to them what they already have at home the key to move on.
 
Emanuel said:
I only think though, all this craziness to stay for the record only 'cause "I re-invented a new standard" is much poor when everything has already been tested for years. I've seen soap operas on TV since I am kid. Even though, I don't give a damn for more than a minute in front of screen. This HFR is not a good step towards the good direction. Cinema doesn't need it for nothing. Quite the contrary, the people are going out of the theatres, it is not giving to them what they already have at home the key to move on.
Click to expand...




However, you've hardly seen Hollywoods "A" class directors and "A" class actors at the top of their career game involved in the creation of those Soaps Operas. As a kid I was raised around Masterpiece theater on tv, as well South Coast Repertory here in the OC. I got used to seeing great actors release their talent in front of 50i/60i. At Showscan, I always said you get the best directors in town,actors and crew, this stuff will look like magic. If not, it looks/feels terrible.... HFR forces you to elevate your talents beyond almost anything you've seen. That scares people...

People are afraid of it, they don't know what to think.

If I were to take late 70′s & 80′s punk rock or heavy metal such as Metallica to the year 1950, audiences would have screamed out of sheer fear- as well claiming that noise was like crashing trains of tearing steel with not a merit of musical integrity. In the 70's and 80's it took people who were young & progressive to embrace punk and metal, most over 40 hated it, however for a few who could see beyond their conditioning to music and sound- loved it!

Today heavy metal and punk is mainstream and considered to be rock an roll, not some crazy insane sound as it was thought of many decades ago.

The same revolution will happen for motion images



Marty McFly: I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it



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:
Point taken, Michael. And sorry to disagree : ) We can always try to re-invent the wheel ;) What we can't expect is to think we're creating a revolution. Beethoven did it. As for instance, as same as Caravaggio (I know you love his contribution :-) did for lighting (yes, not only for painting). Mozart, not so much. Unless for the baroque period. Ended after him. Do we need more killings of the beauty of movie going? Not me. I wouldn't pay the ticket for that show.

And please we won't mention "Metallica", even if you wrote it with a sole 'L'. I beg your pardon dear fellows but, Jackson/Cameron are the "Metallica" of motion pictures.
 
PappasArts said:
If I were to take late 70's & 80's punk, Metallica and speed metal to the year 1950, audiences would have screamed out of sheer fear- as well claiming that noise was like crashing trains of tearing steel with not a merit of musical integrity.
Click to expand...

Actually I still think, 70's & 80's punk, Metallica and speed metal, sounds like noise like crashing trains of tearing stee.
But I´m more into Blue Grass, so I might be a bit biased.:)
 
Trumbull's idea of customised framerates within individual movies seems so obvious now that I think about it in terms of most cinemas having digital projection (though that isn't yet the case here in Australia).

To be able to bump up to 48fps for pans and detail-heavy landscape shots - but still drop down to 24fps for conversational scenes - would be a real boon. You'd actually be able to physically adjust the tempo of the images your audience is seeing, that's really quite an exciting prospect I think.
 
Grug said:
Trumbull's idea of customised framerates within individual movies seems so obvious now that I think about it in terms of most cinemas having digital projection (though that isn't yet the case here in Australia).

To be able to bump up to 48fps for pans and detail-heavy landscape shots - but still drop down to 24fps for conversational scenes - would be a real boon. You'd actually be able to physically adjust the tempo of the images your audience is seeing, that's really quite an exciting prospect I think.
Click to expand...
Indeed. As for instance, the chances open by the stereography but only if well done. I've just seen this (at home) in 3D (shot on Alexa and RED too):

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1509767/

Funny to have to say but, the stereographers I can have access either in Portugal or Italy are used to show me better work. So... There's a risk to start to see crap to pop up like pop corn to make noise in hands of uneducated audiences. And to make the standard(s) -- HFR, (as much as it has happened with the) VFX, etc... Unfortunately, they push crappy filmmaking.
 
I went to the movies yesterday (Dark Shadows) and I have to concede a big point: interiors, closeups, etc, looked great (of course!) but things like aerial shots with camera movement looked awful (sometimes too strobey, in all cases incredibly blurry)
so, I'm still against high-framerate movies, but count me in for that variable framerate thing where we can have all the good stuff from both systems, depending on the shot
I guess The Hobbit could still go this route: drop and duplicate every other frame on the interiors and closeups, keep 48p for the epic exteriors

(in any case, it all looked great... except it all was really soft to my eyes! much softer than "5D3 with sharpness added in post" which seems not to be enough for some; it seems I've become too much of a pixel peeper, and won't even be satisfied now by a movie shot on film and projected digitally at 2K on a 40' screen; luckily, nobody else seemed to worry about this, they were too busy enjoying the movie)
(and at least in some cases, that softness was clearly deliberate: I'd swear closeups of Michelle Pfeiffer were a lot sharper than closeups of Bella Heathcote, which never seemed to be really in focus...)
 
Barry_Green said:
I wouldn't call that "interesting" -- I'd call that "required reading." Trumbull really understands and explains the issue thoroughly. He's not a mindless advocate for higher-frame-rates-for-all, and he's not telling people "you're wrong to hate the 48fps in the hobbit". He's explaining WHEN higher frame rates are appropriate, and when they're not. And he's got some really intriguing patents and ideas for advancing the cinema experience beyond what we've had for so long.

I think the problem I've had with this whole 48fps thing is the notion that "we'll just have to ram it down people's throats". That's a terrible attitude. People like what they like, and the fact of the matter is that there are definitely times where 24fps just looks far superior to 60fps, and there are times when 60fps looks far superior to 24fps. Look at the crowd-scanning scenes in "The Hunger Games", where Katniss is first brought up on stage and they pan around the crowd, handheld footage moving quickly on 35mm film -- it looks awful. Just plain awful. And compare that with any wide-angle beauty shot on Discovery HD, shot in 60fps -- looks gorgeous. Yet, as Trumbull said, he wouldn't use high frame rates for a drama or a love story, that's the wrong place for it, that's why you get people complaining about the scenes with Gollum, because frankly 60fps DOES look awful on scenes like that, where 24fps just looks magical.

There is a place for each. And Trumbull's system of being able to choose the frame rate for the scene sounds confusing and problematic at first but may ultimately be the ideal way to resolve the issue, and his assertion of today's projectors running at 144fps means that it's a practical and approachable solution -- pick the frame rate appropriate for the scene...
Click to expand...

Where I don't like standard 24fps motion blur and judder is action shots. Close up fighting scenes with lots of camera movement and the actors are also moving quickly. It's just a blurred mess. You know some action is happening, and things are moving, fists, feet, heads and bodies, but you're not sure what exactly happened.

I loved the fight scenes in Kick Ass. You could see everything and it was awesome. So I"m fine with 48fps for action scenes if it gets rid of some of the blur and judder.

As far as 3d goes, well everyone has a preference and this is my problem with 3d. Ever since Avatar directors went the WRONG WAY with 3d.

For some jackass reason Cameron decided we should look at things through a picture window, into the movie screen.

the beauty of 3d is it can come right out the 3rd wall and into the audience which is awesome! So you have this awesome capability, which you NEVER use because you want to create a picture window effect. If I want a picture window, I'll look in someone's window.

I want 3d with stuff flying right out the front of the movie screen and into the audience. If you're not gonna do that, why make me wear glasses? I'll stick with 2d till someone figures out the 3d goes in FRONT of the screen, not behind it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top