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

2d film ticket - 10$
3d film ticket - 15$
48 fps 2d film ticket - 20$
48fps 3d film ticket + 25
Thats the only true reason to mess with technical specs of movies.Ticket prices.
Anyone seen T2 3D ? Looks so fake with its 30fps.
I think Jackson and Cameron never struggled for the "film look" like many people on this forum who hate anything other than 24 /25fps for motion pictures/movies because people here have experience with those 50fps and 60fps already, we know that it looks fake and there is nothing that could change it and suddenly cameron comes up with such idea that its better to use 60fps cause pans are smooth or whatever, wow, i thought that story is most important not pans during scenes.They should really go back to the roots and basics to understand this, more frames doesnt mean better looking footage in this case.
I really found it bizarre when in one interview cameron said he wanted to remove one fps from each second of terminator to make it shorter and was surprised that footage was choppy, he had already millions as his budget but did not understood such basic things.No words really...
I hope they fail and i see that they released 24fps version of hobbit trailer and that only means they arent 100% sure of this 48fps decision.Thats great.Dont change something thats already perfect.Dont try to make triangle out of wheel and forcing people to call it wheel.Its just waste of time.
Im bit angry about all of this and a bit sad and disappointed that such big directors are making such statements.
I love terminator movies and its really heartbreaking hearing cameron saying some technical stuff that he wants to enforce.
 
LOL at Doug Trumbull, "...this 48/48 thing is going to be great!" No kidding, Doug? You think? And what was new in 1983 is new all over again.
 
Emanuel said:
Michael, the link is down 'cause of bandwidth. You can update the front page post with a new one though:

https://rapidshare.com/#!download|9...204753|R~BDA592FF1D55C32019C811278C55F28F|0|0

E :-)
Click to expand...

Thanks Emanuel. Been busy on a project the past week, so I missed your post.


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
 
This is a very interesting discussion. I've tested 48fps myself and have to say I didn't like it. The question is: are we being nostalgic or is there really something else to 24p vs 50p? Why do we "like" the 24p look, since if we followed logic, the closest to reality is 50p/60p? TV productions have used this for years in many soap operas, news and shows, however, even with an audience used to 50p and 60 shows, why do the top, high end shows like the Sopranos, Dr House, 24 all go for 24p? This is, I think, an interesting question. Are people watching and enjoying these shows more because of its aesthetic, or because they have superior storytelling? Why do the big budget TV productions aim for 24p? And another interesting question is: are people's perception of high budget production and 24p an effect of they experiencing 24p in cinemas and subconsciously assume that's the look of excellence and high end top production?

In my view, there's an aesthetic value to 24/25p, a, lets say, fantasy like aspect that fits very well with fiction work. I agree 50i/60i is extremely demanding on EVERYTHING- set design, acting, camera movement, lighting, etc. Its as close to real as it gets and this makes the audience even more susceptible to catch mistakes. However, I question what's the need to go for this "reality" in fiction storytelling. Is there a point to this? Are we aiming to make our films "real"? I guess, like 3D, in my opinion, once again the question is: will this particular feature add to my story/film? What will it ad and what advantage doI have by using it? I think Scorcese proved 3D's worth with Hugo, how 3D can be an integral and great part of the cinematography and storytelling of a film. Now I' really curious how Jackson makes 48fps and its close to "reality" (or TV) work in his "Epic Fantasy" world... What is the point of it? Only smoother images? How does it enhance the storytelling? I will reserve my judgment when I see that film.
 
Gillvane said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is what for the convergence serves, isn't it? Even not being stereographer but prepping something with a 1st class one as of now, I guess ghosting in low-end displays is the reason why they avoid it.
 
Cine Gear 2012: The Debate over High Frame Rates Grows Among Filmmakers

Footage from Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit," shot at 48 frames per second, has ignited the discussion.
Legato admitted that his preference for 24fps may be because he grew up working in film rather than video. A number of attendees at both CinemaCon and Cine Gear also find fault with what is sometimes described as 48 fps’ “video look.” Legato and other filmmakers on a Cine Gear panel acknowledged a bias against a video look may be generational.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cine-gear-2012-high-frame-rates-333008



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
 
Lovely discussion,

I am open to a cinema experience with 24p for drama scenes and 48p for vistas, action, explosions and other heavy motion. The hybrid movie will have the best of both worlds.

Star Tours for example would have sucked at 24p and rocks at 60p. For realistic non drama images the higher frame rate creates that window to a real world appearance while 24p creates the larger than life look to people and tight shots that we love so much.
 
bwwd said:
I really found it bizarre when in one interview cameron said he wanted to remove one fps from each second of terminator to make it shorter and was surprised that footage was choppy, he had already millions as his budget but did not understood such basic things.
Click to expand...

Or maybe he understands it better than you think. Filmmakers regularly remove frames here and there, especially from action sequences. Nowadays with a lot of pixel motion technology you could basically remove a frame every second and let the computer figure out how to mix the frames. Act of Valor has a lot of 30fps -> 24fps converted material. That's 6 frames taken out per second. Some of it works, some of it has little errors. But in the future, that technology will only get better.

So let's not be all "IT'S NOT POSSIBLE, YOU DUMB FOOL!". I've edited out many frames from commercials that have been just a few seconds too long. Taking a frame out at the right moment will do nothing more than speed up the film.

The "problem" with 48fps is that it's very revealing. Avengers would have looked awesome in some parts with 48fps (action shots mainly) but all the soap opera moments would've been quite odd looking. One reason is the lighting. Film lighting just isn't natural. And in 48fps you can see it all too well. It's the "soap opera"-moment. But if you light stuff more naturally, forget the huge blinking lights and just figure out a way to get real interesting and realistic looks. People need to forget how movies were lit and start doing it from a more naturalistic angle, if they are working in 48fps 3d.

Also the real key thing here is 3d. 3d is just horrible when it comes to action. You cannot focus on anything that moves quickly and is in front of the eyes. It desperately needs more fps. This is the real reason for the 48fps push.
 
Last edited:
Will Turner said:
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 in front 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.
Click to expand...

24fps was originally a compromise between the cost of film stock and the illusion of motion. That it appears (to some extent) like the motion blur we normally perceive turned out to be a bonus. Actual motion blur embodies a persistence-of-vision (PV) aspect which appears as momentary visual trails. What we actually perceive is rather complex, as every filmmaker knows!

PV was a big problem with early film projection that was finally solved with blackouts between frames -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision

And as others have written, there is real cinematic value to the pleasant other-worldly feel of 24fps, which can be quite strikingly interrupted when 60fps video is interspersed in a movie. High frame rates have their own other-world feel that seems to many of us to be rather unpleasant. Maybe we are simply prejudiced towards what we are used to. Perhaps HFR plus PV will be the next greatest thing ever, assuming they add smell-o-vision of course.
 
I'm more intrigued by the "24 frames per eye" argument of viewing The Hobbit in 3D @ 48 fps. I don't think I'll ever care to see 2D @ 48 fps, but I can definitely appreciate the benefit it will (hopefully) provide in a 3D viewing. So, from that perspective, I'm all for 48 fps for 3D until cinema projection technology can properly display it @ 24 fps.
 
I like the best of both world approach I've seen, I think it was earlier in this thread.

Basically you shoot in 48. That 48 is turned into 24. HOWEVER, you still have the 48 fps information at your disposal to use as an effect.

So, when you get to the action scene, IF YOU WANT TO, you can mask your actors fist punching the bad guy so that it does not blur.

Everything else can be 24fps in the same scene, and only what you mask out is 48 in order to reduce motion blur, when you want to for effect.

Then it becomes simply another tool at your disposal to use for impact if you choose to. Maybe you want it all blurry, then you can just leave it at 24.

Maybe you want the entire sequence crisp so the audience can see every detail for that moment in the film. Then you make it 48.

It's kinda sorta like the Private Ryan effect, only much more subtle. The action suddenly looks real, not like blurry movie action.

But you lose nothing with this approach. In an average digital movie budget shooting shooting 48 versus 24 ads almost nothing to the budget. It's the flip of a switch and some more storage.

Haven't you seen that movie action fight that's just a bunch of blur? You know there's something going on, but who knows what exactly? Suddenly you have the option to turn any scene of that fight into nice crisp movement, or even just a portion of that scene like someone's head flying backwards while everything else remains motion blurred.

It becomes like depth of field, just another way to focus the audience on what you want them to see. That doesn't mean the entire movie should be shallow depth of field.

Here's a clip of 24 and 48 side by side:

http://www.stopmotionpro.com/media/video/48fps_cameramove2.mov

If you look at that clip, say you were panning or dollying like in the first clip at the same time your skateboarder is skateboarding through the scene.

You could keep the background at 24fps and let it have some motion blur, while making your skateboarder 48fps, or vice a versa depending on your objective in the scene.

the best of both worlds.
 
Last edited:
I'm starting to get the feeling that one day 24fps will just be an artistic choice by a few filmmakers. That ultimately 48-60-120fps will be become the norm within the next ten years. It's just a matter of getting used to it.

I think we'll one day look back on most 24fps footage and identify it as being old looking.
 
roxics said:
I'm starting to get the feeling that one day 24fps will just be an artistic choice by a few filmmakers. That ultimately 48-60-120fps will be become the norm within the next ten years. It's just a matter of getting used to it.

I think we'll one day look back on most 24fps footage and identify it as being old looking.
Click to expand...

This is an opinion many share- that the dislike towards HFR is generational, and one day people will not want 24. Of course, time will tell.

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
 
[size=+0]Just about to jump on the plane to Comic Con -by Peter Jackson on Friday, July 13, 2012[/size]

Quote form P Jackson:
Here's my prediction: this time next year, there will be several movies shooting at 48 fps. As an industry, we have to push the current technology to provide more spectacular and immersive experience in the cinema, on a nice huge screen.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter...p-on-the-plane-to-comic-con/10151078936971558



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 find the subject of framerates to be the most fascinating of any technical element in cinema right now. I've done a lot of (admittedly very unscientific) tests with friends and family, and I'm always surprised how little people seem to notice differences with frame rates. I've played 24p, 30p, 60p clips. They'll always notice resolution and color differences, but never frame rate.

Hell, my friends were all watching a youtube clip on my friends big screen. His computer sucked, and it was chugging a long at maybe 12-15fps, skipping all over the place. I made a stink about it, and they all treated me like I was a snob. Nobody agreed with me that it looked weird. I really couldn't believe it.

As others have said, there's two big elements that have me curious about it all. One, I have never seen or heard of a big budget, well crafted, well acted movie shot in 48-60fps. Possibly until now. So it's really hard to seperate whether the 'soap opera' look is bad, or whether I'm just used to associating bad content with that motion rendition? I know TVs have that smoothing, but I'm sure how comparable that is to proper 60p source footage.

The other thing is...do any of you play video games? In that realm, it's the exact opposite. I realize you have to rely on precision, since it is interactive...but I can't stand anything below 30fps. I'd prefer a solid >60fps experience. 3D games have always been this way, so there aren't years and years of 24p conditioning that we're fighting against.

I'm still in the 24p camp, but I'm certainly open to new possibilities and choices. I've never wanted to see a movie more for purely technical reasons than I do The Hobbit.
 
well i sometimes turn on "trumotion" on my tv then watching films, and i kinda like it, everything feels kinda live(hugo was very nice with this feature turned on), but there is one thing that bugs me...most of the time, i get this feeling, that there is a cameraman behind the camera, and i don't like that...horror movies look mostly terrible with this feature turned on...prometheus also looked not so good, i did get that "cameraman behind the camera" feeling sometimes and engineer looked like its...i don't know...a simple human actor, and not a creature/nonhuman or whatever it is...at least for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top