They've been able to do that for years now (shoot in higher frame rates). There are many workflow reasons not to do that.
Shooting in 48fps
- Thread starter plwells42
- Start date
They've been able to do that for years now (shoot in higher frame rates). There are many workflow reasons not to do that.
Well said! Naturally if you have the budget of Jackson or Cameron the workflow issues are non-issues.
I hope I'm dead before that happens.
androbot2084
Carbonite Member
I think that the problem with workflows is unreasonably high resolution expectations. Yes if you insist on shooting dual 5K at 120 frames per second of course you are going to have massive data wrangling problems. When James Cameron shot Avatar he complained that the technology was not mature enough for dual 1080p48 aquisition but failed to realize that if Avatar was shot using dual 720p48 it would have looked just fine even if it was not "full high definition 1080".
What people fail to realize is that if you take a resolution hit the lost resolution is made up by the frame rate. So for the Indy film maker, workflows can easily be developed for 720p aquisition and delivery but most Indys will turn their noses on the 720p format and forever wait for Blu-ray to support dual 1080p60
What people fail to realize is that if you take a resolution hit the lost resolution is made up by the frame rate. So for the Indy film maker, workflows can easily be developed for 720p aquisition and delivery but most Indys will turn their noses on the 720p format and forever wait for Blu-ray to support dual 1080p60
Resolution expectations have nothing to do with it. A thorough pre-production process does. You should know what you're shooting well before you ever expose a frame, and as such, you'll know what frame rate you want for every shot, every sequence, everything -- which will most likely be the same throughout, just as the color pallette and production design will be. You do NOT let something as basic as your frame rate be a decision you make in post. That will have repercussions throughout your production process, and the product you get may not be the product you wanted.
Jarek Zabczynski
Veteran
Wrong. One has nothing to do with the other. A standard definition film shot at 120fps and blown up to 4k is still gonna look like ****.
In my opinion, higher frame-rates make sense for things like video games or virtual reality content, where the goal is emulate reality. Higher frame-rates do not, however, make sense for things like movies. It is just too much visual information for the audience members to take in while still staying involved in the story. I think the closer it is to reality, the less the audience will be able to relate to the characters on screen. The audience is relating to the camera at that point.
A still image holds far more emotional information on its own than the same image would have in a motion picture. It is that very difference from reality (the lack of movement) that allows the audience to observe and find the emotion.
24p manages to bring in the motion aspect of reality, while still retaining the emotional connection of a still image.
A still image holds far more emotional information on its own than the same image would have in a motion picture. It is that very difference from reality (the lack of movement) that allows the audience to observe and find the emotion.
24p manages to bring in the motion aspect of reality, while still retaining the emotional connection of a still image.
BLUESPIDER
DVXuser Ninja
eh, I hate to be the VFX guys at Weta. Rotoscoping 24 extra frames. Yikes. No thanks, 24fps looks fine. Heck Family Guy was done less than 24fps and its awesome! 
roxics
Veteran
I'm sure a lot of that has to do with the fact that it's 3D which by default has a little bit of a weird effect to it because of the stereo separation. So I do believe him when he says it looks better... for 3D. My question is, does it fall apart once converted to 2D.
PaPa
Major Contributor
There are a couple of things I wonder about when thinking about how this 48fps film could be converted and watched at 24fps. Firstly being the fact that if Peter wants to improve the quality of the film by shooting at a higher frame rate, because of the 3D aspect, then one might be lead to think that he would be likely to shoot with a deep depth of field on both cameras, to maximize the effect of 3D. I find it very disturbing when i'm watching a film in theaters, in 3D, with movement and areas out of focus. This is why I believe shooting in 3D might be better with a deep depth of field, so you can explore the image with your own eyes because of the depth. Now, if this happens to be even remotely true, and Peter wants to really give the best 3D experience, then he too will shoot with a reasonably deep depth of field.
Then, for the 2D viewers, might we be distracted by the fact that there is very little use of shallow depth of field to help concentrate the viewer?
Then, for the 2D viewers, might we be distracted by the fact that there is very little use of shallow depth of field to help concentrate the viewer?
cheezweezl
Veteran
i'm not parroting anything. it actually does look like crap. i've never seen anything projected or displayed at a faster framerate than 60fps. but from what i understand, your eyes can't really tell the difference past 60. i have seen plenty of stuff at 48 frames. when i'm shooting a well lit scene at 24fps, it looks great. if i switch to 48fps slow motion, all the sudden i am looking at cheap video. i don't understand why anyone would want to shoot films at anything other than 24fps.
i'm not complaining about 60p sports broadcasts. just like i don't complain about 60p or 60i newscasts, game shows, soap operas, infomercials, etc.
i just don't want movies to look like that.
Jarek Zabczynski
Veteran
Amen. I don't want movies to look more "real", it defeats the purpose. I go to the movies to escape reality. These higher framerates do the exact opposite.
Nektonic
Veteran
I've been thinking of this recently. When I went to see Tron Legacy in 3D this past December, there were a bunch of 3D trailers shown. One was for a nature documentary that was shot completely in 3D. Of all the 3D footage I've seen, this nature doc had the most depth and overall 3D "pop" of anything I've seen so far. I assumed they probably shot on HD video cameras with smaller sensors than films like the new Pirates of the Caribbean and The Hobbit which are using Red cameras. It seems to get the most dramatic 3D effect, one would need to shoot with a deeper depth of field. This is kind of ironic in that we are finally getting cameras with everything we want like 24 fps, variable frame rates, interchangeable lens mounts, large 35mm size sensors, modularity, etc. But now everything is going towards 3D and maybe eventually 48 fps if The Hobbit looks good and if audiences prefer 48 over 24 fps.
Back to 3D and deeper depth of field. Take something like Avatar. There were a lot of shots that really popped out and had the 3D feel to them, however, a lot of the shots that looked like they were maybe shot with a longer lens looked just about as flat as a standard 2D image shot with a medium to longer focal range lens (let's say a 50mm to a 100mm range). These flatter looking shots, when focusing my thoughts on the 3D aspect of them also displayed a feeling of looking like 2D cutouts placed against a separated background. So the question is, if a filmmaker is going to go 3D, what is the point of doing so if they are not going to have the whole movie have a more consistently 3D look? And just for the record, I thought Tron Legacy overall looked even more flat in 3D than anything in Avatar. Not as flat as a 2D image, just not as impressive or as immersive feeling as Avatar seemed when I first saw it.
I hope the trend doesn't go towards super deep depth of field cinematography. Besides looking crisper and cleaner, the films shot with a deep depth of field for 3D will probably look worse than more traditionally shot films once we get them on our screens at home, unless we have a 3D LCD or plasma.
androbot2084
Carbonite Member
You are right, for years I never noticed motion blur but once it was pointed out to me and my eyes were opened I can't help but to notice the motion blur.
PaPa
Major Contributor
I just enjoy 3D when the depth of field is infinitely deep. I don't want out of focus areas in 3D. Ever. I find it strains the eyes as well. You can explore the depth of the image but then your eyes are trying to focus on something that isn't in focus. Can give you a headache.
+1
I was thinking the same thing when I watched Avatar. Shallow depth of field is usually supposed to simulate 3D and tell your brain "that is in the fore/background, so it is out of focus". But when the thing is already in 3D you don't need the shallow depth of field, because when you focus on the foreground the background will be out of focus (in your brain, like real life).
In terms of effectiveness, deep dof & 48/60 fps will create great 3D (imho).
But if you need shallow dof for artistic reasons i.e. to draw the viewers attention to something, or to create a more pleasing image.....i don't know, maybe a stick Letus in front of each lens
Last edited:
Sam Scoggins
Well-known member
"Form is emptiness; emptiness is form; form is not other than emptiness; emptiness is not other than form"
The Heart Sutra
The Heart Sutra
If a DVX user member made a feature film tomorrow that made it big, and then he/she announced that they will be shooting at 90 FPS because ______________ (insert reason there). Then a lot of people will follow, simply because ____________ so and so said it.
24fps was introduced before cameron and jackson were born.
Don't get me wrong, great directors, absolutely. But just like movies were made before Red, it was decided that 24fps was good for theatrical screenings. So 60-70 years later so and so said "oh its great, blah, blah", then everyone you suck without 48fps and 3D because the studio told me to announce this.
24fps was introduced before cameron and jackson were born.
Don't get me wrong, great directors, absolutely. But just like movies were made before Red, it was decided that 24fps was good for theatrical screenings. So 60-70 years later so and so said "oh its great, blah, blah", then everyone you suck without 48fps and 3D because the studio told me to announce this.