PDA

View Full Version : The Hobbit Movie being filmed at 48 FPS



Nicolas Jordan
04-12-2011, 09:46 AM
Peter Jackson revealed that The Hobbit movies will be filmed at 48 FPS in 3D making it the first film to do so. Article here http://the-hobbitmovie.com/peter-jackson-discusses-new-filming-standard/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I can't help but wonder if Lightwave will be utilized in the pipeline by Weta on these films.

OnlineRender
04-12-2011, 10:20 AM
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/peter-jackson-is-shooting-the-hobbit-at-48-frames-per-second/

it was inevitable

erikals
04-12-2011, 10:21 AM
i'm quite sure LW will be used, too what degree, not sure...

Nicolas Jordan
04-12-2011, 10:57 AM
It seems the only thing holding back films from being shot at 48 FPS was the cost of film otherwise it probably would have been done at a higher frame rate years ago.

Titus
04-12-2011, 11:23 AM
So they want film to look like video? at least that's how new TV sets show when they interpolate fps.

daforum
04-12-2011, 11:24 AM
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/peter-jackson-is-shooting-the-hobbit-at-48-frames-per-second/

it was inevitable

He says (PJ) in the above link:
"that films will become "easier to watch, especially in 3-D", with audiences being able to sit through "two hours of footage without getting eyestrain".

Does that mean its 24 fps per eye?

Titus
04-12-2011, 11:41 AM
My understanding is they are gonna playback movies at 48 fps, or anything higher than 24fps:

"In summary, Jackson said that shooting at 24 fps has been done since the 20′s and was a requirement due to projection speed and sound syncing. Now, with digital projectors, a higher frame rate can create a smoother playback experience."

OnlineRender
04-12-2011, 12:04 PM
It seems the only thing holding back films from being shot at 48 FPS was the cost of film otherwise it probably would have been done at a higher frame rate years ago.

not just the cost of the film , the picture house / cinema need the tech to run it .

Dexter2999
04-12-2011, 12:16 PM
Yes, it was a whole system in place all based on a 24 frames standard.
Digital projection is a whole new world where the Director can pick and choose what frame rate works best for his story. People might even take another look at 60fps (Showscan).

However, the issue with sitting still for 3 hour movies isn't eyestrain as much as it is your body gets achy and people's bladders get full. I don't think 48 fps is as helpful to the audience as would be to re-introduce the "intermission".

kosmodave
04-12-2011, 02:20 PM
Not sure about this, as Titus hinted it may end up looking like video (yuk..). There was an interesting discussion on one of the excellent pod casts over at fxguide.com (can't remember which one) where they were talking about how some footage that was shot on one of the modern camera's although looking good was not quite right. But once printed onto film everyone was super impressed because subliminally the film look was imprinted onto the footage making the whole look much more "film" like. And I prefer the film look myself otherwise just go out and shoot on Digi Beta. However I guess a pro like Peter Jackson knows what he is doing so I will cast my amateur opinion on it once I have seen it. (Probably in my local picture house from a film print LOL....:D )

Dave

erikals
04-12-2011, 02:49 PM
24 fps might be good for 2D
48 fps might be good for 3D

Dexter2999
04-12-2011, 03:03 PM
"Looks like video" is a gray area at best. Color grading and depth of field have a substantial role to play. As mentioned even digital footage transferred to celluloid affects the harshness traditionally associated with video. With advancements in digital technology, even if you take celluloid out of the equation (and for digital projection you almost would), they could still get a great look. Even if it meant printing to celluloid and then scanning back it to get the diffuse quality of the medium...but I'm sure there has to be a way to mimic that digitaly.

Sitting here watching 300 on Blu ray right now. The video transfer doesn't quite match up to my memory of how it appeared in theaters.

Hieron
04-12-2011, 03:15 PM
Ow come on, don't stick to 24 fps because is has some magical "film" quality. If people appreciate it that much, put on shutterglasses to black out half the frames of 48 fps :)
imho, it could use a bit more fluent motion, less blur and strobing. The world outside isn't presented to us in blurry 24 fps either. Not like it is some scientific magical nr..

OT: yay to Peter. Awesome. I've probably sunk too much $ into LOTR movies (5x to the movie theatre, bought normal DVD's, Extended Edition, BluRay version and will buy BluRay extended for sure). Worth every penny. Would love to see this at 48 fps in 3D.

Nicolas Jordan
04-12-2011, 04:06 PM
Ow come on, don't stick to 24 fps because is has some magical "film" quality. If people appreciate it that much, put on shutterglasses to black out half the frames of 48 fps :)
imho, it could use a bit more fluent motion, less blur and strobing. The world outside isn't presented to us in blurry 24 fps either. Not like it is some scientific magical nr..


:agree: I really don't see any good reason to limit future films to 24 fps if 48 fps makes them look closer to reality.

Titus
04-12-2011, 04:07 PM
imho, it could use a bit more fluent motion, less blur and strobing. The world outside isn't presented to us in blurry 24 fps either. Not like it is some scientific magical nr.

Talk for yourself. I've use glasses and my world is really blurry :D

Dexter2999
04-12-2011, 04:26 PM
:agree: I really don't see any good reason to limit future films to 24 fps if 48 fps makes them look closer to reality.

Ah, but to me that is exactly why you wouldn't want to use a higher frame rate. A more realistic nature could make it more difficult for the audience to suspend disbelief, making them more critical.

Silkrooster
04-12-2011, 09:58 PM
Ah, but to me that is exactly why you wouldn't want to use a higher frame rate. A more realistic nature could make it more difficult for the audience to suspend disbelief, making them more critical.

I feel just the opposite. I can't stand the grain they use either. The smoother the video and the higher the quality the better the video in my eyes. Thats when I can look around the scene and just say wow to the detail.

But as far as higher speeds and 3d goes. I am wondering if the higher frame rate will help the brain determine depth of field better. That could have been the missing component all these years when 3d did fail.
Anywho just a thought...

Ponyboy
04-13-2011, 03:38 AM
i'm quite sure LW will be used, too what degree, not sure...

not that i know of...

kopperdrake
04-13-2011, 03:51 AM
Renderfarm builders the world over are rubbing their hands in glee :)

OT: Bring on the higher FPS - I want smooooth panning, especially if I'm sat in the front few rows of the cinema.

zapper1998
04-13-2011, 04:01 AM
I did some animations at 48 fps, and they turned out better than the 24 fps videos ...

hmmmmm interesting...

Mr Rid
04-13-2011, 04:33 AM
Trumbull has been experimenting with higher frame rates since the 70s, and he now makes a curious case for 120 fps- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg&feature=related "...audiences who were instrumented to biometrically test their responses. He found that as the frame rate increased, so did the viewer's emotional reaction."

Cameron's been pushing for 48fps for years, and recently implored filmmakers to 'pick a new frame rate.' http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/james-cameron-urges-industry-use-173577?page=1#comments

I'm all for 60fps (Trumbull determined that viewers cannot perceive beyond 72fps). For those resistant to a 'video look', TV interpolation is not the same. Movie image quality has increased greatly in the last 20 years as we evolve into accepting/demanding it (looking at some of my old mono VHS movies, I wonder how we ever lived).

I experienced how profound an affect that 4k, 60fps can have on viewers when I saw the first Showscan (developed by Trumbull in early 80s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co_Duv2XCPU ) exhibit in Dallas at one of a few experimental theaters. It fooled audiences into believing a projected image of a technician was real as he appeared to walk around behind the translucent screen, speaking to them and even pressing his face against the screen at one point. Even a film savvy friend of mine was taken in at first. New makeup techniques would have to be developed as you can see every pore in a closeup. The most dramatic example was a scene where a car suddenly bursts thru a large mirror, headed at camera... every person in the theater ducked or jumped out of their aisle seats. Horror movies would cause heart attacks. Someone else related the startling level of immersion of a Showscan audience- "Around me, people gasped in terror and hit the floor." http://my.nero.com/index.php?__path=Blog%3A%2F%2FDisplayBlogComposite %2FIanFarquhar%2F7100886&NCSS=a100j0K6xDA2R184QAHPXXen23Whrn1mZ85n#0

I've also seen 2001 and Baraka projected in 70mm which is a whole different experience of films that were originally shot in 70mm (only about 50 American movies have been).

erikals
04-13-2011, 11:25 AM
not that i know of...

you work on it?

Intuition
04-13-2011, 11:37 AM
I mean, if its made 48 fps for the 3d aspect then that is understandable as the new real3d usually needs more frames to keep the effect working well. Still, 24 fps is a magical dreamlike quality that we are all used to.

When you speed up to 30fps or higher the look starts to feel cheap, like a soap opera shot in video, daytime television quality. This rings so true that multitudes of plug-ins were written back in the day to help convert 30 fps vido into 24fps film so that low end production could get that extra oomph whcih helped make the quality feel much better.

Everytime I go into best buy and they have harry potter or lord of the rings playingon one of those frame interpolation TVs next to the tv that has no interpolation turned on, I always hear the same thing. People always like the non-interpolated 24fps much better. I hear comments like "I think they have the signs on the wrong TV, because this one looks much better".

What they don't realize is that the dyatime TV / soap opera effect comes into play when video goes into higher fps.

Now I think there may definitely be sweet spots in higher fps ranges that feel like film more then vidoe at certain speeds.

Still, I think maybe the younger generation will have less of a problem with the FPS issue as they will not have the same association that the current 30 year old+ generation has with the nice feel of film.

People that like a TV that strobes less are the same people that usually would buy a non letter boxed dvd/vhs because they don't want those "darn black bars cutting off the top and bottom" not realizing they are actually losing the width of the image overall.

;)

This isn't to say that a film ACTUALLY shot in higher FPS would have the same effect.

Nicolas Jordan
04-13-2011, 11:51 AM
I wonder why there is something special about 48 fps vs 60 fps. In the article it was said that there is not detectable difference between 48 and 60 so why are ride films done at 60 and not 48? Is it simply because they move so fast that 48 would not be enough?

Dexter2999
04-13-2011, 12:07 PM
http://www.fxguide.com/fxguidetv/fxguidetv-104-douglas-trumbull/

Check it out. Nice interview with Douglas Trumbull, the guy behind the effects is 2001:A Space Oddesy, and 60fps playback pioneer.

48fps shooting may be to avoid patent infringement for all I know. But my first guess is actually that 48 frames is still cheaper to produce than 60. I mean you are still doubling render times so larger farms or more time is going to be needed. And the cost difference between 48fps and 60? Where is the tipping point where you see a diminishing return on your investment? You could spend 25% more money on renders (or plate clean up, roto, whatever) but would you see a 25% increase in the quality when played back?

Hieron
04-13-2011, 02:08 PM
48 fps is 2x 24 fps. 60 fps is 2.5x 24 fps.

48 fps shot film still needs to work in 24 fps cinemas. From 48 to 24 fps is easier than 60 to 24. On top of that there's diminishing returns I suppose. Theme Park rides have no concerns like that, they don't need to be compatible to any other huge range of venues.

Not sure what day time TV and soap operas have to do with all this... In another field, games, 24 fps is regarded as rock bottom.. anything resembling 60 fps feels smooth. Normally in film, motion blur compensates some of the choppiness.. but even though that has a "feel" you can get used to.. how is this better?

This discussion is not new at all ofc, plenty of material and examples around. I'm happy the industry moves on. Color, high res, 3D, decent fps... goodie, what an age :)

erikals
04-13-2011, 02:58 PM
one good thing about it though,...> lower render times... :]

 

JeffrySG
04-13-2011, 03:59 PM
Trumbull has been experimenting with higher frame rates since the 70s, and he now makes a curious case for 120 fps- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg&feature=related "...audiences who were instrumented to biometrically test their responses. He found that as the frame rate increased, so did the viewer's emotional reaction."

Cameron's been pushing for 48fps for years, and recently implored filmmakers to 'pick a new frame rate.' http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/james-cameron-urges-industry-use-173577?page=1#comments

I'm all for 60fps (Trumbull determined that viewers cannot perceive beyond 72fps). For those resistant to a 'video look', TV interpolation is not the same. Movie image quality has increased greatly in the last 20 years as we evolve into accepting/demanding it (looking at some of my old mono VHS movies, I wonder how we ever lived).

I experienced how profound an affect that 4k, 60fps can have on viewers when I saw the first Showscan (developed by Trumbull in early 80s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co_Duv2XCPU ) exhibit in Dallas at one of a few experimental theaters. It fooled audiences into believing a projected image of a technician was real as he appeared to walk around behind the translucent screen, speaking to them and even pressing his face against the screen at one point. Even a film savvy friend of mine was taken in at first. New makeup techniques would have to be developed as you can see every pore in a closeup. The most dramatic example was a scene where a car suddenly bursts thru a large mirror, headed at camera... every person in the theater ducked or jumped out of their aisle seats. Horror movies would cause heart attacks. Someone else related the startling level of immersion of a Showscan audience- "Around me, people gasped in terror and hit the floor." http://my.nero.com/index.php?__path=Blog%3A%2F%2FDisplayBlogComposite %2FIanFarquhar%2F7100886&NCSS=a100j0K6xDA2R184QAHPXXen23Whrn1mZ85n#0

I've also seen 2001 and Baraka projected in 70mm which is a whole different experience of films that were originally shot in 70mm (only about 50 American movies have been).

Trumbull talks about it on this video podcast as well.
http://www.fxguide.com/fxguidetv/fxguidetv-104-douglas-trumbull/

hydroclops
04-13-2011, 05:47 PM
I used to work in live action production. I remember many times we needed to be careful to avoid strobing. Big crane shots and other moving camera shots can look awful at 24fps.

There are two reasons to track with an extra. One is to give motivation, the other is to keep the viewer from noticing how terrible the background looks.

bazsa73
04-13-2011, 08:22 PM
I dont care too much about this but I'm pretty sure that in the wrong hands this will produce cheesier crap than ever before.

Silkrooster
04-13-2011, 09:55 PM
Trumbull has been experimenting with higher frame rates since the 70s, and he now makes a curious case for 120 fps- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg&feature=related "...audiences who were instrumented to biometrically test their responses. He found that as the frame rate increased, so did the viewer's emotional reaction."

Cameron's been pushing for 48fps for years, and recently implored filmmakers to 'pick a new frame rate.' http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/james-cameron-urges-industry-use-173577?page=1#comments

I'm all for 60fps (Trumbull determined that viewers cannot perceive beyond 72fps). For those resistant to a 'video look', TV interpolation is not the same. Movie image quality has increased greatly in the last 20 years as we evolve into accepting/demanding it (looking at some of my old mono VHS movies, I wonder how we ever lived).

I experienced how profound an affect that 4k, 60fps can have on viewers when I saw the first Showscan (developed by Trumbull in early 80s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co_Duv2XCPU ) exhibit in Dallas at one of a few experimental theaters. It fooled audiences into believing a projected image of a technician was real as he appeared to walk around behind the translucent screen, speaking to them and even pressing his face against the screen at one point. Even a film savvy friend of mine was taken in at first. New makeup techniques would have to be developed as you can see every pore in a closeup. The most dramatic example was a scene where a car suddenly bursts thru a large mirror, headed at camera... every person in the theater ducked or jumped out of their aisle seats. Horror movies would cause heart attacks. Someone else related the startling level of immersion of a Showscan audience- "Around me, people gasped in terror and hit the floor." http://my.nero.com/index.php?__path=Blog%3A%2F%2FDisplayBlogComposite %2FIanFarquhar%2F7100886&NCSS=a100j0K6xDA2R184QAHPXXen23Whrn1mZ85n#0

I've also seen 2001 and Baraka projected in 70mm which is a whole different experience of films that were originally shot in 70mm (only about 50 American movies have been).

Makes me wonder if the would effect people's reactions during a horror movie then.



I mean, if its made 48 fps for the 3d aspect then that is understandable as the new real3d usually needs more frames to keep the effect working well. Still, 24 fps is a magical dreamlike quality that we are all used to.

When you speed up to 30fps or higher the look starts to feel cheap, like a soap opera shot in video, daytime television quality. This rings so true that multitudes of plug-ins were written back in the day to help convert 30 fps vido into 24fps film so that low end production could get that extra oomph whcih helped make the quality feel much better.

Everytime I go into best buy and they have harry potter or lord of the rings playingon one of those frame interpolation TVs next to the tv that has no interpolation turned on, I always hear the same thing. People always like the non-interpolated 24fps much better. I hear comments like "I think they have the signs on the wrong TV, because this one looks much better".

What they don't realize is that the dyatime TV / soap opera effect comes into play when video goes into higher fps.

Now I think there may definitely be sweet spots in higher fps ranges that feel like film more then vidoe at certain speeds.

Still, I think maybe the younger generation will have less of a problem with the FPS issue as they will not have the same association that the current 30 year old+ generation has with the nice feel of film.

People that like a TV that strobes less are the same people that usually would buy a non letter boxed dvd/vhs because they don't want those "darn black bars cutting off the top and bottom" not realizing they are actually losing the width of the image overall.

;)

This isn't to say that a film ACTUALLY shot in higher FPS would have the same effect.

As for soap operas I beleive it is more than just frame speed that does away with the pro movie look. Lighting, color filters, post editing, better actors (whoops did I say that?)

Danner
04-14-2011, 02:26 AM
I can't beleive people still cling to the idea that lower fps gives you better looking or more dream like footage.. Back when I did a lot of TV commercials we would often go for 24fps to make it look like film, but not because it looked better.. just looked like film and people associated the "film look" with hollywood block busters and not the car salesman add shot at 60fps (interlaced NTSC was actually 60fps.. well close). But there were a few high cost commercials shot on film at 60fps and they looked gorgeous and where a pleasure to work on. Everytime I'm at a movie where they have a fast pan I grind my teeth.. but people don't seem to notice that 24fps looks like crap. But then again I've seen a ton of people watching TV with the wrong aspect ratio and not care...
/pet peeves mode off

archijam
04-14-2011, 02:47 AM
I don't think 48 fps is as helpful to the audience as would be to re-introduce the "intermission".

In switzerland we still have the intermission :thumbsup: ..

.. tho that is probably because we can drink beer in the cinema, and need to take a 'break'. Also half the audience still smokes ;) ..

I don't think the 'quality' of film is directly linked to the framerate (TV or film feel). Digital video does need some post work IMHO, I hate the look of films like public enemies (http://www.publicenemies.net/), this is a perfect example of the TV look Titus is talking about ...

Mr Rid
04-14-2011, 10:50 PM
I wonder why there is something special about 48 fps vs 60 fps. In the article it was said that there is not detectable difference between 48 and 60 so why are ride films done at 60 and not 48? Is it simply because they move so fast that 48 would not be enough?

Visually, I suppose most people are not able to distinguish 48fps from 60fps. But what Trumbull discovered with early Showscan testing is that physiologic responses increased along with higher frame rates.

"They then brought in test audiences and showed these scenes while measuring audience response in several objective parameters, i.e., Galvanic skin response, heart rate, brain waves, etc. What they found was that audiences responded more actively to scenes as the frame rate increased. However, this increase in response seemed to reach a plateau at about 72 frames per second. So Doug decided to standardize at 60 fps because of its compatibility with the 60-cycle AC electrical standard and because of the 30 frame, 60 field NTSC television standard."

And for those worried about the 'soap opera' effect, I wouldnt compare 60fps movies to the TVs at Best Buy. TVs suffer from artifacts from pulldown, compression, frame interpolation, and chroma and luma bleed. Consider the display you are reading this with that is running at a minimum 60 hz/fps. No one wants a 24 hz computer monitor.

Showscan looked shockingly vivid, with no digital mishmosh, or grain, streaking, orbiting, silhouetting, pan strobing, motionblur, scratches and all the fun artifacts of projecting film. Megabright, 4k, 60fps demonstrated a projected image that average viewers had difficulty distinguishing from reality. Thats pretty darn thrilling. The one Showscan short I saw that attempted to tell a story was the most boring (called Big Ball). It was preferable to just watch stuff zoom and explode in the earlier demos.;D It was a more vulnerable and visceral experience than typical film.

I keep waiting for the next innovation in recording that eliminates the waste of all those frames gushing thru the pipe to get an instant of believable motion. I picture some krazy thing with particles that condense and shift to form 3D shapes in realtime.

Titus
04-14-2011, 11:03 PM
48 fps also means more work with the same budget constrains, or are they going to increase the money invested? I really doubt it.

Mr Rid
04-14-2011, 11:17 PM
I still say talkies are a fad.

Iain
04-15-2011, 01:32 AM
I don't think its nostalgia or some ignorant misconception that makes people prefer the 'film' look.
You can have too much of a good thing and that includes detail.

Nobody wants photography or film to look like reality-they want them to look better.

Lightwolf
04-15-2011, 03:31 AM
Consider the display you are reading this with that is running at a minimum 60 hz/fps.
Just to be picky, there's a difference between the refresh rate (of the visual display used) and the frame rate.

In that sense traditional film (using an analogue projector) has a "refresh" rate of 48fps as every frame is displayed twice (to reduce the flicker) - but a frame rate of 24fps.

Cheers,
Mike

OnlineRender
04-15-2011, 05:12 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsT3qgrK6OQ&feature=player_embedded

Making of The Hobbit: On set

Nicolas Jordan
04-15-2011, 06:45 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsT3qgrK6OQ&feature=player_embedded

Making of The Hobbit: On set

Ya, watched that and I thought it was pretty cool that Peter is taking some time to do a video blog on behind the scenes stuff in the midst of filming. :thumbsup:

jrandom
04-15-2011, 01:55 PM
Years ago I did some render tests at 24, 30, 48, 60, 75, and 100fps.

I think 60fps hits some kind of framerate uncanny valley. 24 and 30 looked nice and cinematic. 48 was just beautiful. 75 and 100 looked unbelievably fluid. 60... 60 just looks bad.

I'm all for 48fps and 72-75fps but I very much hope the film industry stays away from 60fps. Bleh.

Nicolas Jordan
04-15-2011, 02:59 PM
Years ago I did some render tests at 24, 30, 48, 60, 75, and 100fps.

I think 60fps hits some kind of framerate uncanny valley. 24 and 30 looked nice and cinematic. 48 was just beautiful. 75 and 100 looked unbelievably fluid. 60... 60 just looks bad.

I'm all for 48fps and 72-75fps but I very much hope the film industry stays away from 60fps. Bleh.

Those are very interesting test results. I would think Peter Jackson must have done similar tests in order to settle on 48 FPS for the film. I have a feeling it will look great at 48!

RudySchneider
04-15-2011, 04:36 PM
I think 60fps hits some kind of framerate uncanny valley...

It's just a guess, but if you're viewing a video in a lighted room, there may be an issue with 60fps aliasing and/or beating with the 60Hz AC of incandescent and fluorescent lights.

jrandom
04-15-2011, 04:42 PM
It's just a guess, but if you're viewing a video in a lighted room, there may be an issue with 60fps aliasing and/or beating with the 60Hz AC of incandescent and fluorescent lights.

This is with all lights off. Glare is my enemy so I never have lights on in the room when I'm working with digital imagery.

RudySchneider
04-15-2011, 07:50 PM
Hmmm...

Well, there is the possibility I'm all wet. What about the refresh rate of you monitor? My HP w2558hc, for instance, refreshes at either 60Hz or 75Hz, depending on the screen resolution.

Just a thought...

jrandom
04-15-2011, 10:10 PM
Well, there is the possibility I'm all wet. What about the refresh rate of you monitor? My HP w2558hc, for instance, refreshes at either 60Hz or 75Hz, depending on the screen resolution.

It was a fancy 120Hz CRT monitor so I could use it with LCD shutter glasses (which I eventually sat on and broke).

Hieron
04-16-2011, 05:00 AM
Can't believe there is a 60hz "uncanny valley" while 48 and 75 being fine, it would have been well documented. Quick tests an a random monitor wouldn't compare to efforts done on commercial systems for live venues.

60hz is eerily close to electronic issues due to external or internal factors of the pc, in the dark or not. Not sure how something in human vision would have issues with a specific framerate like that.

Normal uncanny valley is well documented and easily explainable.

jrandom
04-16-2011, 09:23 AM
It may very well have been subjective, but to my eyes there is a noticeable quality drop at 60fps. No idea what causes that.

OnlineRender
04-16-2011, 10:13 AM
It may very well have been subjective, but to my eyes there is a noticeable quality drop at 60fps. No idea what causes that.

probably not a drop in quality more to do with your eyes not processing it fast enough causing it to look worse / blurred , just a thought !

jrandom
04-16-2011, 10:20 AM
probably not a drop in quality more to do with your eyes not processing it fast enough causing it to look worse / blurred , just a thought !

That wouldn't explain why 75fps looked so beautiful. It was a particle system of bouncing balls done in 3DS Max sometime around the year 2000 or early 2001.

Maybe it's the framerate combined with in-frame motion blur that hits a bad spot at 60fps. At 24-48 fps you get more blur but it works well at those framerates. At 75fps you get less in-frame motion blur but more "actual" motion blur via your eyes, resulting in what I can only describe as "beautifully fluid" motion.

(It may have also been the fact that I was rendering at standard definition -- maybe 60fps works better at full HD and higher resolutions?)

I'm a total dunce at lightwave animation since I've been mainly learning modeling and surfacing, but if anyone here has a scene already set up that has a decent amount of movement in it we could do some render tests at different framerates to see if I'm just imagining things or if there really is a quality drop at 60fps.

I've got a 12-core system so I can volunteer some render time for the higher framerate versions. When in doubt, experiment!

Hieron
04-16-2011, 11:39 AM
Would be interesting for sure...Now, if only I had kept that bulky but fast CRT monitor! I wonder if my current screens go far beyond 60hz.. (for comparison)

jrandom
04-16-2011, 11:50 AM
Would be interesting for sure...Now, if only I had kept that bulky but fast CRT monitor! I wonder if my current screens go far beyond 60hz.. (for comparison)

Oh heck, good point.

All the info I've dug up indicates that the update speed of my 27" monitor is around 60Hz (27" iMac, now currently being used as a monitor for my 12-core system... Most Expensive "Monitor" Ever 8~ ).

Ponyboy
04-16-2011, 03:21 PM
you work on it?

Got 2 good mates who work in CG. They laugh whenever you bring up Lightwave.

OnlineRender
04-16-2011, 03:31 PM
Would be interesting for sure...Now, if only I had kept that bulky but fast CRT monitor! I wonder if my current screens go far beyond 60hz.. (for comparison)

I can sell you some :) nice 21 inches here :P

OnlineRender
04-16-2011, 03:33 PM
Got 2 good mates who work in CG. They laugh whenever you bring up Lightwave.

tell them to speak with Matt or Rob @ Nt for 10 minutes and then see what they say !

ignorance is bliss!

erikals
04-16-2011, 04:39 PM
tell them to animate a UV map

 

Brötje
04-21-2011, 06:40 AM
They laugh whenever you bring up Lightwave.

That seems to be a worldwide reaction...

Liber777
04-21-2011, 01:44 PM
24fps movies in theaters are projected at 48fps, with each frame being shown twice in order to promote persistence and reduce flicker. It's possible that 48fps was chosen because there may be more existing projectors out there that can handle this rate over 60fps.

Dexter2999
04-21-2011, 01:52 PM
24fps movies in theaters are projected at 48fps, with each frame being shown twice in order to promote persistence and reduce flicker. It's possible that 48fps was chosen because there may be more existing projectors out there that can handle this rate over 60fps.

Don't confuse the shutter rate with the transfer rate. Film in theaters moves at 24 frames per second.

Liber777
04-21-2011, 01:56 PM
Ah sorry, good point. I wasn't thinking that through.

I wonder if the mechanics of some projectors will allow for 48fps, as well as existing dcp setups.

OnlineRender
04-21-2011, 02:05 PM
who cares the more frames the more data ,no? gotta be a good thing

Hominid 3D
04-21-2011, 04:51 PM
Got 2 good mates who work in CG. They laugh whenever you bring up Lightwave.

Uh, software fetishists. Always a sign of professionalism...

Silkrooster
04-21-2011, 09:56 PM
Ah sorry, good point. I wasn't thinking that through.

I wonder if the mechanics of some projectors will allow for 48fps, as well as existing dcp setups.

I have a stong feeling the city near me will have no problems. They are in the process of upgrading. Adding digital projection and around 2000 theater seats. suppose to be done this summer. Not sure how many seats they had before.

Silkrooster
04-21-2011, 09:57 PM
who cares the more frames the more data ,no? gotta be a good thing

thats what I would think.

Mr Rid
11-30-2011, 03:36 PM
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/douglas-trumbull-sees-a-better-filmgoing-future
Douglas Trumbull - "I'm developing several projects, working at 120fps, and it's stunning. It opens up a a whole new cinematic language. It's a different kind of cinema, all about immersive, participatory, first-person experiences. I'm going to use the virtual set technology to make a sci-fi movie in the epicenter of what people want to see: a big action-adventure movie. The audience sees what appears to be happening in real time."

"...I'm trying to demonstrate what it'll look like when you project at 50-foot lamberts on a giant curved screen at 120 fps in 3D.

Typical theatre projection- 15 lamberts (fls).

IMAX- 20 fls

Stereoscopic- 3 to 5 fls

Roger Ebert commenting on MaxiVision48(fps) projection- "The result is dramatically better than existing 2-D. In terms of standard measurements used in the industry, it’s 400 percent better. That is not a misprint. Those who haven’t seen it have no idea how good it is. I’ve seen it, and also a system of some years ago, Douglas Trumbull’s Showscan. These systems are so good that the screen functions like a window into three dimensions. If moviegoers could see it, they would simply forget about 3-D."

bazsa73
12-01-2011, 01:31 AM
Only 120 fps ???? WTF, why not 1200000000000000000 billiontrillion? That makes a film worth to watch in 69878909809billiontrillion D.

Andrewstopheles
12-01-2011, 07:23 AM
I do not understand why there would be any reason for debate. Just bring on the higher framerates!

Mr Rid
12-02-2011, 07:40 PM
I dont understand the point in 120fps when Trumbull's own study demonstrated that viewer response was negligible above 60fps. But the original Showscan projection I saw was about 3 times more immersive (Ebert says 4 times) than typical digital projection. The increase in frame rate, brightness & saturation (the small Showscan theater also had better controlled sound) does make any projected image more engaging, although its overkill for non-spectacle movies.

jrandom
12-02-2011, 07:44 PM
There is a definite difference between even 60fps and 100fps. I have seen an example in person.

Dexter2999
12-02-2011, 09:02 PM
I dont understand the point in 120fps when Trumbull's own study demonstrated that viewer response was negligible above 60fps. But the original Showscan projection I saw was about 3 times more immersive (Ebert says 4 times) than typical digital projection. The increase in frame rate, brightness & saturation (the small Showscan theater also had better controlled sound) does make any projected image more engaging, although its overkill for non-spectacle movies.

I think the word "negligible" may have been relative to cost if studies were conducted using film as a medium.

However the cost in digital terms drops drastically. So the benefit may then be desirable without consideration to cost.

mikala
12-02-2011, 11:11 PM
Got 2 good mates who work in CG. They laugh whenever you bring up Lightwave.
Okay another Maya flogger. How boring.

mikala
12-02-2011, 11:12 PM
That seems to be a worldwide reaction...
And Ponyboy brought friends :)

Surrealist.
12-03-2011, 12:04 AM
As mentioned already it has more to do with available technology. A great way to find out more about it is to visit the websites of the companies providing the technology.

http://www.christiedigital.com/en-us/cinema/cinema-projection-solutions/high-frame-rates/pages/default.aspx

There is a link to this document on this page.

Pretty interesting article for those who want to do more research on it:

http://www.christiedigital.com/SupportDocs/Anonymous/Christie-High-Frame-Rate-Technology-Overview.pdf

djwaterman
12-03-2011, 11:10 AM
Bigger format images at higher and higher frame rates just means longer render times for any sequence your working on. Films don't need this unless it's some kind of 3D show-ride type spectacle. But every non talent will start insisting on it now thinking it will save their production.
People only suffer from eye strain, scratching and bladder discomfort when the film is boring, if they're engaged all that stuff gets repressed.

Ivan D. Young
12-03-2011, 01:03 PM
This is the equipment that is pushing this move to 48 FPS.

http://www.red.com/

This is their forums, you should read the Jim Jannard section Recon.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/forum.php

If you have never heard of Jim Jannard he use to own Oakley sunglasses. the cameras that they are using on Hobbitt, Jim Jannard flew the first few models to New Zealnd and personnally delivererd them.

He is a very serious man delivering a serious product.

Jannard is a possible "Next Steve Jobs" type of guy, well at least as far as Cinema cameras go.


I love to see all these Hight tech guys on a tech software forum bithcing about sticking with an old useless format.

Why dont you guys just stick with LW 5.6?

Iain
12-03-2011, 01:15 PM
.
People only suffer from eye strain, scratching and bladder discomfort when the film is boring, if they're engaged all that stuff gets repressed.

Nail hit firmly on the head.
Higher frame rates, 3D, IMAX, THX, etc, etc: all gimmicks.
If the story, the script or the acting is bad, all of the above become superfluous. You can get away with low production values and just about anything else if you compel the audience to watch.
Don't get me wrong, I am an unashamed aesthetist but some of the most beautiful films in existence look best on grainy old film.

Progress is essential but only if it's required.

Ivan D. Young
12-03-2011, 01:30 PM
Hey does anyone have a link to the Horse and buggy forums?

Or a link to the Horse Whip forums?


I hope you guys are accessing the Internet on your Windows 3.11 for workgroups machines. Because you know they are better.

how many of you have even seen well projected 4K content?

hahaha

(for the record: I just saw some 2 days ago at the Sony Booth at the I/ITSEC show in Orlando. Awesome!!!):devil:

jrandom
12-03-2011, 01:51 PM
3D may be fad-like, but I'll bet real money that we'll all eventually be working with 120fps footage. It's the most ungodly beautiful thing I've ever seen. The realisticness, the fluidity... give it 20 years and I'll come back here to collect. :)

Dexter2999
12-03-2011, 02:05 PM
3D may be fad-like, but I'll bet real money that we'll all eventually be working with 120fps footage. It's the most ungodly beautiful thing I've ever seen. The realisticness, the fluidity... give it 20 years and I'll come back here to collect. :)

I think faster frame rates will outlast 3D if for only the fact that not everyone really sees 3D effects. Whereas I haven't heard of anyone who didn't see an improvement with higher frame rates.

Higher frame rates don't mess with the color or require silly glasses.

Also, with TV sets now routinely doing 120-240Hz the transition for home viewing is built in (although admittedly these rates were designed to accomodate 3D TV.)

Iain
12-04-2011, 04:37 AM
Hey does anyone have a link to the Horse and buggy forums?

Or a link to the Horse Whip forums?


I hope you guys are accessing the Internet on your Windows 3.11 for workgroups machines. Because you know they are better.

how many of you have even seen well projected 4K content?

hahaha

(for the record: I just saw some 2 days ago at the Sony Booth at the I/ITSEC show in Orlando. Awesome!!!):devil:

What are you talking about? If you took part in the discussion rather than talking down to people making valid points, you might not come across as a condescending arse.

Frame rates over that which the human eye can consistently appreciate seem superfluous to me. (I'm talking about 120 plus here.) If you disagree, please say so.

jrandom
12-04-2011, 11:26 AM
Frame rates over that which the human eye can consistently appreciate seem superfluous to me. (I'm talking about 120 plus here.) If you disagree, please say so.

There is a staggering difference between 60fps and 120fps. I can't speak for rates higher than 120, but the human visual system can absolutely see differences up to that point.

Up in the neighborhood of 120fps, the motion blur we see is derived from the images movement instead of that blur being recorded in the frame itself (ala 24fps and 60fps), and I'm betting it's this attribute that gives that framerate its realistic look.

On an interesting note, modern flat-panels have this auto-interpolation mode enabled by default that upsamples 24fps and 60fps to 120fps via some kind of image block motion interpolation. This makes the video actually move at 120fps but since it doesn't reduce the in-image motion blur, it looks terrible.

Ivan D. Young
12-04-2011, 05:30 PM
The discussion is revolving around 48 FPS 60 FPS. I have not talked about 120 FPS.

But yes many folks can perceptably percieve speeds somewhere around 55FPS to 70ish FPS before they cant see the difference.

Why do so many zealotously argue for 24 FPS?

why dont you just stick with your LW 5.6? Surely the technology upgrade gives you nothing worth the extra effort or does it?

Higher framerates have been consistently proven to be more pleasing and look better and yet folks come running decrying it as a loss? How?

If your opinion is honestly more correct, then you need to quickly contact Sony, Arri, Panavision, Red, Canon, Nikon, Peter Jackson, James Cameron, and many many more to let them know that they are screwing this up!!

Regardless of any of our opinions, the industry has shifted and is transitioning to Digital Cinema and leaving film behind.

If you want to call me names I am cool with it. your opinion is wrong in this case and the fact that the Hobbitt is in 48 FPs I do not think I have to say much about it.

Surrealist.
12-04-2011, 10:44 PM
Higher frame rates is just the inevitable change that is coming because technology is always driving forward. A little disturbing to us on a technical level because here we have for so many years struggled just to keep up with higher resolution demands and now we have to contend with higher frame rates.

You can probably say we are on a safe plateau for a while as producers of content and it will be quite some time before we find ourselves expected to produce these higher rates as a norm. And I would suppose this would be only for digital theatrical release A list films initially anyway. And as time moves on it will become more and more of a norm.

But this cycle repeats endlessly. Higher demands, faster computers, higher demands etc. Digital content has been going like this for the last 20 + years and I don't see any reason why it would stop.

But I think it will be a long time before we see 120 frame rates as a norm - all arguments aside. The bottom line is, when people demand it, it will be provided. Companies who's business is to continually innovate and move technology forward will always continue to push the envelope and create interest from consumers who will in turn demand more. It is kind of a chicken or egg question, but it is really not an important question to answer.

Just keep your finger on the pulse and make the best plans you can for changes ahead.

jrandom
12-04-2011, 10:52 PM
All it will take is one really successful movie shot and projected in a higher framerate and every movie studio will jump on board. Could be a decade. Could be a year from now. Regardless, when it happens we're all going to be scrambling for more processing power.

Might be time to start looking at those multi-motherboard machines people have been tinkering around with recently.

Dexter2999
12-05-2011, 12:03 AM
Well, I haven't seen these higher frame rates personally. What I have heard from people who have is that it is like seeing something "live".

Now there are some who see this as a departure from the traditional "film look" that they grew up with and it is what they associate the cinema experience with.

Perhaps if they did films in 60fps of popular plays like RENT or WICKED. This could blur the expectation between film and live performance.

This could also be an interesting experiment for computer animated fare. I do have some minor reservations myself though. I saw HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON on BluRay being shown at Best Buy and I thought it the colors were brighter. The picture sharpness and contrast were phenomenal. And you know what? I prefer the DVD copy I ripped to computer and watch at work. The version in the store looked like it was a video game. It didn't look like I expect a movie to look.

But hey, I'm getting older and probably too set in my ways.

jrandom
12-05-2011, 12:10 AM
Remember that 60fps doesn't have that "magic" look to it, and if you saw a theatrical (24fps) blu-ray in a store TV then the framerate was most likely upsampled via the TV's optical flow technology and that just doesn't look right: it resamples the framerate on the fly but it doesn't change the motion blur of the original so it just looks bad.

Now something shot and projected at 75+fps... that's when effect really begins to shine and at 100fps it looks like nothing you've ever seen. :)

Iain
12-05-2011, 03:08 AM
Now there are some who see this as a departure from the traditional "film look" that they grew up with and it is what they associate the cinema experience with.


True, but I don't think its purely nostalgia.
Your point about a video game look really hits home with me.
I was excited about Michael Mann going digital for Public Enemies but the experience just left me cold.

Certain scenes in Blu Rays I've watched (in particular, The Crystal Skull) just made me think I was looking at a studio set.
Even the crappy sets in Temple of Doom looked more convincing because of the visual tolerances (or deficiencies to be less kind) of film.

Iain
12-05-2011, 03:22 AM
Higher framerates have been consistently proven to be more pleasing and look better


When? By whom?

Anyway, I don't disagree in theory but figures of 500 fps are being talked about. You would miss thousands of those frames just blinking!
There is more to aesthetics than quantity of detail. A Single Man is one of the best looking films I have seen in years and it was deliberately degraded with an old film stock. It's a thing of absolute beauty.

I don't particularly want my cinema experience to be hi def mundanity-I want to see beauty, warmth and style. I want to be moved, not impressed.



If you want to call me names I am cool with it. your opinion is wrong in this case and the fact that the Hobbitt is in 48 FPs I do not think I have to say much about it.

Well, I just said you were coming across as an arse, not that you were one. I'm sure you're an all round good egg (who knows he is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong).

Lightwolf
12-05-2011, 03:27 AM
A Single Man is one of the best looking films I have seen in years and it was deliberately degraded with an old film stock. It's a thing of absolute beauty.
Quoted for agreement before switching back to lurker mode. Gorgeous grading indeed (and one of the rare cases where it is used to help tell the story in a very subtle way).

Cheers,
Mike

Dexter2999
12-05-2011, 04:11 AM
@Mike

Did you see LIMITLESS? I liked the use of color grading in that as a tool in telling the story.

This brings up the idea though that just as color grading is a storytelling tool, frame rates could also become a tool. What if a movie was shot at 60fps but the dream sequences were stepped down to 24fps? Like now sometimes dream sequences or drug sequences get shot at higher speeds to get a slo-mo effect on playback. Think about a hyper-real film where the character is drunk and everything gets stepped down to a lower fps so things seem a little less so.

Lightwolf
12-05-2011, 04:17 AM
@Mike

Did you see LIMITLESS? I liked the use of color grading in that as a tool in telling the story.
No, I haven't. Somehow I don't get to go to the movies as often as I'd like to...


This brings up the idea though that just as color grading is a storytelling tool, frame rates could also become a tool. What if a movie was shot at 60fps but the dream sequences were stepped down to 24fps? Like now sometimes dream sequences or drug sequences get shot at higher speeds to get a slo-mo effect on playback. Think about a hyper-real film where the character is drunk and everything gets stepped down to a lower fps so things seem a little less so.
In a way that's done already though. Lower frame rates, grain, more shutter...

Cheers,
Mike

achrystie
12-05-2011, 05:41 AM
This is all fine. More advanced tech is always an advantage. It just begs the question of how it will be used. I think in every creative industry that makes heavy use of technology, there is a tendency to make the technology the "art", rather than use the technology to make art.
In the end, as the viewer, I could care less what the frame rate is, as long as the movie looks good (has an artistic style and is elegantly filmed and edited), the story is good, and the movie plays out effectively from start to finish. If frame rate increase facilitates better movies, I'm all for it. However, if increasing the frame rate pushes us more towards hyperrealism, twitchy filming, and overblown effects sequences at the expense of story, then I don't see the benefit.

The frame rate seems like the same mistake that AAA video game studios consistently make (I guess not a mistake because they make a lot of money, but they also spend a lot of money too, and despite the income, often the user base shrinks from iteration to iteration, after a certain point). Rather than really innovate on gameplay and style, they just throw the same soldier in with MORE detail, bigger explosion effects, and tack on 3D capability or some other tech that is the current buzzword.

Surrealist.
12-05-2011, 06:00 AM
Well, I haven't seen these higher frame rates personally. What I have heard from people who have is that it is like seeing something "live".

Now there are some who see this as a departure from the traditional "film look" that they grew up with and it is what they associate the cinema experience with.

Perhaps if they did films in 60fps of popular plays like RENT or WICKED. This could blur the expectation between film and live performance.

This could also be an interesting experiment for computer animated fare. I do have some minor reservations myself though. I saw HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON on BluRay being shown at Best Buy and I thought it the colors were brighter. The picture sharpness and contrast were phenomenal. And you know what? I prefer the DVD copy I ripped to computer and watch at work. The version in the store looked like it was a video game. It didn't look like I expect a movie to look.

But hey, I'm getting older and probably too set in my ways.

I have had that experience too. But I attributed it to the display technology of the screen I was looking at not the content. I wonder if that was a factor or not in your case.

I was researching this recently and for the most part had myself convinced I would not be investing in a big flat screen of any kind for my next TV purchase.

I think he way to go is to invest in a screen and projector. The projectors are available in all kinds of sizes, technology and quality depending on your budget these days. Seems to me an option worth considering for nice home theater/TV experience, regardless of the size of your room.

With digital projection technology improving and the prices coming down I think it is more and more something worth looking into as an alternative to the conventional TV than it was some years ago.

Lightwolf
12-05-2011, 06:12 AM
I was researching this recently and for the most part had myself convinced I would not be investing in a big flat screen of any kind for my next TV purchase.
Having seen an 8K (prototype) display by Sharp at IBC this year, neither will I.
It's either 8K or the current SD ... all or nothing :D

Cheers,
Mike

Red_Oddity
12-05-2011, 06:27 AM
Having seen an 8K (prototype) display by Sharp at IBC this year, neither will I.
It's either 8K or the current SD ... all or nothing :D

Cheers,
Mike

And who said plugin programmers didn't make that much money :D

Lightwolf
12-05-2011, 06:29 AM
And who said plugin programmers didn't make that much money :D
Which reminds me... that plays into it as well :D

Mind you, we own 5 DVDs already! ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Andyjaggy
12-07-2011, 10:19 AM
Well, I haven't seen these higher frame rates personally. What I have heard from people who have is that it is like seeing something "live".

Now there are some who see this as a departure from the traditional "film look" that they grew up with and it is what they associate the cinema experience with.

Perhaps if they did films in 60fps of popular plays like RENT or WICKED. This could blur the expectation between film and live performance.

This could also be an interesting experiment for computer animated fare. I do have some minor reservations myself though. I saw HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON on BluRay being shown at Best Buy and I thought it the colors were brighter. The picture sharpness and contrast were phenomenal. And you know what? I prefer the DVD copy I ripped to computer and watch at work. The version in the store looked like it was a video game. It didn't look like I expect a movie to look.

But hey, I'm getting older and probably too set in my ways.

That's the typical soap opera effect you see with a high refresh rate television. You are able to turn it off if you like. I think they always turn it on in stores because it draws people's attention, but I agree it looks like crap.

bazsa73
12-07-2011, 10:21 AM
if it can be turned off and on then it must be a fun to turn it on and off during the film

erikals
12-07-2011, 10:47 AM
Well, I haven't seen these higher frame rates personally. What I have heard from people who have is that it is like seeing something "live".

...until they get used to it.

...i heard the same thing about people watching the new UltraHD.