Forget 48 frames - now Cameron wants 60 frames per second

To be honest, I think it does make sense. I'm not sure how many of you saw 4k projection in the theatre, but at IBC this year, I went to see real 4k projection with 4K Christie projector and guess what... It was shot on Epic, 24p. Still shots looks absolutely fantastic - crystal clear, very detailed (it's good or bad - another questions), but once you get the camera moving, panning or any other action, image goes totally blurry and that can make you sick. Shooting 48/50/60p should fix that. So if films will go for 4k resolution, the only way it's happening - at least twice the framerate...
 
Cameron wants higher framerates solely for the sake of 3D - which they have determined is a more immersive experience at higher framerates, rather than the stuttering, headache inducing mess that it currently is at 24 fps. If his an Peter Jackson's high-framerate 3D experiments fail, then 3D will go away, again, because people are starting to stay away in droves from 3D.
 
I don't like 3d no matter what frame it will be. Current 3D for me is just 2 planes of 2D images. Hopefully we will see some real 3D - maybe projected holograms being really three dimensional.
 
it all depends on a viewing distance.... I watch my 50 inch plasma from around 7.5-8 feet, 1080 looks fabulous, not sure there is a need for 4k. This has been discussed a number of times, normal people don't buy these huge size TVs, thus this is only important for very big spaces and very big screens. I even watched 70 or so inch SONY LCD, 1080 looks fantastic even from close.

In huuuge theatres - yes, 4k might become a standard, at home - probably not. Btw, remember, ALOT of people can't tell a difference between DVD and Bluray, they simply don't need that. And geeks don't drive the industry.
 
PEople hate 120hz option in TV's, everyone wants this to be disabled and its stupid manufacturers that are pushing this for no reason, everything looks like cheapo camcorder and its disgusting, when i see it i feel sorry for actors and producers cause budget is so big and footage looks so cheap.
Anyway i dont know how Cameron wants to make 60p to look like something associated with motion pictures, i love 24p.Its sad that he doesnt get it.World looks so much better in 24p.
Look at this, it makes me want to cry, looks awful when its smoother than 24p:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVX2H6EUTu0&feature=related
 
Tomas Riuka said:
To be honest, I think it does make sense. I'm not sure how many of you saw 4k projection in the theatre, but at IBC this year, I went to see real 4k projection with 4K Christie projector and guess what... It was shot on Epic, 24p. Still shots looks absolutely fantastic - crystal clear, very detailed (it's good or bad - another questions), but once you get the camera moving, panning or any other action, image goes totally blurry and that can make you sick. Shooting 48/50/60p should fix that. So if films will go for 4k resolution, the only way it's happening - at least twice the framerate...
Click to expand...

But watching real film at full resolution is going to be higher than 4K already, and I don't recall anyone complaining about that over the years?

If there is a problem, then it's not the framerate but the 4k technology. What is the response time of each pixel? If it's too slow, then the problem is, the blur is caused by the projector/screen not being able to keep up with even 24p at changing the values. Ever look at a green monitor from the 80s with slow refresh rate? when fast moving stuff happening it was sickening to watch.

Nothing prevents the technology from sending faster information, but if the data cannot get to the pixels fast enough OR those pixels cannot change color fast enough, then it's going to look bad.

I watched high frame rate material for years and I just never preferred it. Look at episodes of Dr.Who from the 80s that are shot at two different frame rates. I always preferred the outdoor material as it looked better to me.

3D, that's different, and I think having faster frame rates would be better for your eyes to handle, but, for me, it's a tradeoff. Things shot for 3D usually shoot differently then 2D productions. I hate shallow DoF on 3D, hurts my eyes. But I love it on 2D when used right.

48/50/60 just haven't been explored really in my opinion. While I don't prefer it, I'd love to see a movie with Cameron's kind of budgets shot in it just to see how it feels. Until someone really does it, we won't know.
 
Rick Burnett said:
48/50/60 just haven't been explored really in my opinion. While I don't prefer it, I'd love to see a movie with Cameron's kind of budgets shot in it just to see how it feels. Until someone really does it, we won't know.
Click to expand...

That's how I feel about it too.

As for the notion that a specific frame rate needs to become the standard, aren't we moving past all that to some extent? I mean, as it is now we have 60i coexisting with 30p, 60p, and 24p. As more theaters switch to full digital projection over the years (might take a decade but it will happen), then I would imagine the digital projection technology will support playback and presentation of films in various frame rates. I like 3D when done well, but I am kinda sick of all the pushing of 3D and these higher frame rates nowadays. It should be left up to the filmmaker to choose what is best for their project (digital or celluloid, 60 fps or 48 fps or 24 fps, RED One or DSLR). It all depends on what is appropriate for each individual film. Example: Michael Mann's gritty use of digital on Collateral and Miami Vice (both contemporary set urban action films) worked really well, while using it on Public Enemies (1920's mobster era) was kind of a travesty.
 
First of all 60 frames per second progressive scan is not 60i interlace. The 2 formats cannot even be compared. 60i interlace is is riddled with artifacts so no wonder everyone hates it.
Second 60p is not 120 hertz motion flow. 60p is 60 real frames per second and not phony interpolated frames.
You may not like the look of 60p but don't say it looks like interlace or motion flow.
 
androbot2084 said:
First of all 60 frames per second progressive scan is not 60i interlace. The 2 formats cannot even be compared. 60i interlace is is riddled with artifacts so no wonder everyone hates it.
Second 60p is not 120 hertz motion flow. 60p is 60 real frames per second and not phony interpolated frames.
You may not like the look of 60p but don't say it looks like interlace or motion flow.
Click to expand...

I know that 60i is a different thing than 60p. I was merely saying that it seems that this fervor to suddenly go full 48fps or 60fps (60p), while those might have their applications, I don't see the need to throw 24p under the bus. The fact that we now have 60p, 60i, 30p, and 24p, in addition to cameras that shoot in all types of variable frame rates and the fact that we live in a digital world of production and post production seems to me that we can "choose" what is best for our own projects. Just as one might choose film instead of digital cinematography or 2D in place of 3D.

It just feels that Peter Jackson and James Cameron are being a bit aggressive with the whole "we must have 60p now" crusade.
 
Rick Burnett said:
But watching real film at full resolution is going to be higher than 4K already, and I don't recall anyone complaining about that over the years?

If there is a problem, then it's not the framerate but the 4k technology.
Click to expand...

Nah, a typical copy in a theater has barely 800 lines. That´s a bit over PAL resolution, and the real miracle here is that nobody ever complained.

The problem is not framerate, it´s the way motion is captured. There are big differences between the mechanical shutter in a film camera and what a sensor does.
There is a company that sells a gadget that you put in a filter tray and mimics a mechanical shutter - differences are day and night.

I hope we see that implemented in video cameras soon. It makes a way more filmic look that sensitivity and dynamic range.
Actually I suspect (out on a limb) that Panasonic has some kind of post processing in the DVX and HVX that mimics something similar and gives you that typical Pany Mojo.

my ct2 - Frank
 
Rick Burnett said:
I watched high frame rate material for years and I just never preferred it. Look at episodes of Dr.Who from the 80s that are shot at two different frame rates. I always preferred the outdoor material as it looked better to me.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, the outside shots were film, indoor were video.... so maybe you were responding more favourably to the higher DR, highlight rolloff etc?

If you are talking about the BBC Dr Who.... then i'm pretty sure all scenes were shot at 25fps.
 
Frame rate should be an aesthetic choice, not a medium limitation. That's all.

I'm more curious of PJ's 48p though... Sounds like a nice in-between ground.
 
Postmaster said:
There is a company that sells a gadget that you put in a filter tray and mimics a mechanical shutter - differences are day and night.
Click to expand...
'

Any pictures of this "night and day" difference? The motion blur artifacts of shutter speed in for example the RED cameras are pretty much 99% of what a mechnical shutter looks like (rolling shutter not withstanding). The Sony F65 has a mechanical shutter but the only reason for it is to get rid of rolling shutter from CMOS sensors.
 
bwwd said:
PEople hate 120hz option in TV's, everyone wants this to be disabled and its stupid manufacturers that are pushing this for no reason, everything looks like cheapo camcorder and its disgusting, when i see it i feel sorry for actors and producers cause budget is so big and footage looks so cheap.
Click to expand...

See I wouldnt agree with this. If you like to watch sport 120Hz is fantastic. The issue is most people who buy a tv thats 120Hz, dont realise you can just turn 120Hz off and it will default to 50/60 Hz.
 
Remember that you can't watch 24p on a 60hz TV without 2:3 pulldown. So you are watching an artificial cadence to accommodate the film rate NOT the film rate anyway. On a 120hz or 240hz TV with proper processing it will show 24p correctly emulating a film projector. 120hz can be the equivalent of a 5 blade projector just like the one I have for my old Super 8 films. Normally this will only work from a Bluray player over HDMI though. I like my 240hz TV to smooth out the awful judder seen on most TV programs mainly due to poor shooting or editing of the program. So if you really want to watch 24p on your TV it has to have a refresh rate a multiple of 24 and the playback chain has to be able to accommodate this. 24P Bluray disc over HDMI to a 120hz TV will do this. The rest of the time it can smooth out the many poor programs on TV !!!

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