Peter Jackson explains why 48fps is the future

I

ICD Films

Well-known member
Today Peter Jackson posted a note and some pictures from the set of The Hobbit on his Facebook page. Much apparently so, he is on the same boat as Cameron:

.

"Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these (strobing) issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D"
....
"Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew--many of whom are film purists--are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience."
....
"We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out where we can seriously explore that possibility with Warner Bros. However, while it's predicted that there may be over 10,000 screens capable of projecting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps by our release date in Dec, 2012, we don’t yet know what the reality will be."

Read Sir Jackson's entry here:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/48-frames-per-second/10150222861171558

24giwpf.jpg


.


 
Last edited:
Was just about to post this, as he is shooting The Hobbit @ 48fps

Here is his lengthy explanation:

We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps, rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920′s). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok–and we’ve all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years–but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or “strobe.”

Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D. We’ve been watching HOBBIT tests and dailies at 48 fps now for several months, and we often sit through two hours worth of footage without getting any eye strain from the 3-D. It looks great, and we’ve actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring. We’re getting spoilt!

Originally, 24 fps was chosen based on the technical requirements of the early sound era. I suspect it was the minimum speed required to get some audio fidelity out of the first optical sound tracks. They would have settled on the minimum speed because of the cost of the film stock. 35mm film is expensive, and the cost per foot (to buy the negative stock, develop it and print it), has been a fairly significant part of any film budget.

So we have lived with 24 fps for 9 decades–not because it’s the best film speed (it’s not by any stretch), but because it was the cheapest speed to achieve basic acceptable results back in 1927 or whenever it was adopted.

None of this thinking is new. Doug Trumbull developed and promoted a 60 frames per second process called ShowScan about 30 years ago and that looked great. Unfortunately it was never adopted past theme park use. I imagine the sheer expense of burning through expensive film stock at the higher speed (you are charged per foot of film, which is about 18 frames), and the projection difficulties in cinemas, made it tough to use for “normal” films, despite looking amazing. Actually, if anybody has been on the Star Tours ride at Disneyland, you’ve experienced the life like quality of 60 frames per second. Our new King Kong attraction at Universal Studios also uses 60 fps.

Now that the world’s cinemas are moving towards digital projection, and many films are being shot with digital cameras, increasing the frame rate becomes much easier. Most of the new digital projectors are capable of projecting at 48 fps, with only the digital servers needing some firmware upgrades. We tested both 48 fps and 60 fps. The difference between those speeds is almost impossible to detect, but the increase in quality over 24 fps is significant.

And he had this to say those who criticize the decision:

Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew–many of whom are film purists–are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience. It’s similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs. There’s no doubt in my mind that we’re heading towards movies being shot and projected at higher frame rates. Warner Bros. have been very supportive, and allowed us to start shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps, despite there never having been a wide release feature film filmed at this higher frame rate. We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out where we can seriously explore that possibility with Warner Bros. However, while it’s predicted that there may be over 10,000 screens capable of projecting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps by our release date in Dec, 2012, we don’t yet know what the reality will be. It is a situation we will all be monitoring carefully. I see it as a way of future-proofing THE HOBBIT. Take it from me–if we do release in 48 fps, those are the cinemas you should watch the movie in. It will look terrific!


You can also read what James Cameron had to say about 48 fps being "the future of cinema" when he gave a tech demo @ Cinema Con last month:

http://www.slashfilm.com/cameron/
 
lwright84 said:
And he had this to say those who criticize the decision
Click to expand...

I find it very interesting the way he refers the team as suddenly being "converts". I'm sure he, and everyone else working on the film, realizes that people *will* notice that something is very off when they watch it in cinema.

I think there will be a conflict here, beacuse either EVERYONE has to change to 48fps in the blink of an eye, otherwise people will get seasick watching some Hollywood releases in 48, and the rest in 24........ this is not going to happen. People like Spielberg will shoot film 24 til' the day they retire.

But, then again, as Sir Jackson states himself, 60fps was tried 30 years ago... who sais 48 is here to stay because two big directors sail their pioneer ship into uncharted waters...?
 
What I find interesting is that I have NEVER been distracted by "strobing" when watching my favorite films. Of course the cinematographers have to shoot correctly to avoid it. So do I think this opens new doors for certain types of films? - Yes. Do I think every movie should be shot at a higher frame rate - Absolutely not. It's a complete myth that 24 frames per second is outdated or not '"advanced". If thats true why do people love slow motion segments so much - (I know they're derived from higher rates) The cadence of 24 works for character studies, heavy dramas, dialogue driven films....films with a very "photographic" style, etc. So please Peter Jackson, James Cameron.....just do what works for YOUR style of movies and stop saying only YOU know what the future is.
 
As with everything, and I do mean everything, the customer will decide, no matter what it is the directors want.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
It's a complete myth that 24 frames per second is outdated or not '"advanced".
Click to expand...

Not really... the methodology on which it originally became the standard is no longer relevant. What he says about the fact that "we're all just used to it" is very much true as well.

But I agree with your other comments.
 
lwright84 said:
Not really... the methodology on which it originally became the standard is no longer relevant. What he says about the fact that "we're all just used to it" is very much true as well.

But I agree with your other comments.
Click to expand...

I understand that it's origination makes it seem "old" - but the reason I say it's not outdated is that now that there are/will be other options it's just another choice, like choosing a certain color scheme or style. For instance - Ken Burns doesen't HAVE to shoot @ 1 frame per 5seconds/10 seconds! - Sorry this is an extreme example, but some cinematographers do a similar thing with their work -nice slow pans, static wide shots, longer scenes without cuts, etc. - 24 is perfect for that....even slower.
For a 3D, SCI FI, Action Extravaganza - Absolutely crank it up.
My whole frustration is that I see BOTH as viable options, where as the proponents of higher rates seem to have to knock down 24fps as being antiquated, annoying, etc.
Ansel Adams often said more in one frame than most of us could with a million. That's the gist of my argument - Sometimes letting the mood captivate the audience is better than dazzling cgi and technological wizardry- Each has their place.
 
Last edited:
I probably wouldn't normally want to go see a film like The Hobbit, but I believe I'll be checking it out on a purely technical level before I form an opinion on 48 fps. I just haven't knowingly seen anything at that frame rate yet.
 
This just means they will pan to frodo, then sam, then back to frodo...... even faster.......
 
Yeah...not a fan. Heck, I think 25p looks weird. 24fps seems to be the "magical" framerate that just works. Anything above just looks like video to me. I shoot 48p for slowmo all the time so I know what it looks like, it's what I see on my monitor while shooting and I would never want anything I film to look like that. I honestly can't remember the last time I even shot anything at 30fps. (29.97)
 
Martin Oller said:
But, then again, as Sir Jackson states himself, 60fps was tried 30 years ago... who sais 48 is here to stay because two big directors sail their pioneer ship into uncharted waters...?
Click to expand...

You missed the part where he mentions in passing the costs of doing 60 fps in 'film', vs. 48 fps in 'digital'... there is no additional distribution costs... ok, whatever the electronic transfer tariff may be...

That is the reason why 30 years ago it was not cost effective to produce higher speed frame rates... and because of e-transfer, the costs of distribution of higher frame rate media will be far less... probably less
than making 24 fps distributions prints, and the physical transport required...

And of course, of course... for the filmmaker with a major budget, ordering lights with one more stop's worth of output is not a problem... for people who don't have a budget... well... two things... need less light
at 24 than 48... and less compression for distribution...
 
I love how Cameron and now Jackson are acting like they just invented this new technique. Europenas have been viewing 720p 50p for a long time now so this is nothing new. Why all the excitement for a couple of directors basically saying they are going to shoot the same way TV broadcasters shoot? They are not inventing anything new here. Just getting lazy. Shooting 24p is an art form and 48p, 50p and 60p are a lazy form of shooting because you can pretty much do anything with the camera just like an amateur and still have it look smooth. Shooting higher framerates just means cinematography is going to get sloppy.

Look at the opposite effect with someone like a Wedding videographer. For years they only shot in a 60 or 50 frame form. Then 24p became possible and many of them struggled with it. This is because they were used to shooting sloppy video. When they try to apply those same sloppy rules to a 24p camera it looked bad. Now movies are going to get sloppy because instead of taking the time to shoot something well the choice will be made that it still looks good enough so forget about it.

I'm not entirely against 48p since I do sometimes shoot 60p projects. I'm just saying these guys are not inventing anything new here.

Another thing to keep in mind is that it should be fairly easy to grab a 24p print from the 48p version for older cinemas. We may even see two different blu-ray versions down the road. One 720p 48p (if they can figure out how to do it) and one 1080p 24p. Just like how 60p material can easily be converted to 30p material it should not be a problem. Where it could be a problem however is if they have a shot that only really looks good at 48p then it could look kind of bad at 24p. Hopefully when they shoot they keep in mind that at some point a shot may be viewed as 24p and they are only using 48p to enhance an already decent 24p shot.

So when is Panasonic going to have a 48p mode? Oh wait it is called 50p on the European models.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Look at the opposite effect with someone like a Wedding videographer. For years they only shot in a 60 or 50 frame form.
Click to expand...

Until the advent of progressive modes on video capture, most 'wedding' photographers were shooting with lower end cameras that did only interlaced 60 fields for a 30 fps NTSC capture, at least in my NTSC land. I presume the PAL videographers were shooting the equivalent in their regions, which is 50 fields for a frame rate of 25 fps.

Only with the advent of progressive capture at affordable prices has 30p become 'standard'. And not to mention onced captured, put on to DVD that mucks it all up for NTSC 60 fields/30 fps. (I'll forgo the 29...).
 
so after all that time and effort everyone has put in trying to make video look like film for the past decade, film has now decided it wants to look like video. genius.
 
"It’s similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs."

I love when people reference Vinyl to CD sales. I know CD sales still outweigh Vinyl sales, but among the people that love music the most Vinyl is still king and sales have gone up every year for the last 10. Can the same be said for CD's? Many artists release their Vinyl albums first to a select audience. Can I sign up for the special 24fps screening of any future films?

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9187001/Forget_digital_tunes_analog_music_on_the_upswing

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/7398399/Vinyl-records-sales-rising-as-old-fashioned-albums-enjoy-a-renaissance.html
 
I'm for what they're doing. What a lot of people cant' seem to understand as that there is an on and off switch, and you will not be required to shoot more than 24FPS at all times.

There are a LOT of reasons that 48 and 60 are great at this large level, the main being the trickle down to home theater viewing: no more tru motion garbage, we can get actual LCDs and Plasmas that can reproduce higher framerates, which means for video games that's going to be sick. The higher frame rate for games is like living the medium, I'm donw.

Second, CGi based movies are crippled by 24fps. If you've ever seen a video game CGi cutscene in 30P it looks incredible, and almost allows you to immediately connect with the rendered characters. Movies like Pixar's UP might get remastered @ 60P? I dunno, but if it were I bet it would be a really great experience.

Lastly, 3D viewing, of course. If it's going to stay, we need higher framerates to avoid fatigue. There's no real sense in whining about it, until it kills itself it's going to live on so let it live. Meanwhile, also let it improve so the experience does as well.

For my regular ol' movies I'm going to prefer, and probably shoot, 24fps. I don't need my 2D Jack Sparrow Popcorn flick to look like a soap opera. I want to be disconnected so that I can disappear into the acts and dialog. For 3D, it's meant to be experienced as if you were there, so let's do it.
 
This new does make me happy my HVX-200 can do 48p. If it becomes the new standard my old equipment can do it.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
You missed the part where he mentions in passing the costs of doing 60 fps in 'film', vs. 48 fps in 'digital'... there is no additional distribution costs... ok, whatever the electronic transfer tariff may be...

That is the reason why 30 years ago it was not cost effective to produce higher speed frame rates... and because of e-transfer, the costs of distribution of higher frame rate media will be far less... probably less
than making 24 fps distributions prints, and the physical transport required...

And of course, of course... for the filmmaker with a major budget, ordering lights with one more stop's worth of output is not a problem... for people who don't have a budget... well... two things... need less light
at 24 than 48... and less compression for distribution...
Click to expand...

Don't forget that FX will now take 2-2.5 times longer to render at these higher rates. Sure that's fine for a simple shot or two. But what about the shots that take a good 36hours to render PER FRAME? I'm sure ILM is thrilled about this. Don't even wanna know what the roto guys think.
 
There are going to a lot of discussions about different technical standards as digital cinema matures, that is for sure. What I think we are going to see is a separation of large screen exhibition into various different formats, with different technical specs, depending upon the nature of the content. Action oriented, CGI heavy "Theme Park Ride Movies", which Mr. Jackson and Mr. Cameron excel at, may very well be best if shot and exhibited at 48fps, while large events, such as music concerts or sports events, might be best if shot, and exhibited at 60fps. I for one hope that 24fps remains for more intimate, character and story oriented movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top