You are not logged in. Please login or register.
So, where do you all stand on the whole HFR thing? do you want to keep 24fps and don't use anything higher or do you think doing 48fps or 60 fps are/is just the way to go? (I assume Dorkman will become a grammar nazi on that sentence, which is really okay right now.)
Right off the bat, I prefer 24fps. I like the feel of 24fps. I always felt that films should feel like a dream or a memory. Dreams and memories aren't as sharp as real life.
I personally hate it with a passion in every example I've seen (similar to how I hate shutter crime in things like Public Enemies), but I'm willing to withhold judgement until I see The Hobbit shot and projected in the format.
Personally, I think it just completely ruins the immersion of a movie though, unless it's a nature documentary or something, your effects, costumes, makeup just do not hold up to that level of scrutiny.
They bug me. Here's the problem with the argument in favor of them, as I see it. Peter Jackson talks about how the high frame rate on The Hobbit will "draw audiences further into Middle Earth than ever before" and stuff like that. But there's a problem with that. There is no Middle Earth. There are sets and costumes and actors, and that's what you're filming with a camera, and the camera creates the illusion that these things are actually Middle Earth. When you see that movie with a high frame rate, though, it draws you further onto a set, and the artifice of it all becomes much easier to notice.
Now, for nature documentaries and stuff? Sure! I think that's a great idea, and I'd pay to see that stuff. But for a fantasy movie about dwarves and wizards and dragons? 48fps isn't the right fit.
Ya, at best you could do it for certain movies, like a gritty street-level crime movie like French Connection, or Collateral (the only time I've liked Michael Mann's digital cinematography). Anything slightly fantasy or sci-fi at all is going to be jarring as fuck
What a coincidence that 1920s technology and film making economics somehow chose the perfect frame rate to be visually realistic but not too realistic when all they were trying for was a standard minimum rate for good optical sound....
Take the money that you would have spent on it, and spend it on writers instead.
I hate it. It's like the Tru-motion/motionflow technology found in various HDTV sets. It looks completely and utterly horrid.
I'm with bullet3, reserving judgment till I see the first Hobbit movie. I hope there's a theater nearby that will actually support the format! But there's also another dimension (literally) to the aesthetic of the Hobbit films. If 24p is better for 2D, maybe 48p is still better for 3D? Never liked 3D personally, but maybe the frame rate will help it out in this case. Can't wait to see for myself.
I'm also wondering if shutter speed isn't the bigger deal here. The 180 degree shutter rule has always been the standard (of course there are artistically justified exceptions, e.g. Saving Private Ryan), but is it right? I mean if 1/60th is the most natural speed at 24p then why wouldn't it be the most natural speed at 48p? Same motion blur, right? Jackson is using the equivalent of 1/64th. And that makes sense to me... So we'll see how it looks. Seems like this will be the best way to show off 48p, and I'm hoping it looks great. Could look like crap though... That'd be a real shame. There will always be the converted 24p version though, so there's that.
I believe 1/60th os the 180 shutter for 30p. For 24p, it would need to be 1/48th. Which would mean that it would need to be 1/96th. I think my math is right... And according to Pete Jackson, the 48 fps is only for 3D.
I hope there's a theater nearby that will actually support the format!
Any cinema that shows a film in 3d should support 48fps. The Hobbit is actually not the first film to release at 48fps. Resident Evil: Retribution and Madagascar 3 are both in that format.
/Projectionist
The Hobbit is only doing 48 fps in 400 theaters. And, wait, was the new Resident Evil shot at that frame rate? Why wasn't that a bug story?
Why wasn't that a bug story?
Because noone cares.
I believe 1/60th os the 180 shutter for 30p. For 24p, it would need to be 1/48th. Which would mean that it would need to be 1/96th.
Right, I wasn't going by the rule, I've just heard that 1/60 is the most natural-looking shutter speed, based on how our eyes see things. But 1/48 isn't far off from that, not too much difference.
Try to imagine your favorite movies with video-like fluidity. Would you like to see "2001: A Space Odyssey", "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Blade Runner" without proper motion blur? I wouldn't. With high frame rates, the mood is simply gone, everything looks like a football game. Movies should not feel that real.
Would you like to see "2001: A Space Odyssey", "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Blade Runner" without proper motion blur?
Motion blur isn't so much a frame rate thing, that's a shutter speed thing.
Last edited by Sam F (2012-11-02 18:57:26)
Would you like to see "2001: A Space Odyssey"
No. Never again!
No. Never again!
Yeah, I know it's not everybody's cup of tea 
I mentioned this movie because of it's dreamlike quality that could be ruined by the "video look" (caused by a high frame rate).
Last edited by MartyJ (2012-11-02 19:32:21)
Well, on an optimistic note, Dorkman said he replicated the settings PJ is using to shoot The Hobbit, and with minimal adjustment in post, was able to get a basically "normal" looking 24fps result out of it.
Maybe we should be thinking of all this as another gimmicky option we'll have at the theater, and little more.
Maybe we should be thinking of all this as another gimmicky option we'll have at the theater, and little more.
It would be hard to put true 48 FPS on existing home media formats anyway. The closest thing we have is the 720p50 mode on Blu-Ray. To get a 1920x1080 Blu-Ray (or a standard DVD) we'd have to interlace it (convert all frames to fields), which is a big no-no (we'd lose half the vertical resolution).
To clarify, when watching something under 60fps, are our minds tricking themselves into seeing one fluid image, or are there more frames there that are not being counted, or something? I never really understood these things completely, probably because of different projection systems.
I mentioned this movie because of it's dreamlike quality that could be ruined by the "video look" (caused by a high frame rate).
Did the dreamlike quality in 2001 really come from the frame rate? I don't recall much fast movement in that film anyway. I'm not sure 48p would have made much of a difference.
Did the dreamlike quality in 2001 really come from the frame rate?
Not necessarily, but... it would be weird to see it (and other classics) with the 48 FPS fluidity. Just weird.
That whole "heightened sense of reality" thing doesn't appeal to me. It makes sense for documentaries (and "found footage"), but not for fiction.
Last edited by MartyJ (2012-11-02 20:53:33)
I'm afraid the Blu-Ray specs are really rigid when it comes to frame rate (and they don't include 48 FPS, since nobody was using that until now). We've got 23.976p, 24p, 50i, 50p, 59.94i and 59.94p. 50 and 59.94 come from old TV systems (PAL/SECAM and NTSC). Blu-Ray 3D uses the same frame rates as Blu-Ray 2D, it simply encodes separate streams for both eyes.
Displays can have higher refresh rates (like 120 Hz or even 600 Hz) to avoid telecine judder when displaying 24p (and usually have a frame interpolation chip - the aforementioned "TruMotion" thing), but Blu-Ray discs don't encode video at such high frame rates.
You could speed up 48 FPS to 50. In PAL/SECAM countries, a similar speedup is used to air movies on TV.
Last edited by MartyJ (2012-11-03 03:13:17)
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
