Shooting in 48fps

P

plwells42

Member
I just read today that "The Hobbit" is being shot in 48fps and that Peter Jackson and James Cameron are pushing for the switch from 24fps to 48fps.

If I'm not mistaken, the AF100 shoots in 48fps in VFR. Is that correct?

Does anyone else think this it would be a good thing to switch to the faster frame rate?

I'm sided with those that think we should keep features at 24fps. 48fps may relieve eye strain for 3-D movies, but I think it'll be a sad day in the biz if everything switches. Personally I'm hoping this popularity with 3-D is just a passing phase (although I will admit that Avatar and How To Train Your Dragon were pretty cool in 3-D).
 
I have no problem getting rid of 24fps. If 48fps, or even 60fps looks better and more realistic, I'm all for it.
I was never one to see the benefits of 24fps. I know, films use it all the time, and everyone wants to emulate the look of film. I never thought it translated well with video.
Meh - I was always happy with 1080/60i.
 
yes, how awesome that The Hobbit is going to feel like Coronation Street.

there is a reason that people were clamoring for years for 24p capabilities from their video cameras... they WANTED the temporal feel of film and hated the feel of video, which is what 48 and 60 fps brings us a return to.

24fps has a few advantages that often are not mentioned:

1. Bandwidth
Acquisition and playback (broadcast or streaming on web) is much more efficient (in both cost and compression) at 24fps than at 30p, 48p or 60p.

2. Post workloads
VFX supervisors and artists are collectively groaning at the automatically increased work load -- 2 to 2.5 times, in fact -- that 48 and 60 fps causes. Considering the constant shortening of turnaround cycles for delivery and the downward pressure on post budgets, this is not a good thing to add to the mix. Doing roto on a regular 24fps shot was what it was. Then S3D multiplied the work load, now an increased exhibition frame rate will be adding more labour.
 
James Cameron has a lot of influence but this one erea where I flat out dissagree. 24fps looks fantastic and I don;t think other film makers are going to jump on his 48 or 60fps bandwagon.
 
In shooting film, 24fps is a huge advantage for independents over 48fps because you use half as much raw stock, a considerable savings when you consider the cost of film, processing and work print. Not to mention that 48fps cuts the shooting time of a 1.000 foot magazine from about 10 minutes down to 5 minutes, meaning more crew hours changing mags and blocking.

Wealthy filmmakers like James Cameron have always wanted to up the ante because costs mean nothing to them - and it's another way to squeeze out the little guy. There was the 24fps vs 30fps argument 20 years ago, the argument being that 30fps was more compatible with television broadcast. They didn't win that one, in the US at least.

24fps will undoubtedly die out eventually, because the "film look" is already becoming a thing of the past - and with electronic acquisition costs aren't as relevant. But I've been looking at 24fps for a long time, and I prefer it because it's what I'm used to. It will become more and more of a subjective choice.
 
Here's Peter Jackson's April 11th note on the subject, from FB:

Here's me at our 3D video set up on the set.

Time for an update. Actually, we've been intending to kick off with a video, which is almost done, so look out for that in the next day or two. In the meantime, I thought I'd address the news that has been reported about us shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 frames per second, and explain to you what my thoughts are about this.

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.

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!
 
For a little taste of just how much this look will suck, try watching lord of the rings on a TV with 100hz motion plus setting turned on.

Nasty.

That said, it's probably one of those things that if everyone started doing and it became commonplace, after a while it may start to look 'normal' or possibly even 'good'. But whatever, it looks cack.
 
vanvideo said:
I have no problem getting rid of 24fps. If 48fps, or even 60fps looks better and more realistic, I'm all for it.
I was never one to see the benefits of 24fps. I know, films use it all the time, and everyone wants to emulate the look of film. I never thought it translated well with video.
Meh - I was always happy with 1080/60i.
Click to expand...

Realistic look is the thing to avoid on feature film, realistic is just good for documentary and reality show or Television. A real film for me needs the magic look so for me there is nothing wrong with 24p. Even now we allready facing the oversharpnes sometimes on higer resolutions, a face in close up can even be verry ugly on HD, so if we want to keep the real magic film look with soften image there will be no need to push the level contanty higher to my meanings.
 
Last edited:
They also want to make you believe 3D looks great. It still looks very unrealistic, 2D planes spread out into Z space. They're even shooting 'The Great Gatsby' in 3D now. What's next, Charlie Rose in 3D??
 
DutchFX said:
They also want to make you believe 3D looks great. It still looks very unrealistic, 2D planes spread out into Z space. They're even shooting 'The Great Gatsby' in 3D now. What's next, Charlie Rose in 3D??
Click to expand...

Your wright, to me 3D is more a commercial stunt and for the moment its not worth the buck.
 
Personally I never understood people's irrational attachment to 24 frames per second. 24p became a standard because it was less expensive for film. Just as current roads in the US are a still built to a set width based on the size of a carriage drawn by two horses. lol. I don't get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top