or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit - Page 16

post #451 of 944
Strobing, flicker and artifacts are all by-products of shooting at 24 FPS.
post #452 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

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).

You learn to shoot in ways that avoid intrusive judder in film school ...it was a long time ago now for me, but as we all shot film back then, it was always something you had to account for. There are sections in Cinematographer hand books devoted to judder and how to shoot in a way to avoid it.

I just saw a movie projected on film recently, and there was judder.
post #453 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

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

Then the collective geek squad panty bunch is overblown, I assume? Want your Hobbits to appear "film-like"? See it in 2D, I guess (I can live with that)
post #454 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwebb1970 View Post

Then the collective geek squad panty bunch is overblown, I assume? Want your Hobbits to appear "film-like"? See it in 2D, I guess (I can live with that)

Complete with strobing, flicker and motion artifacts . . . it's all yours.
post #455 of 944
only avs.

the hobbit isn't even out yet just some pre-production material and we have 10 pages of posts arguing whether 48 fps is the bane of cinema.

wait till christmas and then we can argue.
post #456 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

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

Im talking about higher framerates. 48 fps may be short lived since cameron wants to jump to 60.

Quote:


You are talking about Television production. Apples and Bricks

TV shows apples to bricks really? how so?
I dont think shooting at higher frame rates will succeed but lets say it did then you can bet that TV shows would follow suit.
post #457 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

only avs.

the hobbit isn't even out yet just some pre-production material and we have 10 pages of posts arguing whether 48 fps is the bane of cinema.

wait till christmas and then we can argue.

Well if peter jackson said he was shooting The Hobbit in black and white I dont think we'd have to wait till christmas to complain about it...
post #458 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssjLancer View Post

Im talking about higher framerates. 48 fps may be short lived since cameron wants to jump to 60.

SMPTE has not defined the standard for HFR yet. And Cameron's AVATAR 2 & 3 are years away. Would not surprise me to see both 48 and 60 as a standard. LOL - could be as high as 72 FPS - who knows what will happen a year or two from now. Depends on the success at the BO for THE HOBBIT and if the public shows a preference for HFR 3D.

Quote:


TV shows apples to bricks really? how so?
I dont think shooting at higher frame rates will succeed but lets say it did then you can bet that TV shows would follow suit.

How would they accomodate the increase in required bandwidth? 3D-TV isn't the same as 3D in theaters. It has half the resolution per eye that theaters show.
post #459 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

How would they accomodate the increase in required bandwidth? 3D-TV isn't the same as 3D in theaters. It has half the resolution per eye that theaters show.

2D isnt the same as in theaters either but we can still compare it.
Im not talking about the 3D effect anyways. Just the motion.
post #460 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

You learn to shoot in ways that avoid intrusive judder in film school ...it was a long time ago now for me, but as we all shot film back then, it was always something you had to account for.

Went through that myself (NYU), but we never called it judder.
post #461 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssjLancer View Post

2D isnt the same as in theaters either but we can still compare it.
Im not talking about the 3D effect anyways. Just the motion.

At this time there are no plans to use HFR for 2D. Only 3D
post #462 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

At this time there are no plans to use HFR for 2D. Only 3D

Again Im not talking about the 3D aspect.
Just as Avatar was shown in 3D and 2D, we can have an opinion on 24fps using either version.
post #463 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

At this time there are no plans to use HFR for 2D. Only 3D

Not.

"The Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey will be available in six different ways:
3-D, 2-D, and IMAX 3-D, each one in both the traditional 24-frames style and the new 48-frames version."

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/04/2...sponds-hobbit/
post #464 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcowboy7 View Post

Not.

"The Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey will be available in six different ways:
3-D, 2-D, and IMAX 3-D, each one in both the traditional 24-frames style and the new 48-frames version."

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/04/2...sponds-hobbit/

Not

There is no intention of showing The Hobbit in 2D at 48 FPS. Only the 3D versions get 48 FPS.
post #465 of 944
Thats not what that article says.
post #466 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcowboy7 View Post

Thats not what that article says.

The article is wrong.
post #467 of 944
Can 15/70mm IMAX projectors handle 48fps?
post #468 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

Can 15/70mm IMAX projectors handle 48fps?

They would have to be modified. IMAX experimented with 48 FPS back in 1992, called IMAX HD. It was a bust due to high print costs and wear and tear on the projectors and prints.

Not sure the current IMAX 15/70 installations could handle the size of the prints - twice as large/long as a regular IMAX print for a 2 hour movie.
post #469 of 944
Thanks Lee. Didn't think so. I've seen the platters and I don't think they could handle a 2.5-3 hour movie at 48fps.
post #470 of 944
I would be very happy if the 15/70 IMAX showings are 24fps. I'll be there, no doubt.
post #471 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

I would be very happy if the 15/70 IMAX showings are 24fps. I'll be there, no doubt.

This would be perfect for me. Ill watch it first in a 3D 48fps digital theater, then compare it with the 3D 24fps Imax theater. Assuming the movie is good enough to watch twice...
post #472 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssjLancer View Post

This would be perfect for me. Ill watch it first in a 3D 48fps digital theater, then compare it with the 3D 24fps Imax theater. Assuming the movie is good enough to watch twice...

I'll be doing the same. Plus a 2D showing as well.
post #473 of 944
Is 48fps the soap opera effect we get on our televisions?
post #474 of 944
That higher frame rate is something only seen with 'video' on TV, which soap operas were photographed with. So society has pretty much fixed that look with soap operas and now with the advent of higher frame rates, it looks 'wrong' to our eyes.

For me, I see ad advantage of 48 fps for when the camera pans or tilts, or during fast moving action sequences. Douglas Trumball is experimenting with a method to do just that, keeping the looks 24fps 9that preserves the fantasy of film) while giving filmmakers the ability to have the clarity and lack of stutter/jidder for certain movements.
post #475 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidML3 View Post

Is 48fps the soap opera effect we get on our televisions?

Yes and no.

Soaps are 50i or 60i.

Soap effect is when you in an artficial way creates extra frames for 24P content. 24 to 48, 24 to 96 etc.

48 fps are real frames and not artificial, but are very close to the movement of 50i.
post #476 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Yes and no.

Soaps are 50i or 60i.

Soap effect is when you in an artficial way creates extra frames for 24P content. 24 to 48, 24 to 96 etc.

48 fps are real frames and not artificial, but are very close to the movement of 50i.

Not quite right. Soap Operas did not create extra frames. There was no way to do that before the advent of modern HDTV's. But movement at so many frames per second, plus the flat look of video cameras, made that higher frame rate look like crap. So 48fps has the same psychological effect.

More than that, those whpo are seeing it say the mind boggling clarity makes the film sets look just like that... sets. Costumes look like costumes and not the outfit worn by the character.

Yet 70mm films do not suffer from that because they were shot at 24fps. I've been fortunate enough to see numerous 70mm films on the big screen and they are remarkably realistic and never stage-play in appearance.
post #477 of 944
Matt,

MovieSwede referred not directly to Soap Operas, but to the "Soap effect" (aka Soap Opera Effect)- which as you know is the description many have given to the look of artificial frame creation/frame interpolation processing.

Also, it is fascinating how one can increase resolution in film (e.g. 70mm/Imax etc) and it becomes more real and immersive and believable...yet without the dreaded Soap Opera Effect.
post #478 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

Not quite right. Soap Operas did not create extra frames. There was no way to do that before the advent of modern HDTV's. But movement at so many frames per second, plus the flat look of video cameras, made that higher frame rate look like crap. So 48fps has the same psychological effect.

More than that, those whpo are seeing it say the mind boggling clarity makes the film sets look just like that... sets. Costumes look like costumes and not the outfit worn by the character.

Yet 70mm films do not suffer from that because they were shot at 24fps. I've been fortunate enough to see numerous 70mm films on the big screen and they are remarkably realistic and never stage-play in appearance.

But you have never seen a 3D film shot at 48 FPS and projected at either 48 or 96 FPS have you?

You are simply speculating like everyone else.

I have seen 70mm shot and projected at 60 FPS and it had no "soap opera" look to it.
post #479 of 944
Of course I have not seen it. What I have seen is 60fps shot footage shown at 60 and 120fps on home theater projectors and I really hated how it looked. I am not at all looking forward to 48fps from what I have read.
post #480 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

Of course I have not seen it. What I have seen is 60fps shot footage shown at 60 and 120fps on home theater projectors and I really hated how it looked. I am not at all looking forward to 48fps from what I have read.

Home video is not the same as projected cinema, no matter how many people think it is.

And you really should read everything that was posted about "how it looked" and at what stage the footage was as far as production.

You haven't seen it. The footage had not gone through post-production . . . but it's going to suck.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home