Shooting in 48fps

typaxa said:
Peter Jackson did say that they've been watching their dailies and even his crew who prefer 24p now prefer it. I say wait and see.

For those that think those tvs that have smoothing features turned on look terrible, you're right, but it's not what Peter Jackson is even talking about. Read up on the tvs; you will find that they're turned on at that tvs 'high' mode, and on 'high' they add 3 frames in between each; a faux 4x speed. 48fps doesn't look like that. Shot with cinema lenses and nice lighting 48fps really doesn't look so different to 24fps that it's comparable to those 200hz tvs.

As a quick test shot, I've uploaded a small piece of 48fps footage shot under a lamp and at f2.8. Go to YouTube and search '48fps'. It's the kitty.
The lighting and shallow DoF still has a cinematic feel to it, just less motion blur. I really don't think anyone will be disappointed once The Hobbit is released and we see how nice it looks
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure YouTube converts most videos to 29.97, at least ones that are filmed above that frame rate. Could you upload that to a media sharing site like megaupload instead?

Also a few people have mentioned their cameras shoot 48fps- could other people upload examples as well? Pretty sure I'm not gonna like the way it looks but would like to actually see it before forming a final opinion either way. I mean I'm pretty sure I've seen it but I can't remember exactly what it looked like right now. Who knows, it could work for 3D though and maybe it'll help the "headaches" some people get when watching 3D movies.
 
killacam said:
I'm pretty sure YouTube converts most videos to 29.97, at least ones that are filmed above that frame rate. Could you upload that to a media sharing site like megaupload instead?
Click to expand...

My 23.98fps videos come back as 24fps when I re-download them from youtube using something like keepvid.com.
 
This is the main reason why more than 24p makes me want to puke! We experience more of a 24p with motion blur in real life than we do 60p. No really. Move your hand in front of your face really fast. Your eyes see an after burn which translates to major, MAJOR, motion blur.
 
tipota said:
Exactly. There is too much mumbo-jumbo-talk about the magical 24fps. A "cinematic look" has much more to do with composition, sensor size/focal length, lighting and grading.
Click to expand...

What about the stores that are displaying movies on the "smooth" settings? It looks crap. I don't even know it's a movie until I look really hard at what's going on because I think i am watching a video game.
 
hhahahahh me too but this forum has total noobs and also real experts ,wide experience and knowledge span so weird things are being written here from time to time :)

Tracey Lee said:
Move your hand in front of your face really fast. Your eyes see an after burn which translates to major, MAJOR, motion blur.
Click to expand...

Not always true ,do it with hand in front of your crt tv
 
Last edited:
Jarek Zabczynski said:
My 23.98fps videos come back as 24fps when I re-download them from youtube using something like keepvid.com.
Click to expand...


yeah that's why I tried to say videos above the 29.97 frame rate (e.g. 50 or 60fps). I did try to download it through keepvid before and it said 29.97 (at least that's what I got in streamclip).
 
tipota said:
Exactly. There is too much mumbo-jumbo-talk about the magical 24fps. A "cinematic look" has much more to do with composition, sensor size/focal length, lighting and grading.
Click to expand...
An absolutely preposterous statement, in my opinion.

This is the motion picture industry, and you are telling me that the way that the actual motion looks is not important to the "cinematic look" of a film?
 
it's hilarious that we spent years on a quest for inexpensive 24fps aquisition, then going as far as attaching crazy contraptions to the camera and dealing with inverted images to gain shallow depth of field. now, you can get both of these coveted attributes in a wide choice of cameras for next to nothing, and what happens? people start chasing deep focus and higher framerates.

i've got great news for these folks. i've got a "vintage" 1/3" chip camera that shoots 60i. it doesn't have this horrible motion blur that crappy 24fps film gives you. and you'll never have to hire a first ac again because everything is in focus all the time!!! i'll sell it cheap!!! it looks just like reality!!! you can even buy two of them, duct tape them together, and shoot 3d!!!
 
androbot2084 said:
Actually 60i interlace does not count as a higher frame rate because 60i is actually only 30 frames per second.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. It's 60 frames per second, they're just low-res frames. 60i should almost more properly be written as 540/60p. The motion of 60i looks like the motion of 60p because there are 60 samples per second, not 30.
 
Barry_Green said:
No it isn't. It's 60 frames per second, they're just low-res frames. 60i should almost more properly be written as 540/60p. The motion of 60i looks like the motion of 60p because there are 60 samples per second, not 30.
Click to expand...


Barry, I have been trying to explain that one to people since I was doing research at Showscan long ago back in the days when people had very little knowledge of what temporal resolution even was. That's when I figured out the whole field/frame game while shooting showscan films with video cameras off the screen. I was perplexed how that beautiful projection of 65mm/60fps captured material felt oddly like video once it was played back in betasp or 3/4 tape. Every projected frame fell on every field of video. After that I knew why video felt so different. It all came down to temporal rate at it's core. However in those days people still believed it had to do with grain or magical mysteries of film emulsion. I would explain however most just wouldn't except it, then I would show them showscan transferred 60fps to 60i video, and people could be made to see the truth... Just funny how long it took video to get to 24, and now they want to take that 24 to 48 or 60. It's gonna be interesting over the next few years to see where all this is going to go.


Pappas
http://pappasarts.wordpress.com
http://www.facebook.com/PappasArts
http://www.PappasArts.com
 
Last edited:
Yes a very confusing spec. 2 fields equal a frame therefore 60 fields a second are 30 frames. Unfortunately the fields do not belong to the same frame!!! The camera is actually taking exposures every 1/60 a second but they are only recorded/transmitted as fields. The temporal motion is the same as 60P just half the vertical resolution. As Barry says 540/60P or equivalents, would be a better description. 60i and 30P are both 30 frames a second but look very different.

Ron Evans
 
Ron Evans said:
60i and 30P are both 30 frames a second but look very different.
Click to expand...

Now, see, you were doing fine until you got there. :) 60i isn't 30 frames a second and shouldn't be thought of that way, at all. That's going to take a lot of unlearning for a lot of people. That's one of those legacy shorthands which is needlessly confusing.
 
David Jimerson said:
Now, see, you were doing fine until you got there. :) 60i isn't 30 frames a second and shouldn't be thought of that way, at all. That's going to take a lot of unlearning for a lot of people. That's one of those legacy shorthands which is needlessly confusing.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the point I was making. 2 fields make one frame. ie 60i is 30 frames a second. 30P is 30 frames a second. They are referring to timecode and not exposure rate. Correctly in NTSC drop frame they are 29.97. 60i has an exposure rate of 60 frames a second. 30P has an exposure rate of 30 frames a second. One records fields the other a full frame. You are correct in that 60i shouldn't be thought of as 30 frames a second but that is exactly why its 29.97i in the naming convention and what has caused this confusion with some people thinking its 30 frames a second as an exposure rate. Look carefully at your NLE timeline and you fill find its in frames not fields. The preset in Vegas for instance specifies NTSC DV as 29.970fps. It is correct as its referring to the time code not the exposure rate.

Ron Evans
 
Just think of interlaced as a form of lossy compression. It allows 60 frame motion in 30 frame bandwidth. As much as I hate interlaced it was a pretty cool invention at the time if you think about what is really going on and what it allowed TV to do. In typical compression formats data gets thrown out to make the sizes smaller. With interlaced every other line is thrown out which in effect makes the bandwidth smaller. It's not much different then 4:2:2, 4:2:0 and 4:1:1 chroma subsmapling. All of them throw out lines or pixels of data except they only throw out color. Interlaced chucks the entire line. In the end however it is still 60 frames crammed into 30 frames. When they playback one half the frame is displayed then the second half. Then it moves to the next frame and ...

60i only equals 30p if you are somebody who enjoys decimating video by deinterlacing it right away in order to force a look that should have been shot from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top