48fps Hobbit footage screened and generally hated!

kylevant said:
What?? It's cat and mouse, has been for decades, still will be for long. I've yet to run a game and say "Well, this graphics hasn't improved for a few years now." If anything, I'm thinking about the newest AMD and Nvidia offerings and how I can get my hands on them. If hardware has reached a point of being able to sustain what the programmers dream off, then why continue releasing high-end premium gaming new cards that ARE being bought?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that stopped being a reality after the Quake engine. What's happening now is the same thing that happens in any business: trickle down to keep business alive.

That's why you keep buying high end GPUs to catch up with what's already outdated for developers.

Edit here: just research how long the Quake II engine's been used since its arrival, and how many companies licensed and or based their engines off of it. It's old hat. And ID's next engine is a good two years outdated as well, but when it's implemented in games it'll be "fresh".
 
Barry_Green said:
That was not his intention. In an interview he said he shot 48 frames specifically so that he could deliver a 24fps master if desired. He shot at a 270 degree shutter angle, splitting the exposure time between that which we would normally associate with 24p and that which you would normally associate with 48fps; it would result in a 1/64 exposure. To deliver a nearly perfect 24fps master, he will just have to drop every other frame (step printing).
Click to expand...

Interesting info, thanks.
In this case dropping every other frame should equal a 135 degree shutter angle which isn't really noticeably more jerky than 180.
I hope they do that, cause I don't think any cinema will go 48 fps around here soon.

Kholi said:
In the beginning, yes, now, no. The higher framerate is standard due to hardware and there's technically no reason to do that anymore, since hardware's pretty much caught up with the demands of programmers.
Part of the developing experience is running higher frame rates.
Click to expand...

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. :) Please elaborate.
 
cpc said:
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. :) Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

Well, running a game at 20~24FPS on modern hardware, even in the most demanding situations, you shouldn't have any trouble. Dropped frames can be masked by a lot of different methods that are easier to implement than trying to run the game at a higher consistent frame rate.

When dealing with console based software, you'll notice that a company will not advertise 30 unless it's a constant, consistent 30 at its worse performance, and often the game can spike to higher frame rates.

From my visit to a few development companies (including Guerilla games in Amsterdam), higher frame rates are part of the gaming experience (selling points) now.
 
Kholi said:
For the record, I know which argument Barry is talkin' about. It's the one where people say that the audience can't tell the difference between 24P and 30P, or worse, 24P and 60P.

This crops up every so often and a lot of people are convinced that "24P is just because 24P is, and when 30P is a standard 24P will die because of judder, stuttering, so on and so forth."

It's that debate that he's referring to (I think, anyway) and to me, yeah, this is a good chance to settle that.
Click to expand...

I'm curious though if it's something audiences will get used to and slowly prefer. I remember when digital projection first started happening. Purists were up in arms, calling it glorified television and swearing off it. Now, I bet some of those same people don't even know they are watching digital projection half the time. Lately, the few times I've seen film projected I've been bothered by inconsistent focus and dirt and scratches. 90 percent of the time these days, a digital projection is a better experience. Obviously the switch from 24p to 48p is going to be a more dramatic difference but in 25 years, if the majority of films are shot in 48fps, I wonder if young people will see old movies as too looking too flickery and strobey. The same way we look at 16fps silent films today. I picture young film students in the future using a 24p filter to get that old-timey look.
 
Kholi said:
Well, running a game at 20~24FPS on modern hardware, even in the most demanding situations, you shouldn't have any trouble. Dropped frames can be masked by a lot of different methods that are easier to implement than trying to run the game at a higher consistent frame rate.

When dealing with console based software, you'll notice that a company will not advertise 30 unless it's a constant, consistent 30 at its worse performance, and often the game can spike to higher frame rates.

From my visit to a few development companies (including Guerilla games in Amsterdam), higher frame rates are part of the gaming experience (selling points) now.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see now.
Well, some competitive games are virtually unplayable at framerates below the framerate at which the game logic is running (think fighting games). For a single player game low framerate is not crucial (but is often annoying), for client-server multiplayer games low framerate can put the player at a disadvantage. Also, if you start masking dropped frames through buffering, input responsivenes suffers. Again, this is not really a good option in a multiplayer game.
But you are right that PC gamers are more spoilt than console gamers in this respect. This is not because game developers don't care about higher framerates, but mostly because console hardware is slow. And you need to balance a trade-off slick graphics vs speed. This is usually balanced more towards the first in single player games, and more towards the second in multiplayer.
 
You have a good point about fighting games and combat games (modern warfarish). Higher Frame Rates and the best connection possible are needed.

I should've stated that I was referring to solo games like God of War III, Uncharted, Resident Evil Franchise games etc.
 
60fps first person shooters are for noobs. give me perfect dark multiplayer on the n64 with 8 bots enabled. if you played it, you know what i'm talking about.
 
Barry_Green said:
Wow, you sure just took the opportunity to paint me in a pretty bad light. Thanks.

Now, if you'd be so kind, please re-read what I wrote. I didn't take a stance on either side.
Click to expand...

You have a very obvious stance - multiple times in this thread you state that you prefer 24fps and think that 3D is a fad. That's your opinion though, and I have no problem with it.

What I have a problem with is the idea, that somehow there needs to be a battle between 24fps / 48fps and 2D / 3D. Or that "in the future, theaters will go back to showing 24p"

All that's going to happen is that in the future, the average movie theatre will be able to play 24p, 48p and 60p. And, optionally, 3D. All that's going to happen is MORE CHOICE. No battle. If a filmmaker wants to have a 24p movie with a few sequences in 48p for creative effect, that's super easy. Just make a 48p master by doubling up frames for the 24p sequences.

Also, what makes you think that Peter Jackson is going to get everything right for The Hobbit Part 1 anyway? Vince Pace did multiple movies as test runs for 3D before Avatar. Star Wars Episode 2, the Hobbit-equivalent big budget digital movie wasn't a great advert for digital. It didn't settle the digital debate. It was just heralding another creative option for filmmakers.

Finally, digital projectors are already running at 120hz. It's not particularly hard for them to show 120p if they wanted to. However, there is an approx $10,000 hardware / software upgrade to the whole playback system (ridiculously overpriced, of course) to get them up and running with 48p playback. Do you think they're going to just disable the 48p playback upgrade afterwards? No way.

Turning on 48p will be a great thing simply because it gives filmmakers the option of a new look in the future. Even if it's for a few shots, it's a cool new creative possibility, not an either/or debate thing. My 2c. Maybe I am just seeing things from a different perspective but I don't understand all the drama surrounding the unlocking of more creative options.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
To paraphrase the esteemed Mr. Shakespeare, me thinks the critics of 48Hz doth protest too much.

This sounds almost exactly, almost word-for-word, like what was said about the change from standard definition TV to HDTV. Especially the bits about the costumes, sets, and makeup being seen too clearly. I remember (it's only been a few years, so anyone who was paying any attention at all should remember) that all the TV news announcers were worried that they'd all be replaced because their skin wasn't good enough to stand up to the "scrutiny of HDTV." Y'all remember that?

Yet years later what's happened? Where I live people complained about the lack of clarity in that first year after the changeover. The TV stations were still using their old SD cameras. People actually wrote, called, and blogged about it, forcing the retirement of all those old SD cameras used by local news crews. Hair and makeup were upgraded. Studio lighting was upgraded. New sets were built and installed. Hell, sound was upgraded. And in most cases the talent is still the same as years past. And nobody, nobody at all, would go back if they could.

Since the initial reaction to 48 Hz capture is nearly the same as was the reaction to HDTV, I predict that it will continue to be the same. That the more movies that are made and shown in 48Hz, the more the paying customers will demand. People like clarity.

Many of us here on this board are resolution freaks. Always looking to see how much resolution can be captured. Look at the GH2 hacks. Look at the noise about 4k capture. I'm just sayin'. And this move to 48Hz is a way to make use of all that resolution rather than cover it all up with "motion blur" and film cadence stutter.

There's nothing sacred about 24Hz. Other than the fact that it was the slowest speed that could be used for decent sound. And since we no longer record the sound on the film itself, that reason is gone. I for one would think it would be a good thing to set the next standard on visual quality. But I'd like to see some actual research being done (where is the RIAA? They should be funding this) to find out what "optimum" is, rather than let Jackson and Cameron pull a number out of the air. I mean 48 Hz? Really?
 
24p move away- it's time for new stuff- things have changed.
24p looks filmic- what is filmic look? -made up term assigned to 24p, which is just minimum fps of preserving motion and chosen due to technology/cost limitation of old days.
Do experiment- take a child and let it watch only 60fps+ footage over many years. Than show 24p- you can guess reaction :) Than explain him that it's filmic look :)

People adopt to different things- the same with TV and fps- I personally hate 24p watched on 60inch plasma- makes me sick, specially with hand held camera style of shooting.
If you want make 48fps not looking real I bet you there will be ways of doing it. It will also give even more artistic possibilities- yet another thing to explore.
 
Last edited:
I was worried about this possibility. Cinema is more than the image; it's the feel of the experience. Half of that feel is the 24 frames of blackness in between the images. That empty space we don't consciously see has a hypnotic psychological effect to induce a certain kind of trance-like state. Mess with that, and you mess with cinema. The psychology is important because the brain responds to different frequencies differently. We can't just pretend that one is as good as another with no further exploration of the matter. And we can't just assume that faster is better either.

Right now we have a world population conditioned to respond to 24 (or 25) fps cinema in a darkened hall. That's what feels right, as it always has. At home they watch 30p for news and other content, and there's some overlap in seeing cinema on home theaters.

But 48 is quite a drastic jump. I'll go see The Hobbit, but I will certainly have a strong response to the technical side of it, which distracts somewhat from the story. I found Avatar too bogged down in technical issues (annoying 3d glasses) which also detracted from the experience. Not every development is an improvement.
 
Barry_Green said:
I just pointed out the continuous debates we've had here, and that this would be a perfect, unbiased, absolute test bed for people to see and determine what exactly it is that they like. It is a best-case scenario, better than any we could have hoped for.
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree, not because Jackson and his DP are incompetent, but frankly, I don't think their as good at embracing a new technology as James Cameron. I don't think The Hobbit in 3D would have been as good at 3D as Avatar if it had come first.

Avatar 2 is the first real test IMO. If even James Cameron can't get something cinematic out of the faster frame rates, that'll be as good of a test as anyone (including me) could hope for.
 
Scorsese is now saying all his future films are going to be shot in 3D. Kind of shocked.
Scorsese says all his future movies will be 3-D
Scorsese spoke at a filmmaking panel alongside director Ang Lee, who won an Oscar in 2006 for the gay cowboy love story "Brokeback Mountain." Scorsese and Lee are among a growing crop of prominent directors who claim 3-D technology is the future of filmmaking...
The 3-D craze allows filmmakers to accomplish the original goals of cinema, Scorsese said.
"The minute it started people wanted three things: color, sound and depth," Scorsese said. "You want to recreate life."
Lee also urged theater owners to continue investing in their movie houses. Adapting to digital projectors has been a challenge for some small and independent theater owners.
"Keep them open," Lee said. "Especially with 3-D, this is a new era coming. We have to keep up with it."
Click to expand...
http://news.yahoo.com/scorsese-says-future-movies-3-d-221344262.html
 
It's not about making us like it- however it's about those that are not born yet or way to young to form opinions about these ascetics. Those kids will be raised on 120hz + tv's as well video games running at super rates.

When that generations StarWars hits them at a HFR ( High Frame Rate ) they will not know any different. They will look upon the 24fps feel as a relic- and call it old school. Something their grandparents watched, or their old indie filmmaker uncle complained about at the family thanksgiving dinner muttering "it was the golden age of cinema- 24fps 24fps 24fps". There friends will laugh at the old people complaining about it while texting with their implanted cellular iphones.

It's the future, and none of us are gonna stop it. Either you learn how to use high temporal rate cinematography to better the story, or you'll be pushed into retirement much sooner than you hoped by those that learned how to make it work in the next decades to come.

The art of cinema is an evolutionary process, who ever said it was going to remain the way it started.

Not that I like it- however being realistic is safer than living in denial of what's coming, for better or worse. We can't stop it.

This early part of this century and the last one might be someday looked at as the romantic feel of cinema. While the future cinema will be seen as the realism era. Very much following some of the style transitions in the art world of the past.


Of course then quite the opposite will happen and this will be seen as the stupidest decision ever made. Then a New Wave of filmmakers ( not born yet most likely ) will return the cinema world of the future back to balance once again.


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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top