April 16, 2011

Peter Jackson Starts Shooting 'The Hobbit' at 48 FPS: Why 24P May Be on the Way Out

Cinematographer/director/effects guru Douglas Trumball made an eye-opening presentation at NAB as part of the Digital Cinema Society conference this past week. Trumball, who was instrumental in the effects of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Blade Runner, tried to get a 60 frames-per-second format known as Showscan off the ground in the late 70s (it never took). Was Trumball just ahead of his time? At the same time Trumball was presenting, Peter Jackson had begun shooting The Hobbit at 48 frames per second. Jackson expects there to be 10,000 theaters ready to exhibit the film at 48 FPS by the time of its release. He's not the only one clamoring for a new cinema standard, however:

James Cameron is gung-ho about higher frame rates, saying he's "agnostic" about whether the future is 48 or 60 FPS. George Lucas is also on board. Why the need for higher frame rates, especially when many of us have spent the better part of a decade trying to get 24 fps out of our video cameras? In his keynote, Trumball noted:

Not only that, but Trumball also said that shooting at an even higher frame rate of 120 FPS would allow for proper extraction of backwards-compatible frame rates:

I should note he also mentioned 48 FPS along with 24 and 60, but my tweet ran out of room. To demonstrate this correct motion blur, Trumball showed us this presentation:

Many of us think that there's something magical about 24 FPS, because watching anything shot at 60i looks terribly "videoy" to us. It doesn't seem appropriate for dramatic material. But in an entry on his Facebook Page, Jackson says the purists who've seen it in action on The Hobbit are on board:

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.

60i, it's important to note, has the motion characteristics of 120 FPS 60P, since half of each frame is alternately refreshing at 60 times a second. ((Right?)) If 48p maintains the same "magical" qualities we associate with 24p, perhaps the cinema standard of 24 FPS is on the way out. If it is, the main reason why I think higher frame rates will become widespread now, as opposed to the failed efforts of the past, is 3D. Eyestrain and headaches are apparently reduced at 48 FPS. Here's Jackson on the difference:

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!

The other reason 48 FPS could succeed where Showscan failed is the fact that existing digital projectors can easily project higher frame rate images (many of them go up to 120-144Hz). Most projectors in digital cinemas all over the world should be able to accomodate 48 or 60 FPS with a software upgrade. So while Showscan was incredibly expensive -- it was a 65mm negative that required new projectors and must've gobbled up celluloid at an alarming rate -- in a digital world with rapidly diminishing storage costs, the extra 1s and 0s cost next to nothing.

It gets a little more interesting when you think about what happens after theatrical distribution, however. Does Blu-ray have a 48fps spec or would the movie be wrapped in a 60p file? If you double the frame rate of streaming Netflix, will you run out of bandwidth? Will manufacturers take this as an opportunity to sell you a new TV? That last one we can count on, I suppose...

What do you think? Is 24 FPS another example of lock-in?

On a related note, here's Peter Jackson's first video blog from the set of The Hobbit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2m2x8qJcGQ

Movies!!!

Link: 48 Frames Per Second - Peter Jackson

Your Comment

46 Comments

When I first read the post about the Hobbit being shot in 48fps on Peter's Facebook page, I thought this can not end well and my excitement for the movie decreased very quickly.
But now I think, we're talking about Peter Jackson here. That man has got a ton of experience and knows exactly what he's doing, and we all know that he would never ever do anything that could even remotely hurt the experience of such an incredible story, since this is the lead up to his greatest three movies he has ever made. So I totally trust in his decisions.

April 16, 2011

0
Reply
Marco

Mind boggled.
This is one of those things where you'd have to see it to believe it. It seems really counter-intuitive to play anything back at more than 24fps, but I'm a child of the digital age and have never seen film played back at 48 or 60 so I'll keep an open mind :-)

April 16, 2011

0
Reply

Looks like video. Not a fan.

April 16, 2011

-1
Reply
Alexander Miller

Since they are shooting in 60-120fps to deliver in 24fps couldn't they have achieved the same look if the used faster shutter speeds?
Also this method makes everything very post-production heavy. Imagine vfx houses having to produce effects for a movie shot in 60fps, that's more than double of frames. Render times will go up, man hours will go up, hard disk spaces and of course costs will go up. I don't even want to think what professional rotoscopers will go through.
As far as the Hobbit is concerned I believe that it is going to be easy to make a 24fps version of the movie (either for old cinemas or dvd release) since that is half the framerate thet they will be shooting it in. I am also negative about this higher framerate thing, but I think we should all wait and see...

April 16, 2011

0
Reply

The sad thing is that now everyone will go running and embrace it just like 3D, and the ones that are not onboard (like myself) will be called purists, 'old-school' and close minded.

I haven't seen entire films shot at 60fps or 48fps but I've seen tons of DSLR footage recorded at higher frame rates and I think it looks off-putting.

I will obviously like to see it but it's not like I don't know what to expect. Sad thing is that they will push this down our throats as a new 'revolution'. The perfect example is given in this same article, Peter Jackson already started dividing the community by calling 'Purists' those who don't like shooting at high FPS. Soon they'll make us (24p supporters) look like a tribe of neanderthals.

April 16, 2011

0
Reply
Fernando

I think 60i is 60 fields per second, kind of "30p plus interlacing" (in the sense that the same amount of information is transmitted) so the motion characteristics are those of 60fps... but with interlacing artifacts

April 16, 2011

0
Reply

I mean: there's only one refresh every 1/60th of a second, and it affects half of the lines in the image

April 16, 2011

0
Reply

Great, just what we need. Another person telling us we need to buy twice as much data storage.

April 16, 2011

0
Reply

I'd love to see some tests on 48fps, and see how the film texture turns out. When I watch movies shot on video I catch it almost everytime, even though they shoot at 24fps. For example, The Social Network is good, but has lots of scenes with issues, cinematically. I wonder if a doubled frame rate can help alleviate those issues.

April 16, 2011

0
Reply

At the end of the day there should just be one worldwide format. It's bad enough as it is with the number of frame rates that are already in use. I'm happy to shoot my own videos at 24p, but being in PAL country, any videos I shoot for clients need to 25P for possible tv play. 48p for 3D sounds like the way to go. It's also backwards compatible with 24p. I was watching some 3d content through glasses in a store the other day and can clearly see how much difference a higher frame rate woud make.

April 17, 2011

0
Reply

I, for one, am not convinced that you're really going to notice the difference between 25fps and 24fps. 24p really is an American thing, as their IS a noticeable difference with 30p. In Europe, 24fps is just not practical, both in terms of acquisition (flickering lights) and output (TV).

April 18, 2011

0
Reply

I can see how shooting in 120 and interpolating to 24p would be really helpful to digital compositing, green-screening, etc. Motion blur is death in these situations. Of course, as Fotis mentioned above, this means they have to do effects on almost 5x as many frames, but each frame will be considerably cleaner to composite, so I guess it might depend on the workflow whether it ends up being any more effort.

That said, I still prefer 24p motion blur in the final presentation. The lack of sharpness and un-life-like speed is said (reference needed) to put the brain in a more dream-like, imaginative state, and for motion pictures, that seems beneficial :-)

April 17, 2011

0
Reply
Brian

Sometime back i wrote a number of posts about the 'Video look' and why i think the obsession with the 'film look' is misguided. Reading Jackson's thoughts on this topic opened up the ideas and got me thinking about them again.

I spent some time with Peter Jackson and Richard Taylor (of WETA) a few years back when i was involved with the Lord of the Rings museum exhibition. They are both incredibly smart and articulate artists who arent prepared to to 'accept' propagated truisms about cinema. Rather, Jackson thinks long and hard about cinema, and cares deeply about cinema. Indeed, he cares enough to question it and challenge it - something too few filmmakers (and aspiring filmmakers) do.

It was actually those conversations with Richard and Peter those years ago that that got me thinking about the cinematic image and lead me to much of my current research, Phd thesis and the a couple of controversial posts:

I love the look of Video
http://www.mikejones.tv/journal/2008/3/14/i-love-the-look-of-video.html

and the more deliberately provocative;

"The 'film look' is a Crock, Shallow depth-of-field is Banal and Rack focus is Lazy. Would all you indie filmmakers please Get Over It..!"
http://mikejonesnet.squarespace.com/journal/2009/9/22/the-film-look-is-a...

if cinema stands still it dies - creative, technical, idealogical, conceptual change is the life blood of cinema. And those filmmakers that question the status quo are always the ones history remembers. I'm yet to meet anyone who can make a cogent or conceptually grounded argument for why cinema should have the 'film look' which amounted to anything more than Habit, History and Nostalgia.

cheers
Mike

April 17, 2011

1
Reply

"60i, it’s important to note, has the motion characteristics of 120 FPS, since half of each frame is alternately refreshing at 60 times a second."

Sorry, but you are wrong. 60i (as used in TV) has motion (temporal) resolution of 60 FPS, but half of vertical (spatial) resolution of 60P, because of interlacing. Maybe you got confused, because EBU and SMPTE actually suggest using framerate when specifing interlaced formats, so if we were talking ie. about 1080i/30 resolution (instead of colloquial 60i) it would have 60FPS "motion characteristics" - double of framerate.

April 18, 2011

-1
Reply

Thanks Witold -- that's why I footnoted it with "Right?" Thanks for the clarification. Is 60i with a 360-degree shutter the same thing (as far as motion is concerned) as 60p with a 360-degree shutter?

April 18, 2011

0
Reply
avatar
Ryan Koo
Founder
Writer/Director

Its just Americans trying to make the world change to suit their "standards" most of the World runs at 25fps, so deciding on a 60p will just cause grief.
Most of the movies don't need a fast frame rate anyway, only Hollywood Action Blockbusters, that if lost forever, would only improve cinema.
It is just multiplying storage needs for no good reason, HD, 3D, HDR and now 120fps of bad scripts.
Early movies were "hand cranked" so that the camera operator knew when to run faster or slower, and the same speed was tried during projection. If they want to invent something, what about a movement sensor that changes the speed from 1fps ( can you imagine the low light?) to 1000fps for ultra sloMos.
Good luck.

April 18, 2011

0
Reply
tttulio

Saying "it's just Americans" isn't exactly accurate. Peter Jackson might take exception to that statement, for one.

There certainly are more PAL countries than there are NTSC, but it's not "just America." http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/store/video/video-systems.php

April 18, 2011

-1
Reply
Bryan

Tttulio, you couldn't be more wrong! Not only, as Bryan already stated, is Jackson not an american, but this decision is not made to get anyone to change to someone's standards, but rather, to be innovative and progressive.

I guess the invention of electrical light would have been very unpopular with some as well. "Forcing" people to adopt a new standard. How dare they? If you really like candle-light, you are free to still use it.... just don't complain about others trying new things!

I've always believed that, in most cases, realism is beneficial. I see life in more than 24fps. It's about time that films tried to all least offer something closer to what my eyes are capable of seeing.

Slower framerates, and lower resolutions will always have their place in filmmaking.... I just don't think everyone should be forced to stay there. I welcome higher framerates, higher resolutions, and 3D!

April 18, 2011

0
Reply
VanLazarus

Coming from a Motion Graphics, Animation & Visual Effects Perspective, everything is on the table, and needs to be considered. When we create visuals, nothing is captured for free, and every frame is meticulously sweated over. Is we were purists, we could add a discussion about animated films being done in 12 or 15 fps, with frame doubling to get 24 fps. Why aren't Disney films just presented at 12fps?

I think it's a little sad that when you shoot film, things are "baked" in and cannot be tweaked afterwards. Koo is right when he talks about "lock-in" Once you've grabbed your source, it's game over, done, kaput. You can't go back and get more information, either for tracking in visual effects, clarification of blurred elements for greater storytelling depth.

There's pro's and cons, and each scene needs to be weighed and adjusted as needed, adding and subtracting motion blur where it would benefit the story. This, I think, is the potential that those in the Motion Graphics & Animation community have had at their disposal since its inception. Hell, there's a whole cult of animators out there that obsess over the "right" amount of motion blur to add into both 2d and 3d generated frames.

Novel technology provides a new set of constraints, and takes other legacy constraints away. It's the judicious use of the technology that will carry the day.

1. If it improves the "3d headache", there's definitely something to be said in the positive camp about it.
2. If it allows for better 2d & 3d tracking, for better, more seamless VFX, then there's a positive in that too.
3. If it allows for selective "story-enhancement" through better time-remapped scenes without the threat of blur, then there's a positive in that too.
4. If there's the chance that you can save scenes that were blurred to hell for some reason or another, or the ability to dial in the amount of blur you want on a per-scene basis, to enhance storytelling, then there's a positive in that too.
5. If it's backwards compatible, with the ability to scale back-down to 24fps for presentation, while maintaining all of the above positive, then there's a positive in that too.

You are now leaving get-everything-for-free-in-camera land. Welcome to the constructed world of animation.

April 18, 2011

0
Reply
Robert McNamara

You may as well get it right - Mr. Trumbull's name is spelled TRUMBULL, not "Trumball."

April 18, 2011

1
Reply
Mike

Finally someone has the balls to abandon the ancient 24fps for movies!
People say it is part of the cinematic look - but so has been black and white pictures at 18fps and no sound! At some point, sound was introduced to the movies, and it was better. Then came color, and people liked it. Now it's 48 or 50 or 60 fps - and people will like that, too! No more nauseating, shuttering pans on the large screen! Hallelujah, the modern age is here! ;)

April 18, 2011

-1
Reply
Heiko

dude
its there in your TVs soap operas for decades - do you like it?

April 22, 2011

0
Reply
mike

I love movies, old and new. I am just as thrilled watching Charlie Chaplin Modern Times and Ben Hur as I am watching District 9. But the same "purists" who attempted to hold us back when we were trying to put dialog into movies and color in our films will try to hold us back now. The reason you think 24fps looks like a Hollywood film is because you have been conditioned to feel that way. Get your head out of the sand, embrace change and the future, and stop holding back cinematic evolution.

April 19, 2011

0
Reply
Casus

I think many of you attack a straw man when you talk about all those mythical 24 fps purists. 24fps motion blur, along with 35mm depth of field became desirable because audiences experienced the results of these technical limitations while watching films in theaters, and both became associated with the "film look", which for years video could not come close to replicating (along with color and contrast). Few will hold on to 24fps the second a higher frame rate is a viable option, but as of now for most it is not (media, storage, projection, etc.). Shallow depth of field is also a cinematic choice made to direct the attention of the audience to where you want it to go. When Greg Toland shot Citizen Kane he was lauded for the "deep focus" which was hard to achieve at that time without setting the actors on fire. Shallow depth of field is hard to achieve with a small target area on film or image sensors. The beauty of technology is that the options are growing. The harsh reality is that it is hard to keep up. Good stories well shot, edited and acted, will entertain for years, crap done to showcase new technologies will come and go like dandelions on a golf course. May your next film be a keeper, whatever frame rate it is shot at..

April 19, 2011

-1
Reply
Russell Steen

I want to see test results on all this before I decide what's best for the medium. I've heard that upconverted films from 24fps to 48fps look spectacular. I'd like to see a comparison there, too. I do have a couple concerns, though. For animators, this is going to suck. Lots more tweening in 48fps than 24.
Also, any green movements in movies are going to be dampened somewhat (correct me if I'm wrong, but 48fps with a 180 shutter speed means you have to increase the amount of light used).

April 20, 2011

0
Reply
Moviola

24FPS is a vestigial artefact left over from when film went from silent to sound on film with an optical soundtrack. The speed had to be increased to provide acceptable audio fidelity. The increase in frame rate provided a collateral advantage of improved image realism. This was especially important with the contemporaneous advent of Technicolor and the difference in visual persistence for different colors in the human eye. Visual perception experiments show that something "magical" happens when frame rates are increased even further with a sudden onset of "realism" occurring as frame rates approach and pass 40 FPS. This phenomena opens the door for previously impossible artistic expression as cinematographers learn the properties of the new paradigm and how to make use of its features. It is a bit like a painter suddenly discovering a whole new spectrum of colors that can be put to canvas. It takes a while to learn how to use them but the results can be revolutionary. The economics of electronic image recording technology make this possible and practical. Something that could never escape the laboratory with only chemical photography as a tool.

April 20, 2011

0
Reply
ProfChuck

The problem is the cost. Filming at 48 - 60 frames per minute means it will cost twice as much for film stock and processing. Its not rocket science that actions scenes will look better at fast fps. But the cost is already high and if the frame rates are doubled then it becomes even harder to do small budget fares, right?? All the directors who don't have to worry about getting money for their projects are for it but what about the little guys??

April 21, 2011

0
Reply
PicturePoint

What is "film stock?" ;)

April 21, 2011

2
Reply
avatar
Ryan Koo
Founder
Writer/Director

That's what I was thinking. That's why I'd like to see a conversion test. I think shooting on film at 48 a second is out of the question for low budgets (heck, these days shooting on film at 24 is out for many). It also requires twice as much electricity for lights that have to be twice as bright. LED lights might offset some of that. From what I understand, 48 per second gives the illusion of higher resolution, so a set that might have worked at 24 would start to look very cheap at 48. And of course there's also post production bottlenecks...

This is why I'd love to see a conversion test placed against natively shot footage, to see if the low budgets can get away with shooting 24P and converting it to 48. That way it's just a render away in post and isn't a way to lock more small indies out of the game.

April 21, 2011

0
Reply
Moviola

Yeah but even if some can't afford it today, doesn't mean that those who can shouldn't have an available standard to push forward with - reducing the cost for the rest of us in the future.

April 24, 2011

0
Reply

"It’s similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs."

Not the best example he could have used. CD technology has improved greatly over the tinny Telarc CDs of the early '80s, certainly, but CDs still sound inferior to vinyl on even slightly above average sound systems. That's one of the reasons vinyl is seeing a significant resurgence over the past few years, while CD sales are shrinking. Analog keeps more of what's actually there in real life than digital, and it shows in the fuller sound, particularly in the midrange and bass, it provides. (I can personally attest to this based on the experience of our family owning an upscale audio/video store in Dallas in the Eighties and Nineties.)

I prefer the lower frame rates for much the same reason. 24 and its blur simply looks more like what I experience in real life. My eyes don't see with the precision and strobe-like quality that come from the higher frame rates. If it makes me a purist to prefer what looks more like reality, so be it, I guess.

April 22, 2011

-1
Reply
Clint

you see it every day - its called TV

April 22, 2011

0
Reply
mike

I guess it is a good thing that the sensors in the newer cameras are more sensitive to light as we will need that sensitivity to get the proper exposures at faster rates.

This may be a bit of a setback for the camera manufacturers that are finally getting to the point where they can process and record RAW video but I am sure they will adapt with the new demands.

Finally it would be good if the "look" of these formats better matched the digital effects "look" as I have always found the apparent sharpness of digital effects distracting when cut in with the live action footage that has more motion blur.

Thanks for this great information.

April 24, 2011

1
Reply
Richard Fiander

It will more like playing video games. Oh I wonder how the film grains will behave at faster rates

May 9, 2011

0
Reply
Ashish Gurung

Well....Hollywood has always pushed new shooting standards and the smaller film communities have had/desired to adapt those standards at a later point in time when the technology became more affordable & accessible. That's the way it has always been. We as indies will always/mostly attempt to mimic Hollywood film making techniques and whatever they decide to make as "standard".

May 12, 2011

0
Reply

I don't care what the Peter Jackson's of the world are doing. This type of technology doesn't make bad movies better. #Godard #Scorsese

May 18, 2011

0
Reply
bynoSa

I doesn't matter what speed they shoot at if they can tell a good story worth the $10 admission fee. I am so sick and tired of movies part 2, part 3, part 4. The studio producers need to keep their drug money coming in so they always play it safe--

June 29, 2011

0
Reply

Honestly, the 60fps looks horrible. Down-converting from 120fps to get a crisper 24p makes sense, but adding in 60fps into 24p footage looks weird. And it looks like a soap opera. I'm REALLY skeptical of shooting at higher frames rates. The Hobbit at 48fps? I'm not on board for this. Of course James Cameron and George Lucas and Peter Jackson are into it. They want to turn films into amusement park rides.

December 18, 2011

0
Reply
Andrew James

I'd rather drop 24fps altogether. It's very unpleasant viewing with any quick motion and pans. A lot of people have grown accustomed to this low frame rate, but it's just far too low in too many situations.

January 25, 2012

1
Reply
Dan

test, please erase

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
fdgsadfg

quote:
Why 24P May Be on the Way Out....

IS on the way out, IS! It is not a matter of if, but when. the 24 fps has held now for way too long. And as always, the non innovative people out there (the majority) are fighting new better things, because they don't understand (that is why they don't innovate) and hang on to things, for tradition's sake. It made sense in 1950 when film material was very expensive. Nowadays, it is all data and data storage is cheap.
Yes, I know that for many people it is a cozy warm feeling to wallow in the outdated standards. Bad and substandard quality or realism suddenly becomes artistic. When the horse and buggy got threatened by the car, many defended the horse as a "better and more human way" to travel. That driving a car had almost no drawbacks to that of using a horse became very apparent. 48 or 60 fps has absolutely no draw backs compared to 24fps. You can even simulate the jerky and eye insulting jitter and blur on 60 fps if you like and need it. Why 60 fps is a good idea and absolutely necessary? Look at action movies: They show that 24fps has serious limits of how fast something can move. If it moves faster, you won't be able to tell anymore what is actually happening on screen. Look at the fighting scenes in the Transformer movies. Try to see who is fighting who and doing which moves. Totally impossible to discern. Or the Star Wars revenge of the sith: check out the initial fighting scene, how the camera pans widly between ships. Can you still see what is going on? Not really, the cam moves so fast that the eye cannot even see that as "moving pictures" anymore. Thought that was very cinematic and cool? When ever has low quality been sexy???

quote:
Many of us think that there’s something magical about 24 FPS, because watching anything shot at 60i looks terribly “videoy” to us. It doesn’t seem appropriate for dramatic material.

Well, go check the comments from people when black and white film was due to be replaced by color and you will find the exactl same words. Black and white is better for artistic / dramatic material. Color looks too real (too videoy) ;-) Funny how history constantly repeats. So people like Cameron and Jackson and me have to drag you into the future, kicking and screaming. Because we get why 60 fps is superior in every way.

April 26, 2012

0
Reply
nigratruo

Nice! Totally agree. Wasn't the same critisizm leveled at digital photography, vs film? And Kodak just went bankrupt because they incorrectly held on to the belief that film is better.

April 26, 2012

-1
Reply
Vanlazarus

Jerky motion and incomprehensible filmmaking are signs of bad filmmaking, not of outdated technology. Watch the Honk Kong films of Johnnie To or John Woo and you can see that terrific action doesn't need higher frame rates - it only needs good direction. Michael Bay doesn't know what to do during an action sequence, so he cuts and moves the camera around. John Woo has single shots and cuts in Hard Boiled that are more kinetic than any camera movement or cut michael bay has ever dreamed of. New Technology will never help people who don't know what they're doing.

April 27, 2012

1
Reply

I just don't think making Leave it to Beaver into color or 3D would be a good idea... lol

May 5, 2012

0
Reply
Cal

quote:
Watch the Honk Kong films of Johnnie To or John Woo and you can see that terrific action doesn’t need higher frame rates
........
It absolutely needs it. John Woo might be very expert at working around the horrific limitation that is 24 fps, but why have to work around it? You defending the old outdated system is akin to somebody touting Mono as superior, because "it does not distract from the real music". I am sure that somebody said that at some point, fighting stereo taking over.
Yes, we do have 2 ears, so stereo makes sense and beats mono in every way. And for the exactly same reason, mono turned into stereo, that 24 fps is going to lead into a faster framerate: there is no technical reason anymore why not to. Film used to be very expensive, doubling the cost of the production. Nowadays it is not.
And in the same analogy of mono and stereo: your eyes can se a lot more than 24 fps, so why keep the media restricted? It is obvious that you can do anything with 48 or 60 fps that you can do with 24, you just have to add the blur and jitter with special effects, old time movie goers will be thrilled to have their old style cinema back, the same way that some people were probably blissed out when some movies still stuck to black and white, when movies turned color or reverted to being silent, eventhough the talkies were taking over.

quote:
– it only needs good direction. Michael Bay doesn’t know what to do during an action sequence, so he cuts and moves the camera around. John Woo has single shots and cuts in Hard Boiled that are more kinetic than any camera movement or cut michael bay has ever dreamed of. New Technology will never help people who don’t know what they’re doing.
........
You are saying "you only need to know the limitations and how to work around them, to know how to use the media and what it cannot do and avoid that"
We are talking about removing some obsolete limitation. It does not make any sense to keep it. Of course, as always , people with less vision and more feeling for tradition or just plain focused on the past, instead of the future will fight it, always have and probably always will.

When video came around, it also removed lots of limitations that moviemaking with film had: Too expensive, needs lots of equipment. The market opened up for a lot more movie makers. Did it degrade the quality? Well, you could argue so, now that joe and bob and dick could all make movies, even without proper training. But it still brought out a lot of great other stuff. I am glad that Michael Bay can make movies. I wish to see how his next transformer movie will look in 60 fps, probably a lot better. The action scenes he shows are amazing, but just beyond the limit of 24 fps: As an information technology expert, I know that there is just a limit of how much movement information can be fit into 24 fps. Doubling it is great, you will be able to show movements double as fast as this.
You will not have to cut and work around the limits, you can just film the scene and viewers can see what is happening. Currently, you could have a fist move in a martial arts movie that you could not see in 24 fps, that would be clearly visible in 48 fps.
Just the possibilities in HD to do pans over landscapes without insulting your eyes is wonderful.

I am currently looking for an SLR that can do 60 fps in full HD and currently there is only one (expensive) . The current ones do 720 p in 60 fps and 1080 p in only 25 fps, and I know exactly how that is and want to get away from it, as pans just look terrible in 25 fps, if you don't slow it way down.

60 fps will by the way introduce a new wave of action movies of the likes you have never seen, because before with 24 fps it was just not possible. Comparing a fast computer game, playing it at 25 fps and at 60 fps shows this incredibly well: it just looks aweful and terrible at 25 fps, the realism gets totally lost.
I don't know why we are discussing this at all, the new standard will come anyway and the old cinematic style will be available for anybody that wants to use it. There will be a plugin in any cutting program, saying "render in 24p", just adding blut and jitter, basically removing half the information. And I think it will be valid for certain movies, as well as black and white is still used for some.

May 7, 2012

0
Reply
nigratruo

I am not sure what everyone is so up in arms for with regard to embracing this technology. I have been watching movies for 2 years cranked up with a 120hz TV, and I have to say that I can't go back. I maxed out the 120hz and the Judder reduction and watched Avatar rendered in crystal clear bluray with 1080p resolution and when you see that scene of the helicopter flying down the waterfall and you can see the individual drops of water as the camera pans by...it is unparalleled clarity. Now yes I agree that it gives it a home video look, but honestly after you watch about 10 movies and become acclimated to the clarity and smoothness, you'll find that you don't even notice the home video feel anymore, while becoming spoiled by the clarity of fast moving scenes. Going back to 24 frames per second however, is almost painful as you will feel like your are chasing the scene and it is staying ahead of you giving you a blurry rendition and leaving you longing for the smoothness you have become accustomed to. I have become so used to 60fps that when I saw The Hobbit an hour ago I thought that the scenes were still too blurry, even at 48 fps. I am no expert and please correct me if I am wrong those of you with the technical insight in this field but if the movie is shot and played back at 48fps vice 24fps, that is less of a jump when converting to 60fps on a 120hz HDTV, so I would think that it would look even better then the original trilogy watched at 24fps in 1080 dialed up to 60fps by the 120hz. I say give it a chance...watch about 10 movies and see if you even notice the "TV" look. And afterwards try to watch a traditional movie and see if you can sit through it without missing your 60fps. My challenge to you ;).

December 14, 2012

-1
Reply
Tim