Peter Jackson explains why 48fps is the future

yeah acting in 30p and more fps looks just fake and different ,im very curious and its really very weird that there is no 48p footage to convince people ,words mean nothing
 
No offense to anyone, but, it's a real production... we'll see footage when a trailer is released, and even then I'd wager the trailer will be shown at 24FPS, and the 48P won't be called 48P, it'll be titled something less obvious like "LIFEMOTION TECHNOLOGY" or something silly.

Lastly, it's Peter Jackson... he really doesn't have to prove himself to anyone, especially other filmmakers.

Judge now or later, it doesn't matter because it's not something anyone here can control. He's going forward with his decision, it won't destroy cinema as you know it or any personal decisions at which frame rates to acquire in.
 
I am still not sure how I feel about this. I am a film purist and to me, anything above 24 looks like cheap video. I am sure that when projected on the big screen, 4k 3D at 48 fps will be spectacular but it will be unlike anything we have ever seen before and it may not be 100% accepted by the public. I think audience reaction will ultimately decide if this is the future. But then again, there has been a great deal of 3D backlash and yet we are still getting it crammed down our throats. I am fine with higher frame rates as long as I am not forced to shoot them. This will be a problem once studios start demanding that everything be shot at 48+ fps.
 
bwwd said:
yeah acting in 30p and more fps looks just fake and different ,im very curious and its really very weird that there is no 48p footage to convince people ,words mean nothing
Click to expand...

Again 48p is really nothing new here. It is no different then watching a 720p50p broadcast in Europe. Watch any type of 720p HD broadcast and you will see what 48p will look like. Jackson is not doing something that has not been done before. He is just now shooting in a way TV broadcasters have been shooting for a long time. Nothing really new to see. Heck just turn on ABC in the US and watch Dancing with the Stars to see exactly what 60p looks like. There is no Peter Jackson magic going on here. It is just 48 frames captured per second just like 50 frames captured per second for PAL based 720p. The only difference is that Jackson is capturing at 4k and 5k instead of 720p or 1k.
 
Tim Joy said:
I don't get it. 180 deg shutter at 48fps is 1/96th shutter, no?
Click to expand...

Let me ask about this again to make sure I am repeating it properly. Sorry for the confusion. Had a discussion about a week or more ago about it and someone explained to me why it's not as soap opera as it sounds.
 
This 48frames thing is a function of 3D. It is beneficial to 3D.

I don't think its going to carry into 2D narrative.

Edit:
On another note.... imagine 250fps shots played back @ 5k in 48fps base.... that will be freaking awesome.........
 
PLEASE read 2 links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Television

http://nofilmschool.com/2011/04/pet...tm_campaign=Feed:+nofilmschool+(NoFilmSchool)

Why does there have to be only 1 frame rate? Why have only 1 resolution?
I am all about use the right tool for the job at hand, and we vote with our wallets.

Are we all gullible in 2011 as artists, broadcasters and filmmakers not to see
4K, 3D, RAW and super-high frame rates is mostly pure BS to get us to buy more gear
before 8K becomes the next broadcast standard?

Now that prices have come down on affordable 24p 1080 gear with S35 sensors, MANUFACTURERS want to brainwash you into thinking
it is insufficient... We've approached the point of diminishing returns in consumer demand for video.
My solution? Don't buy the pricey gear, rent it according to the job... sparingly...

The Music industry has done it for years, mixing analog and digital 16 bit, 24 bit and 44kHz,
48kHz and 96kHz... DID people pay more for higher resolution music when they had a choice
- nope they go with MP3...

Also, why not have elements within the frame move at different rates and resolution?
If the background is static, then keep it at lower res 24p while the items in motion run at 1000fps or beyond...
similar to techniques employed in game engine rendering and compression...

Ultimately, I believe everything that is done on that budget level with 3D or 4K or surround sound
or smell-o-vision is simply marketing to get more people to come back to the theaters to see the
Next Thing in person, especially on sequels...

Technologically 4K is not even enough at 24p in the future, as 8K is the next NHK/BBC broadcast standard.
Don't believe me- why is the Sony F65 marketed as a 8K Sensor in 2011 with 4K output and beyond ...
(not solely to tick off a certain competitor, but it's a coming standard). Also, pulling 8K res stills from video is
what we want, not 4K (truly insufficient for photographers). REMEMBER, we are being marketed to before
the audience, to upgrade our perfectly fine 1080p 24p gear before it's time, and
the exact same companies telling us 4K is not enough in 2011
will be the same names telling us 8K is the film, broadcast and photography replacement in 2016.

In 2012, will consumers revolt and throw away 1080p Blu Ray discs because they were originally
shot with 24p Arri Alexa 1080p to pro-res and never hit the 3D 4K RAW workflow?

If you haven't noticed, 1080p 24p is fine for mass audiences who are even content with
lower quality free rips or ipad res 720p video in the foreseeable future.

I am content to have more options, but lot's of money is being wasted at a time where returns have diminished.

I hope every professional going to NAB next year says 8K with variable in-frame 1000fps is what we want,
or I'm keeping my 24p 1080p gear until you listen...

Interesting times, having fun and keep shooting!

Cheers,
John
 
Hey some mp3's and some mp3's arent equal,people still want quality and people pick 192kbs over 64kbs MP3 so dont forget that also resolution is completely different thing than framerate which basically controls how movement looks like,i dont like changing 24p standard at all its how movies looked like and its how it should stay till the end of days and longer.
Anyone has 48fps video with 1/96 shutter speed ?They talk and talk but they show nothing.If its only for 3D then i dont really care,3D is a gimmick/FX and will stay like that no matter what.Theres push for 3D only because of ticket prices ,those can be "Reasonably" higher and studios love it.
 
Isn't the 48P primarily for the 3D release? And in that scenario, I can imagine it has benefits. But I'm expecting that the 2D theatrical release will be 24P (easily extracted from 48P, obviously).
 
typaxa said:
Hey guys, I'm new to the forum, and I thought I'd share my 48fps test with ya's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDEUMCOtnIE&sns=em

I think it looks still nicely filmic with the shallow DoF.
Click to expand...


Is this accurate?

I thought YouTube plays video at 29.97fps, right? I'm not quite sure your average filmmakers are able to shoot, edit, and project a full 48fps workflow quite yet. No? I'm not an editor, so this is not my specialty.

I think this video is being played back at 30fps video.
 
Last edited:
Again 48p is no different then 50p which people have been using for years. It is also not that much different then 60p. Not much to test really.
 
The news about us filming The Hobbit at 48 frames per second generated a lot of comments. Of course, it's impossible to show you what 48 fps actually looks like outside of a movie cinema, but there were several interesting and insightful questions raised.

We will be completing a "normal" 24 frames per second version—in both digital and 35mm film prints. If we are able to get the Hobbit projected at 48 fps in selected cinemas, there will still be normal-looking 24 fps versions available in cinemas everywhere.

Converting a film shot at 48 fps down to 24 fps is not a hugely difficult process, but it requires testing to achieve the best results. Some of this involves digital processes during post-production. We are also shooting the film a slightly different way, which is a question several of you asked. Normally you shoot a movie with a 180-degree shutter angle. Changing the shutter angle affects the amount of motion blur captured during movement. Reducing the shutter angle gives you the stroby (or jerky) "Saving Private Ryan" look.

However, we're going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master.

More soon ....

Cheers,
Peter J
Click to expand...

Translation:

We got heavy Flak on that subject and we are not sure anymore, if 48fps was a good idea at all.
So we gonna show a 24fps version instead. In some selected theaters, we try the 48 thing as an experiment to see how the audience reacts.
Cheers,
Peter J


Frank
 
If it's not for people like Jackson, then long held paradigms will never change. I don't know whether 48/60fps will ever be a viable option, but I certainly applaud his and Cameron's efforts for trying out something new.
 
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.
 
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...

Well, that was true for the IMAX experience as well... after Cinerama and the like turned into 4 movie projection rooms, because it was financially better to have small screens and four different programs in the same theater space, Cinerama... well it disappeared from the theater experience for some 30-35 years... except in 'theme park' or 'museum' exhibitions.

Then again... perhaps IMAX will disappear in like manner after the novelty effect wears off...
 
Most houses billing themselves as IMAX are truly quasIMAX. As much as I think the 2k digital experience most people are seeing under the IMAX or DigitalIMAX marquee is an improvement over traditional 35mm theatrical releases, it clearly is not IMAX. This is where digital integration is a real drag for consumers. NATO had really dug in and stated that their members weren't going to buy into digital projection in almost all markets. Now, they are forced to adopt digital if they want a part of the 3D windfall as the production side of the industry pushes for it as if it were manifest destiny. We, the consumers, are forced to buy $2.50 - $12.50 glasses for each RealD and IMAX3D exhibition. Try telling the theater manager you already own the glasses they're selling and see if that will get you out of the glasses surcharge. In the meantime, the studios make no secret that the cost-benefit to them through digital exhibition is huge.
 
I don't see anything surprising here -- of COURSE they're going to release a 2D 24fps print of it. That's all that could be played in the vast majority of theaters worldwide. Digital projection is gaining traction but it's still a big minority worldwide. And when it comes time to broadcast it, the worldwide HDTV infrastructure couldn't support 48fps anyway -- so they've protected for 24fps to handle distribution and broadcast. The choice to go 48fps (instead of 60) makes the conversion down to 24 either trivial or effortless, depending on whether they're blending or just dropping frames. A 270 degree shutter angle means an exposure time of 1/64th, which is a reasonable exposure time for 24p footage.

Sound to me like a perfectly reasonable approach. They've protected for traditional 2D 24fps, but they've provided a new experience too -- 48fps 3D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top