James Cameron on 24 fps cinema

So James wants to make movies that look like soaps shot on "video"?

Is there an eye rolling smiley?
 
Of course regular 2D 24fps films are already projected at 48fps.

Would 48fps films be projected at 96fps?


Hobbit 3D 48fps ... that's already 96fps display for shutter glasses based presentation.

- Mikko
 
Not really 48fps. They show each frame twice at 48fps to reduce flicker, so still 24fps. (kinda like 30p on a 60p timeline). Shooting at 48fps would look different, much less strobing on motion.

I don't know if the general public is ready for "reality", movie wise. Isn't that why they go to a movie? To escape reality?
 
I totally agree. 24p even projected at higher fps is what gives you a movie look. I think shooting at 48fps for real-time (as opposed to slomo) scenes is a mistake.

Maybe as a species we have evolved in this information age, and our minds work faster, i don't know. I say this because 30fps looks really nice to me, as well. But beyond 30fps imo you'd lose the dreamy feel of your footage.
 
Last time I worked as a projectionist in a cinema was about 10 years ago... then it was about AU$2000 a set of prints which is normally 5 to 6 reels of (approx.) 2000ft each...

Cheers

ps... "They show each frame twice at 48fps to reduce flicker"... that does not seem to make sense... I can't see duplicating each frame achieving anything but a weird look..

A projector uses a 180 degree shutter to cut the frame to reduce flicker... from wiki..

"Shutter
A commonly-held misconception is that film projection is simply a series of individual frames dragged very quickly past the projector's intense light source; this is not the case. If a roll of film were merely passed between the light source and the lens of the projector, all that would be visible on screen would be a continuous blurred series of images sliding from one edge to the other. It is the shutter that gives the illusion of one full frame being replaced exactly on top of another full frame. A rotating petal or gated cylindrical shutter interrupts the emitted light during the time the film is advanced to the next frame. The viewer does not see the transition, thus tricking the brain into believing a moving image is on screen. Modern shutters are designed with a flicker-rate of two times (48 Hz) or even sometimes three times (72 Hz) the frame rate of the film, so as to reduce the perception of screen flickering. (See Frame rate and Flicker fusion threshold.) Higher rate shutters are less light efficient, requiring more powerful light sources for the same light on screen."

Not sure what the (hz) is about... but the concept is simple cut the frame while it's in the gate... never seen 3 revolutions... normally it's 180degree cutting the frame twice... same as Edision designed... my understanding it's to eliminate persistence of vision...
 
Last edited:
Hz = Hertz = The SI unit of frequency in cycles per second.
1Hz = 1 time per second; 2Hz = 2 times per second; 24Hz = 24 times per second.

Film traveling through a projector doesn't run smoothly (at the point of projection) but rather is jerked through by a mechanism that's synchronized to the shutter.
The film is advanced a frame set into position for projection. Then the shutter opens to project the image onto the screen. The shutter then closes, and then the film is advanced to the next frame. Many systems open (and close) the shutter twice (or more as noted above) before each frame is projected to increase the image projection frequency (measure in Hz).

A projector showing 24fps film at 48Hz (a common standard) shows the viewer 48 images - enough to reduce flicker, which contain 24 frames which is enough to provide for the illusion of motion.

Film runs smoothly through the other parts of a projector, obviously it's less stressful on the film and the projector to keep a constant speed; but the film must also be running smoothly for the audio track (either an optical audio track on the film; or a synchronization track for external audio equipment).

- Mikko
 
mikkowilson said:
The closest cinema that runs regular first-run movies with a digital projector is 2.5 hours away from me. By Jet.
- Mikko
Click to expand...

Also, ironically, this is in today's local paper:
Gross Alaska Theatres is getting a makeover in a big way: new sound, new projectors, even a few extra dimensions.
Gross Alaska is going completely digital in both of its Juneau theaters plus its Ketchikan Coliseum Theatre. All theater screens are undergoing construction to outfit digital picture and sound technologies.
Utilizing digital technology will also bring 3-D movies into Southeast Alaska with one 3-D compatible screen in Glacier Cinemas and another in the Ketchikan Coliseum Theatre.
The sound upgrades will include Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound systems in each theatre. One top of that, one screen in each will feature a 7.1 surround sound system, completion of which is scheduled for the summer.
Click to expand...

http://juneauempire.com/local/2011-04-05/gross-alaska-going-digital

- Mikko
 
cool... although you are mixing up the shutter with the gate... the film in projection is the same as when it was shot... it is held in the gate steady for 1/24sec and the shutter rotates around and cuts the light...

I've only ever seen it being rotated once... leaving the same image on screen for 1/48sec...

Cheers
 
From what I understand 48 or 60p only make sense for 3D as there is more information for your brain to process or some such thing.

Walter Murch makes a some what similar comment in "In the Blink of an Eye" about editing proxies vs high res imagery and how when you see the higher res image and due to more visual information, cuts done on low res proxies seem to quick as your brain want more time to process info.
 
Last edited:
mikkowilson said:
Hz = Hertz = The SI unit of frequency in cycles per second.
1Hz = 1 time per second; 2Hz = 2 times per second; 24Hz = 24 times per second.

Film traveling through a projector doesn't run smoothly (at the point of projection) but rather is jerked through by a mechanism that's synchronized to the shutter.
The film is advanced a frame set into position for projection. Then the shutter opens to project the image onto the screen. The shutter then closes, and then the film is advanced to the next frame. Many systems open (and close) the shutter twice (or more as noted above) before each frame is projected to increase the image projection frequency (measure in Hz).

A projector showing 24fps film at 48Hz (a common standard) shows the viewer 48 images - enough to reduce flicker, which contain 24 frames which is enough to provide for the illusion of motion.

Film runs smoothly through the other parts of a projector, obviously it's less stressful on the film and the projector to keep a constant speed; but the film must also be running smoothly for the audio track (either an optical audio track on the film; or a synchronization track for external audio equipment).

- Mikko
Click to expand...

Does sitting in the dark count as a frame? Is film 48 fps played back with every-other frame, a non-frame? That is a strange way to look at it.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Does sitting in the dark count as a frame? Is film 48 fps played back with every-other frame, a non-frame? That is a strange way to look at it.
Click to expand...

No... it is 24p.. the shutter is at 48 so that there can be a moment of 'cover' to advance the next frame into place. We, as human being, do not notice this moment of darkness because the light of the last frame is still fading on our retinas as the 'dark shutter closed' frame where the film jerks the next frame into place happens.

Then 'POP' the shutter opens again, reveals the next frame, closes, and repeats. It is the 'persistence of motion' illusion and our own brains that make us believe we are seeing motion and not thousands of individual pictures. You do not see the shutter frames... they cover the jerking of the next film frame into place and if the shutter wasn''t there covering this you would see all sorts of weirdness as you would notice the up and down streaking of the film being pulled.

it goes like this...

Frame 1 displays (1 of 24 in a second of time as we know it)....

the bulb projects that frame onto the screen, the screen reflects that light into your eyes....

The shutter covers the film.... no light is projected as the machinery of the projector jerks the next frame into place (2 of 24) but light has a speed so this is sort of covered up... you don't NOTICE the black frame because the light is still glowing from the last frame..

pop.. the shutter opens up again and now from 2 of 24 (out of the one second sequence) is projected..

Rinse... repeat - Viola! MOTION PICTURES!

Thomas Smet said:
So let me throw this question out there.

Lets say 48p and 60p do take off. Would a project shot today hold up better 5 years from now if it was shot 1080p 24p or 720p 60p/50p? Sure 720p may not be as detailed but the temporal resolution is there. Which form of resolution is an audience going to care more about five years down the road?
Click to expand...

I am pretty much in agreement with what is posted here:

http://prolost.com/60p

Audiences have been rejecting 50 and 60 motion changes per second for years as cheap and 'soap opera' looking and my bet is the hobbit is going to look like a cool 3D play / live video game, not a movie. It will be neat, but I doubt it is the 'future of film' or the 'future of movies' I should say.
I think 48p & 60p 3D will be cool for virtual reality interactive stuff and some science shows but I don't think it threatens or kills 24p. It's an artistic choice for a specific presentation purpose, asthetic, and impact.

In the current market, the sitcoms shot in the 80s at 60 changes of motion per second are almost destroyed in upconvertion to HD while as the 24p film oriented ones still look great and brand new - we had never seen them at there true resolution, and there just IS a magic to 24p that creates suspension of disbelief. I have the old Star Trek TV shows on high def.. they are beautiful at 24p and bizarrely atrocious at 60p (truemotion ect tweening). They suddenly look worse than the worst of Doctor Who (shot on video).

Resolution will be a future concern issue, not frame rate. Always shoot at the highest resolution you can. Shooting at the highest frame rate you can doesn't future proof anything and many times = ugly in my and many artist's and audience's eyes. It might be cool to shoot at 1000p for some atomic particle smashing testing - but we could only appreciate it if we slowed it down... not if we watched it at it's native frame rate... we wouldn't even be able to process it at it's native frame rate it would be a hyper blur. Genrations new and old have been watching and enjoying classic films shown at 24p with very little complaint and they have had other options for a VERY long time., so there MUST be something aesthetically pleasing about it, otherwise, why would people STILL have gone to movies when "TV" was introduced with a much faster frame rate? If frame rate was truly better, then 60 changes of motion per second has been available since the 50s yet still people felt that 'specialness' and dramatic feel when a MOVIE was broadcast on TV using the pulldown method. When the three major networks broadcast a 'movie' it was a HUGE deal... do you remember the old TV guide with huge ads for when Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark was going to be on TV? Do you remember the EXCITEMENT that generated over the regular run of the mill TV shows? If faster frame rate was really important and more interesting than resolution and artistic storytelling - TV would have destroyed the movies, but it did not, and when the movies started appearing on tv, it became an 'event' and whe Home Box Office (HBO) started, it generated so much excitement and almost ALL of its programing was 24p films broadcast over 60i and 50i via pulldown.
I think the evidence speaks for itself.

As far as 3D, we have to understand the terminology correctly as we can get into the same issues we have with being confused with the naming of frame rate verses fields...

A standard 3D movie like Avatar was shot at 24p, but you could argue that it is already 48p, because each frame has TWO progressive frames... one for the left eye, and one for the right.... so if we number frames THAT way... 24p 3D is really already 48p, and that 48p 3D is really 96p.

We are not treating it that way... as far as I know the Hobbit is really going to be shot with TWO red epic cams synced at 48p.... so the 3D term indicates an extra progressive frame of information yet we don't call that the 'frame rate' increase because the 'motion characteristics' will be that of 48p with I guess a 96 or higher shutter?
 
Yeah, I know it as you described it... I was re-stating the process in another way of looking at it, as to confirm that is what the other poster was suggesting. Persistence of vision, and all that jazz is how I know it.
 
Blackout said:
Audiences have been rejecting 50 and 60 motion changes per second for years as cheap and 'soap opera' looking and my bet is the hobbit is going to look like a cool 3D play / live video game, not a movie. It will be neat, but I doubt it is the 'future of film' or the 'future of movies' I should say.
Click to expand...

Actually 60i is not quite the same as 60p. NTSC video is interlaced, so it's half the image for 30 seconds, then other half for another 30, which creates a different motion signature than true 60p because movement gets split between the interlaced frames. Saying it will look like a soap opera is not actually true. It will look different, but it's not going to look like Days of Our Lives or even that 120hz crap on new tvs. Cameron is pushing it because 24p is problematic for 3D content. Jackson is shooting 48 because it downconverts easily to 24p, which is the rate it will still show in 2D theaters.
 
Blackout said:
Audiences have been rejecting 50 and 60 motion changes per second for years as cheap and 'soap opera' looking and my bet is the hobbit is going to look like a cool 3D play / live video game, not a movie. It will be neat, but I doubt it is the 'future of film' or the 'future of movies' I should say.
Click to expand...

I don't think I agree with the reasoning here... the example in the article you reference, uses 'perfectly good BBC dramas'... well, as is well known, 'lighting' is a far more significant 'signature' of Soap Opera and mostlikely the perfectly good BBC drama, for signaling what is TV and what is Film.

The other high frame rate examples, shot on 'film', but presented in special showings... are this... special showings... I don't go to IMAX presentations because the ante for the tickets to me is not worth the difference in 'visuals' of the big screen. Back the olden days I saw few Cinerama presentations because of the same reason... at the time I could watch a 'perfectly good' showing for $1.50, and pay something more for 'the Cinerama' experience... I don't recall ever seeing a 3-d with blue/red glasses as that fad had faded by the time I started going to movies... and the modern examples have left me completely cold on the technology, and for the price... even colder...

What I'm saying is that as a consumer/viewer of movies, the 'smoothness' of motion that higher frame rates give, is pretty low on the list of things that I, even a more sophisticated viewer, watch for... so would an ordinary viewer pay more for higher frame rate fare... probably in the short timer during the novelty period... long term... probably not...

I've also been to only one of the IMAX presentations that use to show for years at the local space museum... sitting in a theater with a wide field view, going over terrain ... gives me motion sickness... Since the concession has been going for years, someone's patronizing it... but until recently IMAX was only for those odd museum presentations.

Will it last... sure when the price comes down (or ordinary size goes up and there's no price difference...) but I think if the price differential remains it may go the way of Cinerama before it... the theater owner can pack 1.5 'theaters' in to one
IMAX viewing room... that doesn't take rocket scientist to figure that there may be a dwindling incentive for the theater owner to have an IMAX presentation facility...

On the other hand digital distribution I think is here to stay, because the processing and transport fees for 'film' are ever increasing, while infrastructure for highspeed electronic transport are going down. With better compression, going up to a higher
frame rate will only be a 'small' differential, rather than twice, or more as much 'film'.
 
24 just seems like the sweet spot. It feels like the norm for un-reality or suspended disbelief. 60 being more realistic looking, as Cameron says fits better with documentaries, news ect. 48 is an interesting look. I always liked the look of HVX footage played at 100 at 48fps, seems like a good middle ground very different than 24 but not as realistic as 60.

I think for dramas you run into the issue that you almost have to much detail at 60, art is not supposed to be squeaky clean. It should be ruff around the edges.
 
Batutta said:
Actually 60i is not quite the same as 60p. NTSC video is interlaced, so it's half the image for 30 seconds, then other half for another 30, which creates a different motion signature than true 60p because movement gets split between the interlaced frames. Saying it will look like a soap opera is not actually true. It will look different, but it's not going to look like Days of Our Lives or even that 120hz crap on new tvs. Cameron is pushing it because 24p is problematic for 3D content. Jackson is shooting 48 because it downconverts easily to 24p, which is the rate it will still show in 2D theaters.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with you there. On a progressive display 60i video does basically get converted to 60p. Yes they are only half as vertically detailed but the motion is exactly the same. 1080i60 and 720p60 are commonly converted back and forth depending on what TV station broadcasts. For example not every on ABC or FOX is shot with a 720p60 camera but yet it is broadcast as that. Not everything on CBS or NBC is shot at 1080i either. 60i and 60p are basically 60 moments in time within 1 second. One just uses a form of data compression to fit those 60 moments into the same bandwidth as 30p. If TV could have been 60p when it first started it would have but they just did not have the bandwidth so they figured out how to cram the same look into half the bandwidth.
 
A progressive display showing interlaced material can sometimes run in interlaced mode. Though normally the entire frame is displayed at once, progressively. However the 60i content will generally retain the cadence of the interlaced signal due to the way it was captured - assuming the source material was originally captured as 60i.

A progressive display (of adequate resolution) doesn't through away half of the resolution by de-interlacing; it simply shows both fields - with their combined complete resolution - at the same time.


And as a minor history note: TV was originally planned to be progressive; however the limitations of the phosphors in the tubes caused them to flicker with a progressive scan (A line would start to fade before it was re-drawn by the next frame). The solution was interlaced as it "smoothed out" the brightness flickering; about the time one line was fading, the lines above and below it were drawn on the following field, keeping the overall brightness the same.

With fields; it was decided to use 60hz as the refresh rate as it could be synchronized using the 60Hz AC power from the power grid. 30p came later.

- Mikko
 
Jimmy Moss said:
24 just seems like the sweet spot. It feels like the norm for un-reality or suspended disbelief. 60 being more realistic looking, as Cameron says fits better with documentaries, news ect. 48 is an interesting look. I always liked the look of HVX footage played at 100 at 48fps, seems like a good middle ground very different than 24 but not as realistic as 60.

I think for dramas you run into the issue that you almost have to much detail at 60, art is not supposed to be squeaky clean. It should be ruff around the edges.
Click to expand...

I would like to get our European friends take on this subject since they are used to watching 50p every day. 50p and 48p are virtually the same thing. I also consider 50p vs 60p to be like 25p vs 30p. Yeah they are a bit different but not so much so for people to say "oh yeah thats better." In fact the only reason why 30p looks better to us is because it matches the refreshrate of 60 hz TV's.

Heck why not just make 50p the standard and ditch NTSC forever and have the world adopt 50p as a universal standard. Wouldn't that be nice? 48p is going to need complex conversion for both 50 hz and 60 hz standards.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Wouldn't that be nice? 48p is going to need complex conversion for both 50 hz and 60 hz standards.
Click to expand...

Not complex at all... just run everything at 1200 Hz, and then divide down by integer multiples for 48, 50, and 60 Hz applications... 1200 being the Least common multiple of 48, 50, and 60...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top