The Hobbit 48FPS 3D where does BD Stand?

BD stands were it always has . . . a home video format.

Which is different then a professional cinema format.

I believe he's asking if this can transition smoothly to the technical specs of the BD format, if they're not just going to remove every other frame.

You missed the point Mike. BD is designed for the home. There is no transition to 48 FPS. BD can't handle that type of frame rate, especially in 3D.

Just because something comes available for professional cinema does not mean it will be brought over to home video. We are STILL watching HD (ALL HD) at 4:2:0 at 8 bit color space while professional HD is 4:4:4 at 10 or 12 bit color space.

Yes - they will remove every other frame. Called; Skip Printing. They will also do that when they create 35mm prints for theaters when the movies are released in theaters.

It can, at 720p50 or 720p60.

I agree.

I think they should add support for 1080p48/47.96, 1080p50 and 1080p60/59.94 too - and other formats too, otherwise BD is going to be outdated.
Also, what res are they shooting it at? 1080p? 2K? 5K?

Have they said that anywhere?
Is each frame going to have the same amount of blur as current films?

So people that already purchased 3D players need to upgrade once again. There is a limit before consumers start to avoid purchasing new equipment because of all the changes that seem to happen once a year.

Let the market mature, before making new changes, and maybe let them do more then 2 movies in 48fps 3D. For all we know this could be just as rare as Cinerama.

Still waiting for a scope standard.

If they film with open shutters.

Have they said that's what they're doing?
I mean Peter Jackson has talked about there being lot of blur in each frame with current films, if he films it like that, there's going to be the same amount - though maybe it will just look clearer when seen in motion because of the higher fps even though the blur per frame will be the same.

The problem is if he shoot at higher shutterspeed then open shutter, the 35mm copy will look more or less like Saving private Ryan.

But you can test it for yourself, shoot with a 50i camera and open shutter and it will look close to what the Hobbit will look like.

Actually I don't think they should use a shorter shutter, but if they want less blur than in normal films like he was saying, they should use a higher fps than 47.96/48 fps. Lets hope James Cameron and Douglas Trumbull etc. use >=60 fps instead.

48 fps is supposed to be very close in appearance to 60, according to Peter Jackson. And 48 makes a lot more sense for cinematography, since there are still a LOT of film projectors out there, and it would be a lot simpler and cleaner to turn 48 fps to 24 fps, rather than 60 to 24.

So how does that apply to BD which you have voiced is your greatest concern?

Douglas Trumbull is also going to do a film in 3D at a higher frame rate - he's currently writing the screenplay and has said it will be at high frame rate. If he chooses 60 fps instead of 48, it will be easier to encode onto Blu-ray at that frame rate than encoding a 48 fps film onto Blu-ray in a format which can hold at least that many frames in a second, without visible conversion artefacts. 720p60 3D is possible on Blu-ray, 720p48 3D isn't, so would need to be converted to 720p50 or 720p60 if you wanted it in 3D with about the same motion.

LOL - so they are going to abandon "full HD" and go with 720P? I don't think so.

They can choose to do whatever they want. They might release whatever they think best represents the look of the original. Some Blu-ray producers (which I've previously mentioned) have already chosen it over 1080p24. They could sell both if they wanted to, or have both in a disc set. I wouldn't be surprised if Douglas Trumbull decides to release a 720p60 version on Blu-ray. From the video above, which do you think Douglas Trumbull thinks is more important - higher spatial resolution or higher frame rates?

You better read the specs again on 3D BD. There is but a single spec for movies . . . frame packed 1080x24P. Frame packed 720P is for video games for the PS3.

Have a look at page 41:

http://www.blu-raydisc.com/assets/Do...ions-18780.pdf

Look at the specs of titles like the 3D FIFA World Cup Blu-ray or the 3D Blu-ray title(s) from AIX Records (Goldberg Variations Acoustica 3D Blu-ray) - which are not PS3 games.

That isn't a movie. That was a sporting event that was shot in 720x50P and converted to 720x60P for the USA release.

Now . . . if you can show me a 3D movie that was converted to 720x60Px2 that's fine. But until then . . .

Mike - what is your problem?

Maybe you would like to explain to all of us when shooting in 120 FPS how you are going to accomplish shooting for slow motion?

And how does that video releate to your OP? Are they going to increase the frame rate of 3D BD to 49 or 60?

It wasn't shot in 720p, it was shot in 1080/50i, and encoded on Blu-ray at 720p60 3D.

Goldberg Variations Acoustica 3D Blu-ray was shot at 1080 resolution at 30 fps and converted to 720p60 3D for the Blu-ray.

You claimed that Blu-ray was not capable of encoding video - that is not a 3D PS3 game at 720p60 3D - that there was only one standard available ie. 1080p24.

I showed that it is in the 3D specs and is available to encode at - like those two titles above.

Producers can encode at anything in the Blu-ray specs. 720p60 (or more specifically, 720p59.94) is in the Blu-ray 3D specs. Producers have already encoded with it, so of course it's an option that Douglas Trumbull could use if he decides to, and has made his film at 60 fps.

My bad - it was shot in 1080i50 SbS:


http://hd.engadget.com/2010/06/11/es...verage-live-f/


So the following means nothing huh?


http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3924

1. That doesn't add any frame rate to 3D BD. It will still be 24 FPS.

2. How will they shoot slo-mo?

But anything they lower to 24 fps will either have the same amount of blur as current 24 fps films shot with a 180 degree shutter, or if they have less blur they'll have more strobing.