Shooting in 48fps

Gahhhhh - after the 50th post I couldn't stand reading more straw-man arguments (so I apologize if I'm repeating what someone said in the next 50 posts).

Jackson's opinion is that 48fps looks better for 3D ... and this sounds right to me because blur in the 24fps 3D stuff I've seen looks very unnatural. (Actually I would say the same for IMax - I saw an IMax version of a NASCAR documentary and still consider it the worst use of 24p evah!).

Whether or not 24P is a good idea for 2D is a completely different claim, and is not what Jackson was talking about.
 
Shooter said:
The shutter angle is not measured in fractions of a second. It is measured in degrees. ( and the shutter angle in combination with the fps determines the exposure in fractions of a second)

There are plenty of film cameras with variable degree shutters and it is easy to achieve an exposure of 1/24th of a second should one wish to.
Click to expand...

I was always under the impression this was impossible, as the shutter needs to block light as the film is advanced. Anyhow, 180 degrees is the standard for film, which comes out to an exposure length of 1/48th of a second. A 48fps system should be able to reproduce the same amount of motion blur.
 
David Jimerson said:
I made a slight edit to my post you guys might want to check out.

It's not really the frame rate which gives you a specific motion blur -- it's the shutter speed relative to the frame rate. You can have the same apparent level of blur in most any frame rate (theoretically).
Click to expand...

Yes that is all true, but this is assuming that folks are talking about shooting at a faster frame rate and a shutter that is not 180 degrees. All of the commentaries that I have read or seen on youtube from the Hollywood directors involved are talking about 48 fps to improve watching 3D, allow for faster pans, and change the motion blur.

Jackson says, "The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps [i.e. frames per second], 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.'"

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/04/12/the-hobbit-48-frames-peter-jackson/
 
I saw avatar play on one of those new tv's that makes 24p look like 60p. It sucked. Period.

Say what you want about technology but nothing will change the fact that 24p looks and feels like a movie. 48p or 60p looks and feels like cheap video.

Example: when on set and shooting 48 or 60 frame slow motion, someone will usually ask why it looks like crappy home video. Then I show them the 24p slow mo playback and they get it.
 
cheezweezl said:
I saw avatar play on one of those new tv's that makes 24p look like 60p. It sucked. Period.
Click to expand...

Yeah, anytime I stroll into a Best Buy I'm stunned when I overhear sales people push the "240hz super duper motion enchancement" features. It's hard for me not to interject and school them on how that "feature" does nothing but destroy the films that are watched with it. They tell everyone it makes movies look better. Yeah...ok. It's a slap in the face to the people that make them. That's like someone talking about your work and telling people they should be watching it with the color turned off because it's "better" that way. You wanna show a 60p film at 60p...go a head, by all means. But leave 24fps alone. If I wanted my work to be shown with 60p motion, I would have shot it at 60p. That "feature" on TVs is an insult and should be banned. A bit extreme? Maybe...but it makes me really mad.
 
Jarek Zabczynski said:
Yeah, anytime I stroll into a Best Buy I'm stunned when I overhear sales people push the "240hz super duper motion enchancement" features. It's hard for me not to interject and school them on how that "feature" does nothing but destroy the films that are watched with it. They tell everyone it makes movies look better. Yeah...ok. It's a slap in the face to the people that make them. That's like someone talking about your work and telling people they should be watching it with the color turned off because it's "better" that way. You wanna show a 60p film at 60p...go a head, by all means. But leave 24fps alone. If I wanted my work to be shown with 60p motion, I would have shot it at 60p. That "feature" on TVs is an insult and should be banned. A bit extreme? Maybe...but it makes me really mad.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you. I have yet to meet a single person that thinks this lame marketing gimmick actually looks better. It is an insult and ranks right up there with genetically altering insects to make them 4x stronger and then they turn around and kill everybody. There are certain things a consumer should not have the option to alter and art is one of them. Would I buy a painting and then grab a scissors and cut out a 4x4" chunk? Stop mutilating art!
 
cheezweezl said:
I saw avatar play on one of those new tv's that makes 24p look like 60p. It sucked. Period.

Say what you want about technology but nothing will change the fact that 24p looks and feels like a movie. 48p or 60p looks and feels like cheap video.

Example: when on set and shooting 48 or 60 frame slow motion, someone will usually ask why it looks like crappy home video. Then I show them the 24p slow mo playback and they get it.
Click to expand...

This is a horrible argument and people should really stop parroting it. Of course those films looked horrible, the TV is adding all sorts of duplicate frames that aren't present in the original recording.

Nobody complains about 60p sports broadcasts, and over in PAL land there's a boatload of stuff shot in 50p...
 
Big decision to make here.

What should I do?

Who do I listen to and who do I respect the most?

A handful of indies, wannabes and amateurs ...or a film maker with an incredible creative and prolific out put at the leading edge of technology and a track record that has been rewarded by Oscars , acclaim and massive reward$$$$ . A risjk taking film maker that has humbled Hollywood from a small city in a small country ...and proven what possibilties exist by simply doing it "his way".


Heres a quote from the thread:

It's shocking that Jackson doesn't have a clue about the origin of 24 frames per second.
Click to expand...

Dont count on that junior. (Put up or shut up.). P.J has forgotten more than you ever will even know. Ask me how I know if you dare.

This has got to be the lamest go nowhere thread ever.
 
I got the impression both jackson and cameron are talking 3D.

In 2D, unless a specific project requires a live broadcast/porn feel, I don't see it happening, as long as movie theaters are out there.
 
blackcat said:
Yes that is all true, but this is assuming that folks are talking about shooting at a faster frame rate and a shutter that is not 180 degrees. All of the commentaries that I have read or seen on youtube from the Hollywood directors involved are talking about 48 fps to improve watching 3D, allow for faster pans, and change the motion blur.

Jackson says, "The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps [i.e. frames per second], 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.'"

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/04/12/the-hobbit-48-frames-peter-jackson/
Click to expand...

I think judder is the real thing they are wanting to eliminate, which is separate from motion blur. I will say that judder in 24p has one benefit. It forces filmmakers to shoot in a way that is closer to the way that human eyes actually work. Our eyes don't do smooth pans. They flick from one spot to the next. Avoiding motion judder has forced cinematographers into shooting in a similar way, either locked onto a subject, or with short, flicking movements between spots of focus.
 
Its been stated that hollywood was eager on the switch to 3d due to piracy for the most part.
Just like they made 24P the standard, they're attempting the same with 3D

Great, peter jackson said its good, so everyone throw out your DVX's, HVX's etc. and get yourselves a 48fps capable camera and do some double sound syncing because hollywood said so.

sorry hollywood, im not up to your "high-end" standards, unless you wanna fund me with 200 million like peter and james.
 
Even if you love the film look and 24 frames per second the one inconvenient fact remains. 24 fps looks horrible for any type of fast action. it's either a blurry mess or it looks like a strobe light. Having the capability to ocassionally shoot and project at 48 fps actually makes your 24 fps film look better and enhances the all around cinematic experience. Sneaking in a few fast action sequences shot and projected at 48 frames per second is not going to make your film look like a soap opera because nobody will notice the difference because the majority of the footage will be shot at 24 fps. It will be your little secret.
 
And all these people complaining about the lack of 48 fps cameras I would venture to say that any camera capable of shooting 50 fps would work just fine.
 
androbot2084 said:
And all these people complaining about the lack of 48 fps cameras I would venture to say that any camera capable of shooting 50 fps would work just fine.
Click to expand...

you're right, but one is forced to use double system. Yes double system does yield better results for audio, but going with a mixer on a single sound system has done well for thousands for features. One shouldn't "have" to use the recorder.
 
Another thing too, even if all theaters somehow convert to 48fps without the ability to go back to 24p, you can still shoot in 24 and just display each frame twice, which is actually what film projectors do anyway to reduce strobing.
 
Batutta said:
Another thing too, even if all theaters somehow convert to 48fps without the ability to go back to 24p, you can still shoot in 24 and just display each frame twice, which is actually what film projectors do anyway to reduce strobing.
Click to expand...

Thats a heck of a good point. Just hoping that 48 would not be obligatory that's all, just like 3d. Great stories are told without neither.
 
To leave 24 behind would be to leave film making behind, at least for me. I think for those directors wanting higher framerates for action scenes need to first think about their camera work. Stop it with the handheld already. Stop it with the attention-deficit-disorder cuts every couple of seconds. Let me see what's going on before you cut away with some random lens flares. Just my $.02 :D
 
Shooter said:
P.J has forgotten more than you ever will even know. Ask me how I know if you dare.
Click to expand...
I don't have to ask. I've met him, I actually got to train him on his HVX200s at the headquarters of Big Primate Films, after he'd finished King Kong. And the one thing I was most impressed with was that that is one SHARP dude. Hyperintelligent and extremely perceptive.

Look, I'm no fan of today's 3D technology, I think everyone knows that. Get rid of the glasses and the headaches and make it work for people who have astigmatism and don't require warning labels on the stuff, and we'll talk. But if someone of the caliber of Peter Jackson is asserting that 48fps 3-D is making the experience that much better, then I'm certainly ready to listen, and yes I'll buy a ticket to experience it the way the director intended it. I'm not the biggest fan of 3D, but I bought a ticket to see Avatar in 3D because that's how the director intended it. And I'll certainly see The Hobbit as the director intended it.

What's so bad about just waiting to see what it really looks like? What's the rush to condemn it, when one of the most-skilled, most-popular directors of our day (if not of all time) is saying "hey, this is really great and represents a big step forward"?

If he was talking about using 48fps instead of 24fps for all films, I'd have more of an issue with it -- the market has already clearly and repeatedly spoken, and the audience prefers 24p for film origination. Although I will admit that I've certainly thought about shooting 48fps for narrative stuff, dropping every other frame to create 24p for interviews and actors and whatnot, and running full 48fps for panning and action scenes... with the new DCI supporting 48fps, that might be a way to get the best of both worlds, if it could be transitioned seamlessly...
 
androbot2084 said:
Even if you love the film look and 24 frames per second the one inconvenient fact remains. 24 fps looks horrible for any type of fast action. it's either a blurry mess or it looks like a strobe light. Having the capability to ocassionally shoot and project at 48 fps actually makes your 24 fps film look better and enhances the all around cinematic experience. Sneaking in a few fast action sequences shot and projected at 48 frames per second is not going to make your film look like a soap opera because nobody will notice the difference because the majority of the footage will be shot at 24 fps. It will be your little secret.
Click to expand...

For those who care it will be not secret. The difference in look is night and day. Go back and watch The Empire Strikes Back and then remind me how bad 24fps looks for action.
 
Peter Jackson could film the hobbit at 1 frame per second and his box office will still be billions. Why do you guys question his approach? The Hobbit will win all sorts of technical awards just as lord of the rings did. Most everybody will see it in the theatre, and some multiple times. Too me it makes sense to film The Hobbit 3D in 48 fps, as it will have tons of action sequences. And in 3d it will play smooth and not make people vomit, but be more immersed into the experience. And that is what he'll do, give you an experience, just like a roller coaster. Then after it's out, anybody shooting 3D will adapt 48 fps, just because of Jacksons SUCCESS and because he did it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top