The Hobbit - Page 15

im on my phone right now, so I havnt watched any clip. But im well aware of the limitations of 24p. But do you think any filmmaker that wants you to read something films it in a way that makes it impossible to read.

the problem here is that some see film as stroby video were everything is just defects, and a movie should just be like looking out of a window. While other see movies like a painting that comes to life.

There are plenty of technical advancements that pan out (such as CD, which I welcomed quite readily). There are also a GREAT many that don't pan out (such as SACD, which went nowhere in the marketplace).

If he wants you to read it, then he'll accommodate that. But 24fps places a lot of restrictions on what he can and can't do in terms of moving subject matter.


But you shouldn't have to view a painting through (to use an analogy) a wire mesh that prevents you from getting a clear view of it. Higher frame rates remove constraints, they don't prevent a filmmaker from presenting the look and feel he wants.

Restrictions and possibilities.


So how would Ridley Scott have gotten the stroby effect in Gladiator and Black Hawk Down with 48p?

You are assuming, of course, that he actually wanted such an effect - as opposed to doing everything he could to minimize it (and still falling short).

And I grieve daily...

You can make 48p look exactly like 24p if you want to by repeating frames (and adding blur if needed). You can't go the other way. This is why Doug Trumbull is pushing the idea of "supersampling" at 120 fps and then post converting to whatever delivery medium you want.

Not from the audience's prospective, though that might have been different if they had allowed Trumbull to use Showscan in the sequences instead of Super Panavision.


And won't you be surprised when the verdict is innocent. That the pros will far outweigh the cons.

Filmreels are already running at duplicate frames.

Seeing as how all movies are shot at 24P, what else could you possibly be referring to?


So what, according to you, exactly is the problem?


AFAIK it was. HFR = 48 and above. The two Todd AO 30 FPS features don't qualify as HFR.


So what is the problem? BTW, they show those in theaters or only on TV?


Progress and technology march on. LOL - you really are a Luddite.

What about TV? it costs more to shoot movies and shows on film rather than video yet thats what they chose.

Reality can look terrible. Because the reality is that youre watching actors on a set. If HFR takes us out of the 'fantasy' and into a 'set' then that isnt desirable at all.
"It looks too real" is definitely a valid complaint since the reality could mean movies will look more like behind the scenes footage. "Oh wow it looks like he's auditioning right in front me."

That's what they used to choose. Most today are produced using digital and not film cameras.

That doesnt address my point. Why did people choose to spend more for 24fps rather than shoot in higher framerates. And its still the same case today. Why is HBO shooting game of thrones at such a luddite framerate when they can get one of these fancy HD cameras they use for shooting their live boxing matches? Good enough for pacquiao but not their shows?

My point is the technology excuse is bs. Its an artistic choice.. and so far it seems like the art isnt looking so good.

You missed the point entirely. 48 FPS 3D for projected cinema.

You are talking about Television production. Apples and Bricks

I hope theaters won't be charging extra for the 48fps showings of the Hobbit...is 48fps the new IMAX or 3D where it is just another excuse to raise prices?...I love IMAX (providing that the film was actually shot using IMAX cameras which only consists of 4 films- Dark Knight, T2: Revenge of the Fallen, MI: Ghost Protocol and the upcoming Dark Knight Rises)

Can't qualify 30 FPS Todd AO as HFR and simultaneously disqualify it as HFR.

But they really aren't HFR. Just marginly higher then 24. I should have clarified that. I do now.

There are only 2 true HFR processes used previously to THE HOBBIT's 48 FPS 3D; IMAX HD (48 FPS) and Showscan (60 FPS)

At this time, 48 FPS is only being used for 3D and 3D has premium ticket prices.

That the end source was already running at HFR, so a switch wouldnt have been that of a challange if they really wanted to.


That higher fps will not overcome the challange of making the movie not to look like behind the scenes footage.


That 24P mask inaccuries in the production especially studio shoots.
The more real the video get, the easier it is to detect that something is wrong. And in a studio, there is no shortage on things that are wrong.

Wrong analogy. A director often does not WANT you to have the clear view you seem to want. Hence, his choice of filters/film stock/lighting/frame rate etc get him the product he's trying to show you. There is no "mesh" in front of the image if, in fact, the image is what you are meant to see.


Actually, empirical evidence thus far says you are wrong. If a director/cinematographer wants to produce a film-like look, as the VAST majority do, then higher frame rates work against this.

Digital video cinematography, like any video technology, has been capable of higher frame rates for many years. Yet when cinematographers began switching to digital cameras what did they choose to do in order to get the film-like look they wanted to achieve? That's right: lowered the frame rate
to match film!

When MovieSwede asked you how Ridley Scott would have achieved the strob effect on Gladiator using HFR, you replied:


Which indicates you are unaware that the action scenes in Gladiator were deliberately shot with a high shutter angle to produce the super clear but strobe-like effect - an effect that relies on the shorter sample rate of 24fps.
A HFR would not have resulted in that look - it would have produced smooth, HD-camera-like images instead.

Is there a way ultimately to produce this effect while shooting HFR (like maybe in post production)? Perhaps. But that doesn't alter the fact that Ridley Scott deliberately chose that effect for Gladiator scenes.

Cheers,

I thought I read that there would be 6 versions of the movie released...2D, 3D and IMAX with 24 and 48fps versions of each

It's not really asthough the end source was running at HFR, more like they're simply flashing the same image on the screen 2 or 3 times (depending on the projector shutter). You're still seeing one second of time sliced up into 24 samples.
That effect also worked well in Saving Private Ryan. One way to get that effect on a HFR production is to shoot at, say, half the frame rate and use short shutter speeds. So if you're shooting at 60fps, then dial the speed down to 30fps and set the shutter speed to 1/125th or 1/250th of a second. You'll avoid the smoother motion of the 60fps footage AND get almost no blur due to the fast shutter speed (instead of the typical 360 degree shutter with digital).

But basicly, that is the same as what they are doing with filmcameras. Since filmcameras isnt locked at 24fps. 48fps digital can of course be used as good as a 24fps camera in production.

But my orginal point I was trying to make, was that the look of Gladiator etc wasnt a technical limitation, but a creative descision by the filmmakers. They wanted that effect. They didnt want natural motion.

Sure, everything from frame rate to shutter speed can be adjusted similarly when shooting in either medium. I was just pointing out that even though you might see 48 or 72 flashes per second on the screen when watching a movie, you're still seeing only 24 "samples" per second, which is different from HFR.
No disagreement there, since what you were stating was pretty obvious.

Yes im very aware that 24 frames is the actual framerate. I was more talking about the scenario if they wanted to create a HFR format 40 years ago, it wouldnt need much hardware change.

That other reason then technical/economical prevented HFR to form.

I'm not going to argue with, or insult those who will always prefer 24fps. However, higher framerates will win out in the end. Younger people, and not so young like myself, are adjusting to the "more real" look that FI brings to the table.

I have shown everyone who watches movies in my theatre room what the difference is with FI implemented, and without. They all have prefered at least the lower setting to remove the judder, etc.

Those that claim the makeup and sets become more obvious must be watching poorly produced material then. Film still has grain, and whatever other changes were done to affect the "look". Adding FI, or increasing framerate doesn't alter that. If I can see it is a matte painting, or poorly composited, with FI...I can see the same thing without.

I believe 3D will benefit the most from HFR. My PJ allows FI to be on during 3D (unlike most), and it makes a huge difference in the presentation. There is less eye fatigue as well.

The best thing, for those who prefer 24fps, is that 'The Hobbit' won't be available in HFR in the home for the foreseeable future.

Judder is a motion artifact, where every other frame is flashed on screen for 50% longer than adjacent frames, resulting in a jerkiness that doesn't appear when watching 24fps movies in a theatre. Have you tried displaying movies on your projector at a frame rate that is a multiple of 24? This way, you can compare native to FI without introducing an additional variable (judder).

Only the 3D versions will be 48 FPS (Digital 3D and Digital IMAX 3D)

There is telecine-related judder, and then there is inherent film judder. Having a correct pull-down does not remove native film judder (which is a result of the low sample rate of 24fps film, and certain movements of the camera in relationship to the subject tend to exacerbate it - see the dreaded "picket fence" effect).

So, yes, judder is still there in the movie theater. Experienced film cinematographers try to minimize it.

I'll take your word for it but I've never heard coarse but even motion referred to as judder, just uneven motion (irrespective of whether it was coarse or smooth).