Peter Jackson explains why 48fps is the future

I think using higher frame rates eliminates part of the magic of the cinema. People go to the movies because they want an experience that is different than reality, both in emotional tone and visual aesthetics. They want something different than the life they see through their eyes. In my opinion, crafting aesthetics for the cinema has never been about achieving a "more realistic" look. It's about crafting a look that enhances the story, makes it more than what it was on the page. Images shot and projected at 24 frames a second are integral to this ideology, I don't know what exactly about the frame rate does this but for some reason I feel like less is more. It's precisely because that there are less frames that the image feels bigger, deeper and full. There isn't any question that faster frame rates look more realistic, but I hope the day that motion either by the subject or by the camera in the cinema looks like HD sports on ESPN never comes.
 
And, in a more simpler post... again...

No one's saying this is a standard, just like how 3D, digital, etc is not standard...

Use what you want to use, as will the filmmakers putting material on screen.
 
Kholi said:
No one's saying this is a standard, just like how 3D, digital, etc is not standard...
Click to expand...

Except James Cameron. I mean, he's saying it will be the standard in the next five years so maybe it's not quite the same thing but still. The thought of the majority of films being in 3D and/or at 48 frames in the next couple years is...daunting to say the least.
 
Kholi said:
And, in a more simpler post... again...

No one's saying this is a standard, just like how 3D, digital, etc is not standard...

Use what you want to use, as will the filmmakers putting material on screen.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100% ..... But there are two arguments that keep getting brought up though that are just going in circles -(one side brought up... by Jackson and Cameron)

24 fps - It's outdated, it's too slow, blah blah blah- I disagree completely, but agree higher fps will be esp. good for 3D, action, animation, action type sci fi

48 or 60 fps - It looks like video or a soap opera, etc etc - Yes 60 can add to that look....but many of us haven't even seen what FILM shot in 3D and projected at 48fps looks like. I'm sure Jackson doesen't think his film will look anything like a soap opera...and he knows what he's doing. However....his style is not the next guy's style- and certain films are better left at 24.

Why can't we just agree that not every film needs 48 or 60 fps and not every film should be shot at 24?


and to what Finnegan said...yeah Cameron and others live in their own world ,which is good for creativity's sake and pushing for new tech, but it's like they think EVERYBODY wants to make films like they do. Not every director lives by tech, special effects and grand mind blowing visuals. Some live by nuances, beautiful lighting, and smooth flowing camera moves.
 
Last edited:
Are they also shooting with 180 deg shutter at 48fps? If so, I could see that the higher shutter speed will be bad for any 24p conversion.
 
I think its hilarious to have this conversation at all without seeing their 48p ,they need some seriously SERIOUS MAGIC to make it look not like amateur video.
 
this is like deaf people arguing about music taste,i would like to see this 48p
I dont see it being any different movement wise than my 50fps home movies which look not cinematic no matter how hard you try and cry.
 
How so? We can see 60p at least (not 48, but close enough). I have TWO cameras that I can short a short film in 60p with.
 
Good luck
images


making it looking cinematic
 
I don't think you really have any room to talk, considering that fps is not all there is to a cinematic look. And moreover, I think the point is to "re-imagine" the cinematic look in the first place.
 
I think a big part of the issue is how films look when they are shot with the restrictions of 24p.

I think if you shoot with 24p's restrictions (like panning speeds, etc..), even at a higher frame rate; you are likly to stay closer to the "look" of "film", along with other key techniques like lighting.

- Mikko
 
pulpfiction007 said:
Agreed 100% ..... But there are two arguments that keep getting brought up though that are just going in circles -(one side brought up... by Jackson and Cameron)

24 fps - It's outdated, it's too slow, blah blah blah- I disagree completely, but agree higher fps will be esp. good for 3D, action, animation, action type sci fi

48 or 60 fps - It looks like video or a soap opera, etc etc - Yes 60 can add to that look....but many of us haven't even seen what FILM shot in 3D and projected at 48fps looks like. I'm sure Jackson doesen't think his film will look anything like a soap opera...and he knows what he's doing. However....his style is not the next guy's style- and certain films are better left at 24.

Why can't we just agree that not every film needs 48 or 60 fps and not every film should be shot at 24?


and to what Finnegan said...yeah Cameron and others live in their own world ,which is good for creativity's sake and pushing for new tech, but it's like they think EVERYBODY wants to make films like they do. Not every director lives by tech, special effects and grand mind blowing visuals. Some live by nuances, beautiful lighting, and smooth flowing camera moves.
Click to expand...

So very with you on all points. I'm willing to bet that on a massive screen, the 48 does not look like a soap opera at all, and more engrossing for a 3D feature. I know of at least one person that was at James Camerons 48Fps screening and he said it looked incredible.

I'm all for the push. About three years ago I had asked Barry Green how I could successfully mix 24 and 60P realtime on one timeline but it wasn't really plausible, looking forward to being able to experiment in the near future.
 
this is not about panning speed and restricitons,too many frames doesnt make motion to appear "Serious" like it is in movies with 24 frames,it reminds people of their VHS camcorder look and holiday videos ,we all saw behind the scenes videos,on movie sets with good lights and good acting,it looked fake and like behind the scenes video because of how motion is recorded and played back ,its very smooth,movies dont look like that,so i have very huge doubts about serious movie shot in 48p,i dont know if changing shutter speed is gonna save it from this camcorder motion feeling.

Come on,Cameron said that avatar looks amazing but it looks like regular video game cinematics,Asassins creed cinematic sequences look more realistic at times than avatar.
 
bwwd said:
this is not about panning speed and restricitons,too many frames doesnt make motion to appear "Serious" like it is in movies with 24 frames,it reminds people of their VHS camcorder look and holiday videos ,we all saw behind the scenes videos,on movie sets with good lights and good acting,it looked fake and like behind the scenes video because of how motion is recorded and played back ,its very smooth,movies dont look like that,so i have very huge doubts about serious movie shot in 48p,i dont know if changing shutter speed is gonna save it from this camcorder motion feeling.

Come on,Cameron said that avatar looks amazing but it looks like regular video game cinematics,Asassins creed cinematic sequences look more realistic at times than avatar.
Click to expand...


Please step back two pages or so and read what I said about video game cutscenes. They're typically at higher frame rates...

Every cutscene in final fantasy 13 and God of War 3 is at 30fps. That's why they look so good.

It's not a matter of panning etc. It's a matter of perception: the higher the Fps for certain content the more realistic or believable it is. So again, Pirates non-3D at 48 is probably going to be laughable, but in 3D that changes things. Likewise, an all cgi movie from pixar can probably benefit in a massive way by higher Fps just like video games do.

But I guess some people will have to fight it until they actually see it with their own eyes. Natural.
 
Avatar 2 will surely look fantastic, but I wonder how late in the game this was a final actual decision on Hobbit.

Just imagine the entire scene with Gandaf riding through the Shire in 48p. Isn't Middle-Earth, if any place, where every extra pinch of not-looking-like-a-documentary is benifitial? Oh well, I guess I'm naive...

shire5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Imagine that it does look like a documentary but 60ft large and you have on 3D glasses.

It's also already been said that they can easily distro a 24P version for traditional viewing. Doesn't seen like many are paying attention to the fact that there's an off switch.
 
So it will be 48p and shutter 180 degree 1/48 shutter speed ? I want to see it ,why they didnt show even a second of dailies
 
You can still shoot 180 degree shutter at 1/48 and the motion should look similar, but just smoother. That's what I gather.

I wouldn't show dailies, either, honestly. People will understand when it's time for them to do so.

Again, though, they're not saying this is the end all. It's just another way.
 
What I'm interested to see is how 48fps affects the actors' believability. It's my perception that the slightly unnatural motion rendering of 24fps aides in the believability of the actors' performance. It's one of the problems actors on soaps face, the more "real" the motion rendering is, the less forgiving it is toward the performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top