Peter Jackson explains why 48fps is the future

Too bad we are stuck with 24fps as a standard when all along it should have been 30fps to be more compatible with 60Hz based systems. Not everyone in the world is progressive capable, so it will be a long while before we get there. Had 30fps been the norm, we'd be talking about going to 60fps 3D which is what it should be.

At least the UK got it right with 25fps, 50i, 50p.
 
Erik Olson said:
TV didn't exist a century ago when they settled on 24 fps production and exhibition.
Click to expand...

---- from the wiki on History of Television...
-----
However, if television is defined as the live transmission of moving images with continuous tonal variation, Baird first achieved this privately on October 2, 1925. But strictly speaking, Baird had not yet achieved moving images on October 2. His scanner worked at only five images per second, below the threshold required to give the illusion of motion, usually defined as at least 12 images per second. By January, he had improved the scan rate to 12.5 images per second. Then he gave the world's first demonstration of a working television system to members of the Royal Institution and a newspaper reporter on January 26, 1926 at his laboratory in London. Unlike later electronic systems with several hundred lines of resolution, Baird's vertically scanned image, using a scanning disk embedded with a double spiral of lenses, had only 30 lines, just enough to reproduce a recognizable human face.
-----

Note the use of 12 fps... we in the US and anywhere else that 60 Hz power is the norm, got stuck with 30 fps B&W and the 'tweak' for color, to 29.97... PAL land stuck with 50 Hz and 25 fps and didn't need a 'tweak' for color...

But here's an interesting table of 'estimated film speeds' for 1920's vintage films... note until 1928... with Sound becoming the rage, the estimated film speeds vary from 16 to 24...

(better formated here http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/18_kb_2.htm#3 )

Code: 
Comparison of probable camera speeds (as indicated by Polygon) 
and projection speeds (as specified by cue sheets) 
		Camera fps  	Projector fps  	Cameraman  	Studio 
Blind Husbands  	1919  	16  	?  	Ben Reynolds  	Universal 
Foolish Wives  	1921  	16  	18  	Reynolds/Wm Daniels  	Universal 
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse  	1921  	20  	21  	John Seitz  	Metro 
Monsieur Beaucaire  	1924  	18  	24*  	Harry Fischbeck  	FP-Lasky 
Robin Hood  	1922  	19  	22  	Arthur Edeson  	United Artists 
Scaramouche  	1923  	19  	22  	John Seitz  	Metro 
Merry Widow  	1925  	19  	24  	Oliver Marsh  	MGM 
Ben-Hur  	1925  	19  	22  	Various  	MGM 
The Crowd  	1928  	20  	24  	John Arnold  	MGM 
Show People  	1928  	20  	24  	John Arnold  	MGM 
Flesh and the Devil  	1926  	20  	23  	Wm Daniels  	MGM 
Mysterious Lady  	1928  	20  	24  	Wm Daniels  	MGM 
The Black Pirate  	1926  	20  	24  	Henry Sharp  	United Artists 
Lilac Time  	1928  	20  	24  	Sid Hickox  	First National 
Love  	1927  	20  	24  	Wm Daniels  	MGM 
The Eagle  	1925  	22  	24  	Geo Barnes  	United Artists 
Wedding March  	1928  	22  	24  	Hal Mohr  	Paramount 
The Strong Man  	1926  	22  	24  	Elgin Lesley  	First National 
What Price Glory?  	1926  	22  	24  	Barney McGill  	Fox 
Trail of 98  	1928  	22  	24  	John Seitz  	MGM 
Woman of Affairs  	1928  	24  	24  	Wm Daniels  	MGM 
The General  	1926  	24  	24  	Dev Jennings  	United Artists 
Docks of New York  	1928  	24  	24  	Hal Rosson  	Paramount 
Queen Kelly  	1928  	24  	24  	Paul Ivano/G. Pollock  	United Artists
----
 
Yes, film framerates have certainly varied, as have aspect ratios and so on, but for the overwhelming history of the medium, they have been acquired at 24fps for sync sound. I once wrote a white paper on aspect ratios and widescreen formats - that is a staggering subject to try and wrap yourself around!
 
That clip on YouTube appears fast because it was undercranked. (Shot at a low frame rate, and played back with a faster one)

If you shoot at 30 and play at 30 it certainly does not look fake, sped up, or too smooth...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
---- from the wiki on History of Television...----
Click to expand...

Fascinating article there. It is interesting that without exception, films were being projected faster than they were shot. Does that tell us something useful about what audiences prefer?

Another great quote relevant to the current debate: "Controversy over speed dogged silent films from the start. Thomas Edison recommended a speed of 46 frames per second- 'anything less will strain the eye.'"

- Greg
 
Greg Smith said:
Does that tell us something useful about what audiences prefer?
Click to expand...

No. I'd say it was the fact you could get more minutes out of a roll of film shooting at slower frame rates but for that to be true you'd have to play it back at that rate too. Reading up on silent film, it seems they were mostly shot at 16 or 18fps and projected that way, later when sound was added audio warbled at those low frame rates so it was increased to 24fps.
 
Last edited:
Well, film projectors do project at 48 frames a second. They double each frame, it helps prevent flickering on the big screen.
 
Erik Olson said:
Again. They've tried narrative cinema releases in 48/48 and 60/60 and it was called ShowScan. And people didn't like the motion. Doug Trumbull still got his technical Oscar and ShowScan, with no theatrical releases under its belt, went bankrupt within a decade. Not coincidentally, themed attractions, in 3D and not, were the only place where audiences could take in the ShowScan experience. It. Has. Been. Done. And, I predict, will be done again.
Click to expand...

Any "narrative cinema" productions in Showscan were shorts only, not full-length features. The idea that "people didn't like the motion" is entirely new to me; are there any sources for this? I would think that a major reason for Showscan's troubles was the limited number of exhibition venues. (BTW, Trumbull had wanted to film the "Hat" sequences in Brainstorm in Showscan, but it was doubtless the logistics of exhibition that made MGM put the kibosh on that idea.)
 
TimurCivan said:
Well, film projectors do project at 48 frames a second. They double each frame, it helps prevent flickering on the big screen.
Click to expand...
This leads to confusion though. Film runs through the projector at the rate of 24 frames per second, period. You don't see 48 frames. You see 24. They do project each frame twice to smooth out the flicker, but that has zero effect on the rendition of motion.

48fps has a massive effect on the rendition of motion.
 
I will shoot some 48fps 3d for you guys maybe Friday. AF100 overcranked to 48fps, played back at 48, and using the 3D lens. Don't know how you will watch it, I don't know if YouTube 3D will play fast frame rates. Could render it out to 720p side-by-side embedded in 60p, or maybe just shoot 720/50p 3D.
 
That's one thing about all this new "tech" in filmmaking that's being bandied about, 3D, high frame rates...about the only one you can "distribute" in any way (outside of having someone download a file) is HDR.

Do Vimeo, YouTube, Viddler, ect. even support true 720 60p?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top