PDA

View Full Version : Will you be ready for 4K?



Surrealist.
11-20-2012, 07:24 AM
I know that there has been discussion on this. But I recently got this in a Red Shark Newsletter.

http://blog.sony.com/sony-4k-content

Cool stuff. Just gets me thinking about rendering. And depending on the content being created and for who/what purpose, this will have an inevitable effect on is all in the perhaps not so distant future.

Regardless of the current reality of what you may be required to produce, it is something to keep tabs on. Because soon enough HD will not be good enough.

Dexter2999
11-20-2012, 08:18 AM
I'm not sold that 4K is "just around the corner". I saw HD TV's almost 20 years before they became a standard.

4K has a cinema niche and certainly industrial/professional specialty content, but I don't see it nearing a broadbase of consumers for quite some time. Especially when the new Sony 4K monitor they just unveiled is $40K.

But if you produce work for those markets listed above, you might want to try to bang out some test renders to get an idea of where your system stands and consider render farm options. I say this because the industry trend over the past few years appears to be more work for less pay and less lead times. Less lead time and doubling your render times is a troubling combination that has potential to be a stumbling block for sure. Can't hurt to see where you system/workflow needs reevaluating.

But that's just a guess.

dsol
11-20-2012, 08:19 AM
Sooner or later though, they're going to hit the limits of the average person's eyesight - and experience the law of diminishing returns. Personally, I'd prefer to see them focus on upping frame rates instead. That helps build immersion better from the demos I've seen, like Doug Trumball's Showscan - http://douglastrumbull.com/media-technology

Dexter2999
11-20-2012, 08:27 AM
I think the new 3D TV's can already handle the faster frame rates. The new sets are what? 240Hz? They can accomodate 120FPS of playback but the only thing that is playing back at that speed is a computer*, I think even then for the sustained data rate of even HD at 120FPS they have to playback from a striped array.

But, it is an interesting idea that if they have a player capable of 4K playback at 30FPS, then sustained rates of HD at 60 (or maybe 120) are possible?




*Technically I think 3D BluRay are playing back 120FPS. 30FPS per eye with black frames added between frames. I think that was the breakdown as explained on HDNation.

Kaptive
11-20-2012, 08:54 AM
"4K Ultra HD is really simple. It’s four times the resolution of Full HD. Think about that for a second and just let it soak in – four times the resolution of Full HD. "

...So I thought about it... then I thought about render times, and now I'm sat in the corner of the room rocking back and forth, sobbing uncontrollably. :P

dsol
11-20-2012, 08:59 AM
The Hobbit - out in a few weeks - will be an important milestone to see if the public is receptive to higher frame rates in movies. Even I'm not sure how it's going to look - or if it's going to look good on a big IMAX screen.

I do know that watching MI:4 on IMAX I really noticed the juddery frame rate on the helicopter shots at the start. Of course, they could have reduced that by shooting with a larger shutter angle (more motion blur)

Kaptive
11-20-2012, 09:10 AM
The Hobbit - out in a few weeks - will be an important milestone to see if the public is receptive to higher frame rates in movies. Even I'm not sure how it's going to look - or if it's going to look good on a big IMAX screen.

I do know that watching MI:4 on IMAX I really noticed the juddery frame rate on the helicopter shots at the start. Of course, they could have reduced that by shooting with a larger shutter angle (more motion blur)

I'd heard early reports that it made it all look like video. I'm a big fan of the look of traditional film (which I personally believe has a lot to do with the frame rate), and it'll take a fair bit of convincing to get me to accept it if it is a major departure from that. But I'm open minded... it'll be interesting to see.

Surrealist.
11-20-2012, 09:42 AM
Frame rates is indeed another issue of debate.

I found some interesting information on it here a while ago:

http://info.christiedigital.com/lp/how-hfr-works

http://www.christiedigital.com/supportdocs/anonymous/christie-high-frame-rate-technology-overview.pdf

I am always interested in this subject. I have followed the development of digital projection in theaters. And there was a time not too long ago where it was being dismissed as a major factor. But it really affects independent filmmaking. It takes an entirely new look on delivery. So I have been researching this from time to time just to keep up on it.

bazsa73
11-20-2012, 09:56 AM
Render in 2K -> scale up -> sharpen :D

Titus
11-20-2012, 09:57 AM
We're delivering 4K content right now, but it's just 1080p scaled up. At this moment rendering at 4K is prohibitive.

Titus
11-20-2012, 10:03 AM
This is part of a sequence I rendered last night. The deadline was very short, no time for big changes or tweaking. 4K would be impossible.

m.d.
11-20-2012, 10:39 AM
I'm all for 4k, I've owned the first red and now the epic.....but rendering for 4k would be crazy without a decent size farm....

Skyfall and the avengers were both shot Alexa, so 2.8 k ish......I wonder what the CG renders were for that....probably 3k or less....

4k is definitely on its way, but I think we still have 5 years before it is common place

m.d.
11-20-2012, 10:40 AM
This is part of a sequence I rendered last night. The deadline was very short, no time for big changes or tweaking. 4K would be impossible.
Is that lightwave fiberfx?

Pretty nice fur

Dexter2999
11-20-2012, 10:44 AM
You guys may want to watch this interview with Douglas Trumbull.

http://www.fxguide.com/fxguidetv/fxguidetv-135-sci-tech-oscars-2012/
Jump ahead to the 8min mark.

Dexter2999
11-20-2012, 10:46 AM
double post

erikals
11-20-2012, 02:19 PM
most video is so blurry / out of focus anyway, 4K can easily go for 1080p and 1080p can easily go for 720p.

check Terminator 2 as an example, the film they shot hardly even qualifies as a 720p footage, it is that blurry...

for film, just render half res i say,
it has to match the film footage anyway, and the film will be out of focus or have a bad lens.

strange, these days video is often of better quality than film...
but, it all depends of course...

Dexter2999
11-20-2012, 03:41 PM
That has to do with shooting 24FPS. Which is what the article I linked to points out. Cameron when faced side by side with shooting 2K at 48FPS vs. 4K at 24FPS chose the lower resolution with the higher frame rate. The lower frame rate is what produces motion blur. That blur, is what most people are identifying as the "film look" thus why video cameras shooting 24P has been a top requested feature. And the lack of blur is why people start saying the images "look like video".

This blur however breaks stereoscopics so is highly undesirable for features such as AVATAR, which is why Cameron is shooting the sequel in 48FPS like Peter Jackson shot THE HOBBIT.

Titus
11-20-2012, 04:12 PM
There was a whole session this past siggraph. Cameron and Trumbull lead the technical discussion showing real 24/48/120 FPS footage. I was less than impressed because it changes the cinema experience. It's something different, like attending a play.

Dexter2999
11-20-2012, 04:20 PM
It's something different, like attending a play.

Which is exactly why Douglas Trumbull says that this tech isn't for every movie. I predict MANY people will have similar feelings.

Surrealist.
11-20-2012, 06:11 PM
Yeah, I agree on the upress issue. In fact that is what that original article is about. Upresing content to 4K with the new delivery system. Upres is indeed a step to 4K in many situations untill 4K becomes more broadly practical. (and I think that is what Sony is doing now effectively as stated in the article)

When I was running LightWave with limited ram a few years ago, I had to render at lower resolution for my art prints, and upres in Photoshop. It worked quite well up to about 3X or so. I ran printing tests and you could hardly tell the difference. There was no other way (short of rendering segments which is another option) to do it. And it worked. I sold lots of prints that way.

But either way, with frame rates and higher res on the horizon, it is another example of how we never last on a plateau of fast enough CPU/GPU and enough RAM for very long. Technology will always be pushing the envelope.

erikals
11-21-2012, 12:07 AM
Dexter, i'm not talking about Motion Blur.

i'm talking about the camera man using bad focus, bad lenses, etc...
this Terminator 2 shot, which is practically not moving at all, shows it.
http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=109283&d=1353481567

this kind of "quality" goes out through the whole movie.

don't confuse bad focus, bad lenses with the 24 fps.
(funny that comment comes from Cameron, who actually directed Terminator 2, the worst high-budget "out-of-focus" movie till date, hmm....)

and here is a Lightwave render by Lee Perry-Smith ( Infinite) see the difference >
http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=109284&d=1353481581

not saying all movies are like that, but quite many are.
"unfortunate" for the quality of the movie, "lucky" for us.

ok, to be fair, i used the worst example i know of, Terminator 2
films are better today, but this still goes, many times you can just cheat and "up-res" the render.

djwaterman
11-21-2012, 01:44 AM
I'm not sure I understand the example. You show a digital image with no D.O.F and then a film image with D.O.F, what does that illustrate? Personally I prefer mono over stereo, 2D over 3D and the standard frame rate over faster ones, that's all you need to tell a story, all the other stuff takes me out of the story, if I'm hearing surround sound my mind is taken away from the screen because I'm hearing noises behind me, and 3D forces me to decide where to put my focus on every shot, the faster frame rate kills any interesting flicker or strobe and makes the image boringly normal. Clarity and resolution are things that don't interest me much on an artistic level, although a client will always ask for it now because they think it must be better. I can't say they are wrong, but content should be their main concern.

erikals
11-21-2012, 02:05 AM
not talking about the Dof, nor 24 fps, but bad focus and bad lenses,
and how it often benefits a 3D render, as you can just save time by doing a smaller render, for then to up-scale in post.

sami
11-21-2012, 02:09 AM
I know that there has been discussion on this. But I recently got this in a Red Shark Newsletter.

http://blog.sony.com/sony-4k-content

Cool stuff. Just gets me thinking about rendering. And depending on the content being created and for who/what purpose, this will have an inevitable effect on is all in the perhaps not so distant future.

Regardless of the current reality of what you may be required to produce, it is something to keep tabs on. Because soon enough HD will not be good enough.

On this, do any of you have (don't know if it is actually shipping yet) a NVidia Quadro K5000? I was considering getting one to breathe new life into my 8 core Mac Pro desktop (which I use Win7 on as well) - it's the 1st graphic card for the Mac in ages and supposedly handles 4K nicely in Premiere Pro. For me 4K footage will really only just provide extra res and post options for the next year or so until it is a bit more widespread in delivery - now that players other than Red are there now.

Does anyone here know how this K5000 really performs and if it's worth it?

m.d.
11-21-2012, 11:08 AM
If you want to work with 4k get cineform....
I was editing real time 24 fps 4k on a windows machine full Rez 4 years ago back on cs3...I paid $2000 for the codec back then, now you can get it for like $250

With red r3d footage the gpu cannot debayer as the sdk doesn't allow for that.....so the k5000 won't help with that.
If you are dealing with DPX ect it is more an issue of hard drives and bandwidth rather then CPU power as uncompressed 4k is about 950Mb a sec
Cineform is really the way to go.....the k5000 will definitely help with working with 4k though...

toby
12-08-2012, 10:13 PM
not talking about the Dof, nor 24 fps, but bad focus and bad lenses,
and how it often benefits a 3D render, as you can just save time by doing a smaller render, for then to up-scale in post.
All film has dof, including on the subject's face, and all film as has motion blur, unlike that cg render (which is also much brighter), so that comparison isn't a great example. It's true that CG is sharper, but studios already render at lower res - so if film was up-res'd, cg would have to go up too.

Star Wars Ep. 1 was rendered at 1850 or so wide. 1920x1080 wouldn't cut it for 4k display, more than 10yrs later. Blurry *edges* maybe, but the loss of detail would be obvious.

I have a feeling that 48fps is just another gimmick to get people to theatres, like stereo and Imax. I don't think it'll be an improvement, otherwise it would've been done a long time ago. It's been 24fps for many generations and through the biggest technological advances of human existence. 4k / Imax is at least higher quality, stereo is not, and I'm not sure if 48fps is, we'll have to wait and see. I imagine that everyone who doesn't live near a big city, and everyone who buys the Hobbit later on disc, will have to deal with 24fps which means half the motion blur!

In the meantime I've done some renders in 24fps vs. 48fps for comparison. They're not the last word of course, just food for thought.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/107152988/ncc1701_24.mov
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/107152988/ncc1701_48.mov

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/107152988/pp_24.mov
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/107152988/pp_48.mov

m.d.
12-09-2012, 01:01 AM
Not quite half....
To compromise the look between 24 and 48 he shot it 48 with a 270 degree shutter angle meaning 1/64 of a second vs standard 24p at 180...1/48 th of a second.....so about 50% less motion blur

People don't realize shutter speed has almost more to do with the look then frame rate......if you saw public enemies....it was shot 24 p with a horrid 360 degree shutter......making it look like 60i....

toby
12-09-2012, 01:46 AM
Interesting - so the 48 fps footage will have too much motion blur, while the 24fps footage will have too little :p not a great compromise. It's all a gimmick I tell ya! Should be interesting to see though -

jwiede
12-09-2012, 04:33 AM
In the meantime I've done some renders in 24fps vs. 48fps for comparison. They're not the last word of course, just food for thought.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/107152988/ncc1701_24.mov
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/107152988/ncc1701_48.mov

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/107152988/pp_24.mov
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/107152988/pp_48.mov
I think that amply shows the problems of 48fps, at least for me. The "smoothness" of motion (a combo of motion blur and PoV behavior) in the 24fps renders is all but missing in the 48fps renders. The first shot was more compromised than the second, presumably because the eye can't pick out as much of the "smoothness" against as bright a background as in the second, but at the end of the second, the absence in the 48fps version again felt "obvious" to me. Nice, concise demonstrations, thanks for those.

bazsa73
12-09-2012, 06:57 AM
the 48 fps flying paperplane made me slightly dizzy

Dexter2999
12-09-2012, 07:07 AM
the 48 fps flying paperplane made me slightly dizzy

There have been some reports (I don't know how widespread) of people getting motion sickness watching THE HOBBIT.

I can't prove it but I would wager it probably has to do with the higher frame rates being so realistic that when there is a dramatic camera move, people are experiencing that conflict where the eyes tell them there is movement but their inner ear says "nope". Whereas at 24 frames they were able to subliminally dismiss this. Of course this could also just be conditioning, the same thing could have happened when moving pictures were first invented.

Hieron
12-09-2012, 08:26 AM
I have a feeling that 48fps is just another gimmick to get people to theatres, like stereo and Imax. I don't think it'll be an improvement, otherwise it would've been done a long time ago. It's been 24fps for many generations and through the biggest technological advances of human existence. 4k / Imax is at least higher quality, stereo is not, and I'm not sure if 48fps is, we'll have to wait and see.

heh nice conspiracy theory. And just because 24fps has been done for many generations it is also the best solution? Do you know the size of the analog film reel of for instance Return of the King? Stuff like that needs to be handled manually. Imagine that one being 2x the length and being dragged through a projector at 2x the speed.. It is hugely impractical, let alone the added costs of getting it filmed and onto the reel. Perhaps going digital has anything to do with it? Which is only really feasible recently.. Allowing higher resolutions, higher framerates, S3D.


Same discussion over and over again, and has been for well over a century now.
resolutions will go up, frame rates will go up and S3D will happen. Just a matter of time before near perfect vision is reached. And I hope to see it all.
Of course some will be motion sick.. or have trouble to adapt. As some did at the very start of the cinema.. this is no different.

I am still amazed however to see the debate spark up in here (a forum about software trying to be on the cutting edge of visualization) whenever something new comes up.

Time moves on, keep up.

m.d.
12-09-2012, 11:41 AM
From the reports I am seeing from industry pros(more inclined to the aquasition side) this HFR look is hated....
Virtually every one I follow on twitter, people who have already seen good chunks of the movie....

I'd say its about 75% against it....

It's not all about advancing technology.....60p has been around for a while....and if you shot a movie in it it would look like CNN.....which may work for some genre's....

Almost all the producers I work for have a choice in frame rates....if they are doing high end drama's it is 24p if they are doing corporate it is 60.....

I had to shoot a used car commercial once...freelancing when the regular crew couldn't....and that was the only time I set my camera to 60fps for anything other then slo mo.....they wanted the look to match thier other commercials...the memo I got was 'make it look like an old beta cam' which is what it did....
So shot on an epic in 5k....made to look like a crappy DV...all by shooting at 60 fps


They have completely different looks...

I have never heard anyone complain about higher Rez or higher dynamic range.....but frame rates and shutter speed alter the inherit look....

Watch your daily soap opera and decide if you like that motion better then what you would see on your blockbuster movie


The main reason for shooting HFR is better 3d experience.....both guys doing it are doing it with that in mind...because they really want 3d to work....if they were about pushing the technical limits...they could have shot it at 96fps..which the camera are still capable of(current 3d projectors maybe only 72fps per eye)

But they didn't....they are making a compromise between what would be best for 3d ........and the cinematic look...they chose not to go to 60 or 72 or 96 because of the absolute loss of cinematic value

People will always disagree as it is a personnel preference.....but it is not fear of technology....this site isn't all about technology as there are a lot of artist here as well. And there are a lot of choices related to the art.....

If Van Gogh did the scream in a photorealistic way....the painting would be totally different...

The reason 24p works....is it takes you out of reality.....makes things seem larger then life.....60p looks very real...that's why sports loves it...the news and Maury povitch....

I will give the hobbit a chance...and will go see it at 48 3d and then decide....

Titus
12-09-2012, 11:58 AM
Interesting - so the 48 fps footage will have too much motion blur, while the 24fps footage will have too little :p not a great compromise. It's all a gimmick I tell ya! Should be interesting to see though -

Not necessarily. You still have the shutter angle factor in the equation. Presentations of higher FPS movies include different shutter angles as well.

Hieron
12-09-2012, 12:56 PM
If Van Gogh did the scream in a photorealistic way....the painting would be totally different...
..

Indeed it would, as he didn't paint it in the first place..
This soap opera vs cinema comparison is getting old too. Unless most soap opera's start spending the same amount of $ per shot and get their materials shown on large cinema screens. As if the typical soap opera shot is in any way resembling most cinematic shots.. at all.

anyway, why do I care.. nvm

toby
12-09-2012, 01:16 PM
heh nice conspiracy theory.
It's not a theory that the studios want to make more profits. That's what drives S3D - higher ticket prices. It boosted profits by tens of millions for Clash of the Titans, which had cheap stereo done entirely in post, and horribly. So it's clear that improving the quality is not the only motivation for advancements.


And just because 24fps has been done for many generations it is also the best solution?
I didn't say it was the best. Don't exaggerate my opinion just so you can accuse me of being an old fuddy-duddy ludite and tell me to "keep up". I said I don't *think* it will be an improvement - unlike some people, I haven't decided on it before seeing it.


Do you know the size of the analog film reel of for instance Return of the King? Stuff like that needs to be handled manually. Imagine that one being 2x the length and being dragged through a projector at 2x the speed.. It is hugely impractical, let alone the added costs of getting it filmed and onto the reel. Perhaps going digital has anything to do with it? Which is only really feasible recently.. Allowing higher resolutions, higher framerates, S3D.
And video cameras started offering a LOWER frame rate because it looked BETTER. Just because something is more/bigger/faster/newer/expensive doesn't mean it's better.



Same discussion over and over again, and has been for well over a century now.
resolutions will go up, frame rates will go up and S3D will happen. Just a matter of time before near perfect vision is reached. And I hope to see it all.
Of course some will be motion sick.. or have trouble to adapt. As some did at the very start of the cinema.. this is no different.

I am still amazed however to see the debate spark up in here (a forum about software trying to be on the cutting edge of visualization) whenever something new comes up.

Time moves on, keep up.
Yes by all means, blindly jump on every bandwagon that comes along. If you're 'amazed' that people discuss pros and cons of a new technology, that must be what you're doing, right? Are you still in favor of interlacing? That was invented to increase framerate.

If stereo was such an improvement, it wouldn't have disappeared twice, in the 50's and 80's, and it wouldn't be nearly non-existent in print. We would have stereo magazines all over the place.

toby
12-09-2012, 01:24 PM
Not necessarily. You still have the shutter angle factor in the equation. Presentations of higher FPS movies include different shutter angles as well.
Unless he shot it with 2 different cameras at the same time, the drop-down to 24fps in theatres that don't have 48fps projectors, and on dvd's, will have half the motion blur, right?

Hieron
12-09-2012, 01:33 PM
right that's why I skip topics like this.. I thought I had learned by now.


It's not a theory that the studios want to make more profits. That's what drives S3D - higher ticket prices. It boosted profits by tens of millions for Clash of the Titans, which had cheap stereo done entirely in post, and horribly. So it's clear that improving the quality is not the only motivation for advancements..

I agree that that is a really bad thing to do.. but there's bad/profitable movies for plenty of reasons all about..



I didn't say it was the best. Don't exaggerate my opinion just so you can accuse me of being an old fuddy-duddy ludite and tell me to "keep up". I said I don't *think* it will be an improvement - unlike some people, I haven't decided on it before seeing it...

Did not intentionally try to exaggerate it, sure read that way when compared as static vs biggest technological achievements of man..



And video cameras started offering a LOWER frame rate because it looked BETTER. Just because something is more/bigger/faster/newer/expensive doesn't mean it's better....

Perhaps because it allowed better fidelity as a trade of?



Yes by all means, blindly jump on every bandwagon that comes along. If you're 'amazed' that people discuss pros and cons of a new technology, that must be what you're doing, right? Are you still in favor of interlacing? That was invented to increase framerate.....

I'm not the one to jump on all bandwagons.. in the case of S3D I had built full dual projector rigs myself years before the hype started.. And regarding resolutions, my own TV is a CRT still.. (waste of time imho, at least with dutch shows) so bandwagons, not so sure.


If stereo was such an improvement, it wouldn't have disappeared twice, in the 50's and 80's, and it wouldn't be nearly non-existent in print. We would have stereo magazines all over the place.

Ah but that could be due to trade offs as well. Also, the technique for stereo3d is/was not quite ideal and will remain trickier to do than fps and resolution so I am assuming it will go the way of the dodo (for some time) again as a trade of. Either way, I'm enthousiastic by advances that would allow a more lifelike view. So higher resolutions, fps and 3D would help. imho ofc.

m.d.
12-09-2012, 01:47 PM
well shows you what I know about painting...

whether you believe it or not....framerate makes a huge difference to the look....and it is subjective as to its quality....
my point was...telling us to get with the future is not really valid...as framerate and shutter speed will always be an artistic decision.....
have you ever been on set going over dozens of shots to choose the right shutter speed?

titus said 120 looked like he was watching a play....is he wrong...isnt 120 better then 48

that is why like i pointed out they shot it 48 and not 96....from what you are saying it sounds like you are advocating faster is better and the only reason this has not been done before is that it was not technically feasable, and we should all get with the times....while since starwars episode 4 all the cameras have been able to shoot 60p but chose 24...

and i know the soap opera argument is frustrating...but what else should we compare it to....CSI, Lost...Breaking Bad..all your big budget dramas are shot 24p....most of your high end commercials are shot 24p
the things that are not are..... sports, news, talk shows, and soaps....so feel free to substitute any of those in place...

we are not talking about lighting and look....specifically motion....

you might not see this in eurpoe as a lot of your content is shot 25...but in NTSC land there is a clear difference between 24 and 30...or between the soaps and the movies

m.d.
12-09-2012, 01:57 PM
Unless he shot it with 2 different cameras at the same time, the drop-down to 24fps in theatres that don't have 48fps projectors, and on dvd's, will have half the motion blur, right?

50% less then with 180 degree shutter...right
on a 48-24 reduction they will just be throwing away every second frame...but every frame was still shot with 1/64 th shutter as opposed to 1/48...and you cant change that
so going from 48-24 with anything less then a 360 degree shutter will have less motion blur.....

but that is not neccesarily a bad thing....we will have to see

bazsa73
12-09-2012, 02:03 PM
There have been some reports (I don't know how widespread) of people getting motion sickness watching THE HOBBIT.

I can't prove it but I would wager it probably has to do with the higher frame rates being so realistic that when there is a dramatic camera move, people are experiencing that conflict where the eyes tell them there is movement but their inner ear says "nope". Whereas at 24 frames they were able to subliminally dismiss this. Of course this could also just be conditioning, the same thing could have happened when moving pictures were first invented.

I would say it is too much precalculated for me and I do not have enough room in my imagination between frames to fill up the empty spaces. This high frame rate
robs me off of my visual freedom. I am not a free individual watching the show but more like a show gazer robot.
Cheers.

m.d.
12-09-2012, 02:08 PM
here is a good balanced link with some insights....

http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/04/the-hobbit-the-soap-opera-effect-and-the-48fps-and-faster-future-of-movies/

m.d.
12-09-2012, 02:15 PM
I think the new 3D TV's can already handle the faster frame rates. The new sets are what? 240Hz? They can accomodate 120FPS of playback but the only thing that is playing back at that speed is a computer*, I think even then for the sustained data rate of even HD at 120FPS they have to playback from a striped array.

But, it is an interesting idea that if they have a player capable of 4K playback at 30FPS, then sustained rates of HD at 60 (or maybe 120) are possible?

*Technically I think 3D BluRay are playing back 120FPS. 30FPS per eye with black frames added between frames. I think that was the breakdown as explained on HDNation.

its here
http://www.red.com/store/products/redray-player?utm_source=red.com&utm_medium=homepage&eBsl ide&utm_campaign=REDRAY_Launch

Hieron
12-09-2012, 02:33 PM
But wouldn't a lot of that be trained? Perceiving 24fps as "cinematic" since that is what you are used to? It just feels incredibly odd that reducing input to the eye into a shuttered version of the world would actually improve anything.. Besides for special artistic effect. Concerning painters and artistic effect, I was never one to like van Gogh (or Munch) either. more of a Rembrandt kind of guy :)

In that link:
"The Los Angeles Times quoted a projectionist who complained, "It looked like a made-for-TV movie." Variety spoke with the owner of a mid-sized movie-theater chain who said, "It looked to me like a behind-the-scenes featurette."

Projectionist... owner of movie-theater.... people used to looking at 24fps and that being cinematic perhaps? Ah well.. I agree with his conclusion for sure. nice write up.

m.d.
12-09-2012, 03:00 PM
Definitely there is training.....not going to argue that.....

It may be the way of the future....Jackson is no idiot.....
But watch avatar on one of those 120htz upmotion tv's and you see a shocking difference...

I personally believe if possible....the best use will be determined by the scene....
For instance in martial arts films...a lot of fighting is fast shutter speed(sometimes filmed at 22fps and played back at 24) and a lot of sweeping panoramic shots will have long shutter speeds....
It would be appropriate if I was going for ultra realism to do 60fps....as it definitely is more realistic
But say for a cowboy movie....pretty sure I would go 24

That's why 'Public Enimies' (often referred to as shutter crimes) had such a horrid look.....it was shot with a 360 shutter at 24p....would look ok for Miami vice or collateral......but for a period piece about the 30's seemed out of place.....

It all depends....

But whatever our opinions....I think the title of this thread holds the key......it is coming...4k S3D possibly at 60fps...we're looking at about 20 times pixel count...not to mention higher bit depths(source footage at least) in the near future....cloud rendering may be the way of the future as well

toby
12-09-2012, 03:05 PM
I agree that that is a really bad thing to do.. but there's bad/profitable movies for plenty of reasons all about..

*cough* (transformers)*cough*
Yea true but my point was that they somethimes do things that don't improve film quality, they do it for marketing.



Perhaps because it allowed better fidelity as a trade off?
I don't see how, the cameras can shoot 120fps, I don't see how 30fps is so fast that lowering it a little to 24 would allow even better quality.



I'm not the one to jump on all bandwagons.. in the case of S3D I had built full dual projector rigs myself
My brother did that too, I used to like 3d, until I got used to it - now it's just a distraction. If they find a way to use it that actually enhances the story, that would be great, but so far, nothing.


Also, the technique for stereo3d is/was not quite ideal and will remain trickier to do than fps and resolution so I am assuming it will go the way of the dodo (for some time) again as a trade off. Either way, I'm enthusiastic by advances that would allow a more lifelike view. So higher resolutions, fps and 3D would help. imho ofc.
They've tried odors, sound that rumbles your chest, all that went away too - being more realistic is not always better - that would include removing all stage lighting, removing dof, etc. Higher framerate is the same way, 24fps is smoother than real life. Real motion (and maybe even 48fps) can look stuttery.

m.d.
12-09-2012, 03:11 PM
Another way to look at how 24p is viewed as cinematic....
It forces you to observe the scene the way it is presented....

The stuttering....larger then life effect seems to hypnotize your mind, because you know something is off....and there is a disconnect between your normal cognitive reaction to vision and the movie you are watching.....you dont process it the same way...almost like a dream....

Whereas with hyper realism....you feel like you are a part of it....
As you will notice a lot of the criticisms are that you catch imperfections in the set...and see gandalfs contact lenses ect ect because in the real world your eyes wander and process the scene

It's almost the same thing with character animation and the 'uncanny valley'.....avatar worked because they were blue aliens....and you accepted that.....whereas the closer it gets to reality....you're brain starts analyzing it as it would a real human...and sees something very off.

Hieron
12-09-2012, 03:27 PM
Hm you guys clearly put more thought into this 48fps thing than I did.. I'll try and see how the Hobbit looks if I find the time... Honestly, I'm a lot more worried that the movie is one dwarf slapstick fiesta than 48 fps being an issue.. (do all cinemas run it at 48fps? Ours is rather big and modern...)

Dexter2999
12-09-2012, 03:43 PM
Perhaps because it allowed better fidelity as a trade of?


Not at all. The tech of allowing video cameras to shoot at 24fps instead of 30 had nothing to with better fidelity. It was about gaining motion blur in an effort to make video look more like film. The biggest tricks for making video look like film are shoot at 24P to get more motion blur and step down the Gamma(or Saturation) of the video for a more muted softer look.

Why would anyone willingly degrade their image? I think it is fairly simple. Video has a history of being inferior in quality to film. It was inferior in resolution, in color dynamics. Video was cheaper to produce so projects that weren't up to the standards of investing huge budgets for film production could still be made. And that was the first step down the slippery slope of "cutting" expenses.

We don't have the money to shoot film.
Then we shoot video.
We don't have the money for Sylvester Stallone.
Hire Frank Stallone he works for lunch money.
We don't have the money for the DP we want.
Bah, I know guy who does the produce commercials for Publix. He'll do it for next to nothing.
We don't have money for wardrobe.
Just tell the talent to wear something appropriate...that they don't mind getting ruined.
etc...
(Of course this in jest, but at the core is the principal.)


When the public saw video they were half inclined to dismiss it. So the effort was made to make video look as much like film as possible. More motion blur, softer looks either through Gamma manipulation or by shooting through warming filters or any other trick like plug ins like Magic Bullet. Whatever it took to make video look like film, that was "holy grail".

Video simply wanted to escape the bad reputation of video by trying to look like film. Now they are fighting the trend of the last 20 years or so by trying to increase frame rates to make things look real. (I don't know if that is the real goal or just trying to lose the motion blur to get better S3D.) I think it is going to take a while to "retrain" audiences. If it can be done.

m.d.
12-09-2012, 04:26 PM
Hm you guys clearly put more thought into this 48fps thing than I did.. I'll try and see how the Hobbit looks if I find the time... Honestly, I'm a lot more worried that the movie is one dwarf slapstick fiesta than 48 fps being an issue.. (do all cinemas run it at 48fps? Ours is rather big and modern...)

you'll have to check....
one thing is to see it 48fps in 3d and see how that looks...as that is the reason it was shot that way....
then see it 48 no 3d
then see it 24 no 3d....

I bet 48 in 3d will look pretty good...the others I am not so sure...but I have been wrong before...like 2 hours ago when I showed my knowledge of painting :)

m.d.
12-09-2012, 04:41 PM
When the public saw video they were half inclined to dismiss it. So the effort was made to make video look as much like film as possible. More motion blur, softer looks either through Gamma manipulation or by shooting through warming filters or any other trick like plug ins like Magic Bullet. Whatever it took to make video look like film, that was "holy grail".

Video simply wanted to escape the bad reputation of video by trying to look like film. Now they are fighting the trend of the last 20 years or so by trying to increase frame rates to make things look real. (I don't know if that is the real goal or just trying to lose the motion blur to get better S3D.) I think it is going to take a while to "retrain" audiences. If it can be done.

good point....
it is hard to discern what is training and what is really subjective quality....

but at this point science goes out the window, and we may as well be talking wine or beer....
as a good award winning wine may taste like shite to my mom...but i appreciate it because I am a wine snob and have learned the characteristics of a 'good' wine

back to the point 4k is coming and is here....

right now you can get a skyworth 4k OLED for about $1400 US....not $14,000.....$1400....
http://www.skyworth.com/en/news-detail-2954.html
http://item.taobao.com/item.htm?spm=a230r.1.10.32.X1sUsB&id=16533762467

and with a redray for about the same.....you are 4k ready in your home for under $3000 right now...

Titus
12-09-2012, 05:42 PM
Unless he shot it with 2 different cameras at the same time, the drop-down to 24fps in theatres that don't have 48fps projectors, and on dvd's, will have half the motion blur, right?

Don't know the answer, really, but they seem to have this issue nailed down. Maybe they expect eventually to replace all old projectors. Right now I'm more concerned with the actual look (live play feeling) and camera abuse than quality. If they can move the camera more extremely just because they don't have flickering, people will start vomiting.

Dexter2999
12-09-2012, 06:09 PM
Originally Posted by toby
Unless he shot it with 2 different cameras at the same time, the drop-down to 24fps in theatres that don't have 48fps projectors, and on dvd's, will have half the motion blur, right?

Don't know the answer, really, but they seem to have this issue nailed down. Maybe they expect eventually to replace all old projectors. Right now I'm more concerned with the actual look (live play feeling) and camera abuse than quality. If they can move the camera more extremely just because they don't have flickering, people will start vomiting.

In the video with Trumbull, he said you can create blur from two frames. But to be honest, his explanation was either completely over my head or just plain wrong. *Taking two frames you can create an intermediary frame (like transfers of film to video create frames B3 and D3) but this process doesn't address motion blur in the primary frames (such as the A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, and D2 frames) I'm sure there are guys that are smart enough to create a plug in that can take a frame and "blur" or in my mind more accurately "smear" a frame to flow into the previous frame.

And I would think that the more realistic environment and 3D would mean you are more confined in your camera moves just for the reason you stated Felipe.

*I could be wrong about which frames are the intermediaries. It has been about 18 years since I dealt with that stuff. But I do know that there were 2 frames added to every 8 of film so that 24 frames would equal 30 for video 3*8=24 3*(8+2)=30

toby
12-09-2012, 06:19 PM
*Taking two frames you can create an intermediary frame (like transfers of film to video create frames B3 and D3) but this process doesn't address motion blur in the primary frames (such as the A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, and D2 frames) I'm sure there are guys that are smart enough to create a plug in that can take a frame and "blur" or in my mind more accurately "smear" a frame to flow into the previous frame.
Yea - ReelSmart motion blur post-process, because that always works... 8~
I think people who have to see it 24 will get ripped off one way or another - and those who see it at 48 may not be doing handsprings either.

m.d.
12-09-2012, 06:25 PM
do you have a link for that video Dexter?

toby
12-09-2012, 06:25 PM
Honestly, I'm a lot more worried that the movie is one dwarf slapstick fiesta than 48 fps being an issue
If it wasn't being displayed in a new way, I'd probably never see it. Hardly any of these movies are worth the time to watch them, much less the price.

Dexter2999
12-09-2012, 07:08 PM
do you have a link for that video Dexter?

It is in post #14 of this thread. Be sure and jump ahead to the 8 min. mark to get right into the Douglass Trumbull interview.

adk
12-09-2012, 07:17 PM
Another way to look at how 24p is viewed as cinematic....
It forces you to observe the scene the way it is presented....

The stuttering....larger then life effect seems to hypnotize your mind, because you know something is off....and there is a disconnect between your normal cognitive reaction to vision and the movie you are watching.....you dont process it the same way...almost like a dream....

Whereas with hyper realism....you feel like you are a part of it....
As you will notice a lot of the criticisms are that you catch imperfections in the set...and see gandalfs contact lenses ect ect because in the real world your eyes wander and process the scene

It's almost the same thing with character animation and the 'uncanny valley'.....avatar worked because they were blue aliens....and you accepted that.....whereas the closer it gets to reality....you're brain starts analyzing it as it would a real human...and sees something very off.

That's a really nice description m.d.
Reminds me of the time when I went TV shopping with a colleague of mine. She loved the crispness & realism of LCD with its upmotion wizardry while I could not believe how one of my favorite movies, Blade Runner, could look & feel like absolute crap. We argued for hours about it & I still think she can't quite understand what I'm on about, while I can't believe how a supposed movie buff could be happy watching movies with the "soap opera" filter turned on. Guess that's why I still happily own an old Pioneer Kuro plasma & she has a Sony 3d TV.

erikals
12-09-2012, 07:30 PM
thanks toby, i liked those examples

and yep, 24fps vs 48fps motion blur is a good point indeed...
will 48 look better...? hmm... maybe for SFX scenes...

but honestly, being the nerd that i am, i'd like to also see how 96fps turns out.
(would it be possible to do a test render?)

---------------

remember, some didn't like sound / color added to film...
so, are we not liking 48fps because we are not used to it, is that also a factor?

24p might take you out of reality.... a very good point,
but also remember, so can 96fps :hey:
then again, 96 might also give a "too real effect" making the acting seem worse, as it's more realistic.

fast motion action scenes might benefit from 60fps, just like sports.
so for SFX it might be better... and also for 3D movies.
24fps has annoyed me several times at the movies when watching action scenes, sometimes i feel like i'm watching a 12fps clip... :\

an interesting trick for classic cartoons to make the effect less obvious is to use slower motions to avoid it, or very-very fast ones. (Tom & Jerry)

what i don't like about 48 /60 /96 though is the rendertime hit... agh!

Dexter2999
12-09-2012, 07:34 PM
That's a really nice description m.d.
Reminds me of the time when I went TV shopping with a colleague of mine. She loved the crispness & realism of LCD with its upmotion wizardry while I could not believe how one of my favorite movies, Blade Runner, could look & feel like absolute crap. We argued for hours about it & I still think she can't quite understand what I'm on about, while I can't believe how a supposed movie buff could be happy watching movies with the "soap opera" filter turned on. Guess that's why I still happily own an old Pioneer Kuro plasma & she has a Sony 3d TV.

I felt the same way about seeing HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON for the first time on BluRay on an LED TV at a Best Buy. It was so crisp that I did a double take because at first I thought it was a video game version being demonstrated. I have a number of movies on BluRay now that I prefer watching on DVD. It seems awful for someone that professionally is thought of as a "video guy" (although I never claimed that title.) I rip my disks to drives and use them at work in our break room (because we don't have cable) and other people have commented about how "good" the picture is. I'm kind of embarrassed to tell them that it is the DVD version.

To be fair, there are some movies I prefer in BluRay but they are not the majority. (And I never use the upmotion/smoothing/combing stuff.)

OFF TOPIC: (but loosely related) My friends were watching CES last year and they were showing off the new TV's and how gorgeous the pictures were. They commented, "That is beautiful! It looks amazing!" To which I answered, "Yeah, and it looks that good on YOUR TV." It clicked, and that is how I talked them out of buying a new TV.

m.d.
12-09-2012, 08:15 PM
i watched that Trumball interview....pretty good
notice how he lists movies that would benefit from hyper realism.... avatar, hugo, tintin....and movies that are better at 24p...black swan, the kings speech ect....

Basically....anything fantasy and unbelievable will benefit from hyper realism....while the movies that are realistic and real life will benefit from the detached reality of 24p...
In one case your brain knows it's not real and benefits from the realism you create....in the other the environment is accepted...but the 24p locks your eyes onto the image....

kinda like beer goggles at the bar....

JonW
12-09-2012, 08:20 PM
4k or grainy 8mm BW, it doesn't make a difference.

1. If it's a crap story it's not worth watching!
2. If it's got lousy sound it's not worth watching either!

toby
12-13-2012, 11:29 PM
I felt the same way about seeing HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON for the first time on BluRay on an LED TV at a Best Buy. It was so crisp that I did a double take because at first I thought it was a video game version being demonstrated. I have a number of movies on BluRay now that I prefer watching on DVD.

!!
Bite your tongue!!
:D whatever floats your boat, but do you realize that bluray is no more sharp than what you see at the theatre? Or maybe that dispaly had it's 'sharpness' feature turned up - that is a serious crime. But DVD is about 1/3 res of what movie theatres show.

As far as 3D stereoscopic:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120209-paleofuturist-3dtv/1

Looks like people have been trying to sell it to the public since the 1930's!

toby
12-14-2012, 12:07 AM
i watched that Trumball interview....pretty good
notice how he lists movies that would benefit from hyper realism.... avatar, hugo, tintin....and movies that are better at 24p...black swan, the kings speech ect....

Basically....anything fantasy and unbelievable will benefit from hyper realism....while the movies that are realistic and real life will benefit from the detached reality of 24p...
In one case your brain knows it's not real and benefits from the realism you create....in the other the environment is accepted...but the 24p locks your eyes onto the image....

kinda like beer goggles at the bar....
I have to conclude that Trumball is a visio-phile. 120fps at 5 times the brightness would just make Avatar or any other movie into an amusement park ride. As it is, when a screen goes full-white for those angelic transitions we've all seen, my hand goes up in front of my face and the words "f*** you" come out of my mouth. 5 times brighter sucks when your eyes have adjusted, it's also bad for your vision. I'm sure there's just as many people who would hate that brightness as there are who get sick with stereo.

m.d.
12-14-2012, 12:16 AM
well trumball does a lot of amusement park rides so...

toby
12-14-2012, 12:39 AM
:foreheads
and how many of those rides go for an hour and a half and have a plot you have to follow...

kopperdrake
12-14-2012, 05:57 AM
Well I'm off to see The Hobbit tonight in HFR 3D, and my wife has no idea what HFR is, so it'll be interesting to get her view on the 'feel' of the film afterwards. I'm giving Mr Jackson the benefit of the doubt as he did such a cracking job on LOTR. Here's hoping :)

m.d.
12-14-2012, 11:35 AM
:foreheads
and how many of those rides go for an hour and a half and have a plot you have to follow...

true dat...

actually i cant stand those motion 3d rides...
I am a pilot as well and have a pretty strong stomach when it comes to pulling G's....but those 3d motion rides take me real close to throwing up half the time....nothing else makes me queasy like that

Markc
12-21-2012, 11:02 AM
After seeing The Hobbit in HFR IMAX 3D, I'm still on the fence on whether I like HFR or not (I need to see it in standard 2D to compare).
I have read that some people call it the 'BBC' effect, and I can understand what they mean, with the lack of motion blur sometimes it looks like a tv drama.
The Image clarity was astounding, no 'ghosting' like you normally get from 3D films.
I had to take off my glasses to check if it looked any different.
It's nothing like other '3D' films where everything is so obviously at different depths, and most of the time looking false.
Really enjoyed the film and am itching for the next installment.

toby
12-21-2012, 12:28 PM
A bunch of people I know have seen it - so far I haven't heard a single person say it's an improvement... I think that if you can't tell without seeing it again 2d, the most you can hope for is a minor improvement. It's clearly doesn't 'wow' anyone.

erikals
12-22-2012, 11:59 AM
RedLetterMedia Hobbit review >
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFh6c_CwdBg&feature=youtu.be&t=19m57s

shrox
12-22-2012, 12:17 PM
Every new format takes four times the render time of the previous new format!!!

Ryan Roye
12-22-2012, 12:36 PM
Every new format takes four times the render time of the previous new format!!!

This. Can't we just learn to do more with less? :)

erikals
12-22-2012, 12:44 PM
i wish i could do less with more at times...

especially when it comes to $...
more $ would be very welcome... :]

toby
12-22-2012, 01:02 PM
This. Can't we just learn to do more with less? :)
Not when it comes to *Marketing* hollywood movies! It's all about the bottom line :^p