Shooting in 48fps

Hey, if anyone doesn't want their 24 fps cameras anymore, send them to me cause I love my 24p.

Maybe that should be a shirt logo or something for us 24p-freaks - I LOVE MY 24p. People could get them to wear at NAB and other video/film technology conventions.

Of course, I am all for allowing each individual filmmaker to choose the best technical setups and work flows for their films.

Why not let 3D and 48 fps become a choice? Because let's face it, 48 fps might have advantages for 3D or action scenes, but 24 fps shouldn't be scoffed at by Cameron or Jackson. If they don't like it and want to shoot their films at 48 fps, then they can do it. I just get sick of hearing how those of us that aren't doing back flips over the notion of 3D and 48 fps are looked at as stodgy antiquated relics. 24p, to me, should be looked at like black and white. Black and white, when shot and lit correctly is beautiful. It often has a surreal, dreamlike quality to it, as it is sort of detached from reality one step farther than color photos or films are. 24p should still be available for filmmakers to choose as a method of shooting if they feel it is correct for their film.

Otherwise, it is like suddenly asking a master oil painter to now only use watercolors because it is brighter and cheaper.
 
I generally hate the look of higher framerates... but really, how is Peter Jackson shooting 48fps preventing me from shooting my stuff at 24fps when my clients ask for it because it "looks like film"?

Everyone going on about which look is superior... it's a Coke vs Pepsi argument. "Superior" and "Inferior" are inherently subjective, and your set of criteria for which is what isn't necessarily the same as the next guy. Your definition of what is superior isn't the *only* definition of what is superior.

I don't need Barry's or Shooter's personal experience with Peter Jackson (at least, that what I took as being implied from your comment Shooter) to figure out he's one smart cookie. I just need to watch any of the Lord of the Rings trilogy again. If he thinks he can make the higher framerate work with the 2D version of the Hobbit as well as the 3D, I'll trust he probably knows what he's doing. If it fails and everyone thinks it looks weird because of the framrate, well, that ends that argument. If it succeeds and everyone likes it but you still prefer the look 24fps... then go shoot 24fps. Nothing is stopping you.

I'm just studio crew at a news station with a side video business... I'm not about to presume to tell Peter Jackson (or someone with his record) how to do his job.
 
Last edited:
vanvideo said:
^ This. Absolutely.
Don't underestimate Cameron. He's the one who created the 3D movie craze. Admittedly, the maturing technology has helped.
Who knows, in 5 years we may all be shooting in 3D. I wouldn't doubt that.
Click to expand...

For what it is (3D) Cameron did a fine job with it in Avatar.

As for the whole "everything will be 3D soon" thing, I'll say what I always say: this *can* only happen when 3D is no longer simulated on a 2D plane. Period. If/when technology is able to track what the viewer is currently focusing on, and then adjust the depth-of-field according to how things are seen in real life, then, and only then, will 3D have any chance of global success. Oh and all that has to happen without the need for glasses (so not anytime soon). Until then, 3D is an unconvincing gimmick at best.

But back to the 48fps OT -- if the result looks great, then awesome! We'll see what Cameron and others can pull out of their hats.
 
Thomas Smet said:
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!
Click to expand...

I bought a 240hz TV specifically to get rid of the judder on poorly produced TV programs. As you can tell I am not a fan of slow frame rates even 30P. I have a choice when watching a program. If the judder annoys me I switch it off. 24p in video is different from film. A film projector also has a shutter with 2 to 5 blades producing a flicker rate of at least 48. For NTSC video it is not possible to show a 24fps video without 2:3 pulldown which introduces a cadence which most people think is the film look on TV. To watch film on a TV in the same way as a film projector one must reproduce this film projector motion on the TV. This is only possible with a TV refresh rate that is a multiple of 24 AND the TV knows when to do this !!! 24P Bluray discs over HDMI to some 120hz or 240hz TV's do this correctly and this is a good use of the technology.If a film is transmitted over cable etc to the TV then it has already had cadence applied. To watch it in its original form the playback system would have to remove this cadence again only possible with a high refresh rate TV. Personally I like using the technology to smooth out the poor shooting and editing of some of the TV programs on cable TV. As you must imagine lots of people buying video cameras with 24p are surprised that their efforts don't look like film !!!! I started shooting 8mm in the early 1960's. Film was expensive and the camera had a clockwork motor !! I pressed the shoot button very carefully after a lot of thought as I didn't have the money or time to waste the film. As a film club we would sometimes shoot a theatre show using up to 24 of us needed because we had to change film every 3 mins or so in a very strict shooting script . Times have changed a great deal and I find it amusing to read the comments of people who must have only grown up with video.

Ron Evans
 
But -- there is nothing in film projection that changes the way motion is presented. The only thing the film projection multi-bladed shutter does, is even out the flicker you would otherwise get in highlights. The motion is exactly the same when viewing a film in a theater, or when viewing it from a 24p DVD on a 24Hz video screen. Nothing about the motion changes.

Now, when viewing a film after it's been telecined to 3:2, sure, there's a different cadence there.
 
androbot2084 said:
Well Peter Jackson, Doug Trumble, George Lucas and James Cameron are all on the 48 fps bandwagon.
Click to expand...

Can we please all agree to spell Doug's last name correctly? His name is Doug TRUMBULL (two u's, two l's, no a, no e; a blog that someone linked to had a gazillion references to the name, all misspelled as "Trumball"; oy!)
 
Shooter said:
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:



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.
Click to expand...

Why bother posting or reading if the thread is so lame?
Most here are not doubting Jackson is a genius, at least a lot of the posts I've read. Brilliance aside, not everybody wants to make films like Jackson and Cameron. Some could care less about mind blowing, dazzling 3D, CGI infused, 48fps fantasies. Others prefer nuance, great dialogue, and more subtle types of films. I have no doubt that Jackson and Cameron know what they're doing for their work and these films will look great. But what this has lead to is people believing that 48/60 fps is going to be better for everything....B.S.
Movies like the King's Speech, The Shawshank Redemption, or Fargo and the "dreamlike" cadence of 24Fps are a perfect match.
and btw...condescend much? Amateurs and wannabes....really? Not cool.
 
Barry_Green said:
But -- there is nothing in film projection that changes the way motion is presented. The only thing the film projection multi-bladed shutter does, is even out the flicker you would otherwise get in highlights. The motion is exactly the same when viewing a film in a theater, or when viewing it from a 24p DVD on a 24Hz video screen. Nothing about the motion changes.

Now, when viewing a film after it's been telecined to 3:2, sure, there's a different cadence there.
Click to expand...


Absolutely agree. The motion of film has to be taken into account when the film is being shot. Unfortunately video is being shot at 24p for things that in my opinion should be shot at least at 60i. More a fad than anything artistic. In a film projector the 24fps motion is not changed by the shutter these move the flicker rate above the level where we view the picture as smooth motion. After emigrating to North America on return to the UK I could see the flicker in the TV at 50hz. Never noticed it when I lived there. The points I was making was one needs a TV refresh rate a multiple of 24 to actually see film the way it was intended and to reproduce on video at least a 48hz refresh rate to mimic a 2 blade shutter. My film projectors at home have 3 blades and 5 blades ( refresh equivalents of 72hz and 120hz in sound mode or 54 and 90 in silent mode) hence my comments about the 120 and 240 hz displays coming close but then only if they respond correctly to input( mimic flicker not interpolating more frames). Without this higher refresh rate one is watching 3:2 cadence not 24p also distorted some by whatever means the LCD or plasma choose to deinterlace an interlaced input which would be the main feed for television from any source, cable, satellite, or DVD. Most TV sets in North America are still 60hz so are unable to display anything but 3:2 pulldown cadence. Most of the time the owners of these new 24p video cameras never get to see 24p they see 3:2 cadence even on the computer editing monitor. Digital projection has the capability of reproducing the film environment but more importantly it can enhance the opportunity for better production quality than was possible with the limitations of 24fps film projection equipment without the economic implications that would have been present in the past. There is no reason why someone shouldn't make a 15fps video if that is what the artistic content is intended to provide. Just don't swing the camera around as if it was a Handycam with an infinite depth of field !!! Also the playback file should drive the projector not a projectionist. Another cost saving they only need to switch everything on and load the file !!!

Ron Evans
 
I don't think anyone is saying that filmmakers shouldn't use 48 fps. I just get the feeling that some people are kind of annoyed (myself included), when there is an implied notion of 24 fps is crap and blurry and we should permanently switch over to 48 fps as soon as possible. At least, that is the vibe I am getting from what Peter Jackson is saying, and especially from James Cameron. This is not surprising as Cameron has also stated that he believes 3D will be taking over film and TV completely. I just find that to be in a sense, narrow minded thinking that seems like really progressive and futurist on the surface. I don't like the sound of it as it seems like there is a forceful push to make all movies digitally shot in 3D at 48 fps. Progress is fine, just don't throw out everything that worked in the past for the shiny new toys just because the are new and shiny.

androbot2084 said:
As for Blu-Ray delivery of 48 fps I guess we will have to settle for 720p
Click to expand...

That is one thing I was wondering about. Will some theaters show The Hobbit on normal 2D 35mm film projected at 24 fps? How about when it comes out on Blu-ray and DVD? Will it look like normal old 24 fps stuff when I watch it at home?
 
Digital will be 3D 1080p at 48 fps. However 35mm film projection will probably be 2D at 24 fps.
On Blu-Ray 3D and 2D players you should be able to have a choice of watching it at 1080p at 24 fps or 720p at 50 frames per second.
 
Last edited:
I know I started this thread with saying it'll take a lot to make me a believer, but I have to add that it's too early to get up in arms about any presumed changes in the industry. All we know is that Peter Jackson and James Cameron are going to be behind some equipment upgrades at some theaters so we can watch their films in all their 3D 48fps glory. I am certain that I'll part with a nice chunk of change to go see "The Hobbit" and any other of their epic films they make. If there is a push to make 24fps obsolete, us film purists can then stomp, shout and picket all we want to in order to try and save cinema.

I disagree that this is a lame and worthless thread, as some have suggested. Although it may be unproductive, it's still good to express ourselves and engage in a little debating about this.
 
Here's something to consider as well. Imagine the onslaught of "Now in 48P" re-releases that would surely follow. If your TV can do it, no doubt the studios would crank out "48P and 60P Conversions" and try to convince you to go see their films again in the theaters and a higher ticket price. At least George Lucas will have something to look forward to after he re-releases all his Star Wars films again...in 3D first.

UGH...
 
I am one of the people that don't want 48 fps in "normal films", but I read before that James Cameron's rationale for 48 fps was that it makes 3D films better, since motion blur is trickier there.

Since I haven't dabbled in 3D as a shooting format I can't say really what the ups and downs are, but I would assume that "better temporal resolution" is a helping hand when working with motion. So when Cameron or Jackson says 48 fps is better, I think that is for 3D land, but maybe they mean 2D as well.

I know from shooting regular stuff that, 48 fps, 60 fps, etc. gives you more frames to rotoscope, but they are usually easier per frame to rotoscope since there is less motion blur that gives really tough soft edges to deal with. So in a sense, sometimes it will be faster for me to work on 48 fps material than 24 fps material. It all depends on the shot though. That said, the problem still remains about having a need for more bandwith, storage, render farms, etc...
 
I think that the 48 fps cat is out of the bag now. Before, 48 fps 35mm projection was impractical simply because 24 fps was the standard for all film projectors. But now with 2K digital projection 48 fps is the standard.

And the same goes for Blu-Ray. Before with DVD, 48 fps was impractical because that meant resorting to 480i interlace which pretty much wrecked the picture. But now with Blu-Ray we have progressive playback of higher frame rates supported by the 720p format.

In the future all films will be shot at 48 fps or even higher frame rates even by directors who prefer the look of 24 fps. During the final editing directors will judge the aesthetics of each scene and will convert 48 fps to 24 fps if a film look is desired. However when editing the fast action sequences the choice of whether or not to use higher frame rates will receive much higher scrutiny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top