The Hobbit 48FPS 3D where does BD Stand? - Page 3

I thought the whole point of this 48 / 60 / 120 fps kick is that it hasn't really worked for some time - we set a standard a long time ago, then slowly outpaced that standard without ever stopping to revise it.

From a strictly on-topic, The Hobbit point of view, I'd love to see some 48fps footage digitally projected @ 48fps, just to see if it can retain any sense of the traditional 'film' look. There's a chance that it will, since it's not actually throwing any more instances of frames at the screen than a regular film projector does right now. But the Showscan Digital video has it right when it says "the whole world has adapted to 24fps in a movie theatre - that's what a movie texture is like" - and it's a texture I don't really want to sacrifice right away. I guess I'll reserve full judgement until I can see it...

As for the consequences for blu-ray, surely they'll just revise the spec? Then we can all simply buy new TVs to accept 1080p48x2 & 1080p60x2, and new blu-ray players to output that content, and new AV receivers, and new HDMI 1.5 cables - easy!

Shoot some pal video at 50Hz .Run it through a bob deinterlacer...hey presto same temporal sample rate ( give or take).

It's deinterlacing together with motion compensation algorithms that ruins "film look", giving that "soap opera" effect.

No whats giving the "soap opera" effect is the framerate. Even if you film
with 48P it will still look closer to 50i then 24P.

Now 48P may work better with 3D, giving a more real world look. But 48P and 2D will give a "Soap" look. It will also be alot less forgiving against recording in a studio. Since fake object like the background will look even more fake in 48fps. But if the crew is skilled they may compensate for this so the final product comes out ok.

totally agree

That's a informative video.

My opinion of film is it has to do with how 24fps or 41ms looks compared to the flicker fusion threshold which is 16ms.

41ms sets way we percieve the z axis in the 2D x, y picture.

When we see 2D only our eyes can work faster, but when our eyes percieve depth they see slower. This is shown as you read one long line instead of lines.

So the eyes seeing the picture slower may actually show depth better, but only when viewing a 2D picture.

Proceed, we shall see.

nominal 24fps is not 41ms its 20ms capture interval due to the 180 degree shutter. They even say this (in a rather unclear way in the showscan video).

There is a lot of glossing over going on in that "skit". Especially when it comes to generating 24fps from 120fps ...the make very fleeting mention of the interpolation involved and its always problematic in my experience.

And lastly ...I still don't regard it as looking superior to 24fps with a 180 degree shutter angle...the right level of motion blur looks far more organic than high frame ranges.

But 48 fps can have just as much motion blur as 24 fps with 180 degree shutter. Though the Hobbit won't.

But if by "organic" you mean realistic - exactly like in real life, higher fps is surely the one that will record things more like they really are in the real world, and objects will move across the screen more smoothly and camera pans will be smoother (if they are like that in real life/the cgi renderings).

The Hobbit is shot at 270 degree shutter-angel (1/72sek). But that is an average, doesn't mean they can't regulate the shutter-speed up or down for more or less motion blur in selected scenes.

How do you get 1/72 sec?


It still could be a problem making it look good at both 24 fps and 48 fps. Anything less than 360 degrees when shooting at 48 fps will make it look choppier than usual when skip-printing (or digital equivalent) for 24 fps.

Math is not my strong point. Got the 1/72sek from a calculation someone did at the RED forum.


I am quite confident that Peter Jackson and his DP has found the best way to shoot the movie after months of testing.

The very knowledgeable David Mullen ASC has a couple of posts in that thread answering your questions better than me; http://reduser.net/forum/showthread....uot-angle-quot

Oh the RED forum

Well Peter is dead wrong on the 180 shutter angle at 48fps. It would make 24p extraction pretty strobey and frame averaging is fraught with problems. What you could do is add vector generated motion blur to problematic shotdbut this then impacts areas like sharpness and grain management and alos brings its own set of artifacts to the table.

24p is shot around 180 , mostly it fluctuates around 135-220 so the 270 with Jackson is to cut back a little on the motionblur to favor the 48fps presentation at the cost of the 24p extraction having a little more strobiness than normal although not masssively so and not outside the parametrets that an audience is often exposed to. It also gives them a little wiggle room in terms of the shutter usage for exposure rather than having it locked all the way open at 360.

Its also possible that the small delay in the cmos sensor capturing the frame makes the 270 shutter angle give a capture interval closer to 1/48.

On the Red forum they say:

But he doesn't explain how he got "1/72".

Wouldn't it be more like 1/64 sec for the 48 fps version?
ie. 1/((270/360)*(1/48))=64

Is 48fps going to look like the behind-the-scenes on my Lord of the Rings blu-rays?

Well...maybe to be honest. If you took 50i video and deinterlaced it with a bob it will look like that in terms of motion presentation

I think it would be good, though before he said he wanted to use 120 fps to able to mix 24 fps content into it, so he might have a mix of different frame rates in one film. Also, for bigger TVs that fill more of your field of view, it's probably going to be no better than 60 fps content on smaller TVs that fill less of your field of view. Higher rates than 120 fps would probably be better, especially on a big high res screen.

Would this prevent Cameron from shooting the Avatar sequels at 60p? Does bd3d only support 1080p24?

Would what prevent Cameron shooting the Avatar sequels at 60p? The fact that The Hobbit is being shot at 48 fps or that Douglas Trumbull is shooting at 120 fps?

This is what Cameron has said about 48 vs 60 fps recently:
http://filmonic.com/james-cameron-ho...mes-per-second


Blu-ray 3D currently supports only 720p50, 720p59.94 and 1080p23.976 for HD content.

This was my only real question.

Does the "currently" part mean a firmware update could allow for 1080p59.94 in 3D?

Don't know but I think it's unlikely a firmware update would allow that for current players. I think it's more likely they'll get people to buy new players, etc.

A change in spec and switching to higher capacity BDs will be key to saving the format's longevity. I think this is easily possible unless BDA thinks otherwise. However, the sooner they act the better.

If someone were to make a 60p 3D movie, all the BDA would need is to revise the spec to include 1080p29.97. I can't imagine that would be too complicated. As for disc space, I've heard the blu-ray 3D of Avatar is jawdropping and that's on a BD-50 just like its 2D counterpart.

Why would you want to halve the frame rate of the 3D movie? That wouldn't be what the director intended - he would have intended 60 fps not 30 (when James Cameron talks of 60 fps 3D, he is talking about 60 frames per second per eye). Surely they'd be better to add "1080p59.94 3D" (and maybe 60.0 too?) to the spec, as well as 2D (at the same time as adding higher resolutions like 4K).

Yay-new projectors/tv's/new players/new discs/new spec and ..... wait for it .... new DRM. Yay

I know, but just as you get 24 fps from halving a 48 fps source, you get 30 from 60. I'm just saying, if Cameron ends up shooting in 60p, the bd3d spec will need revision to include - at the very least - a 30p option.

Well you could have the 30Hz look in 2D with 1920x1080/60i de-interlaced to 1920x1080p30. If de-interlaced properly it should look the same as if it was encoded like that, but that's 2D not 3D.

But really 30p would be really insufficient for the what Peter Jackson/Cameron want it to look like. It wouldn't really be worth updaing the spec for 30p 3D (they could add it with other, better things, but it wouldn't be worth it otherwise) . You'd get the look of 60 fps in 3D by using 720p but it would only be 720p. I really don't think people would bother upgrading to get from 1080p24 to a maximum of 1080p30 3D (especially when the films being made are 48 fps, 60 fps and 120 fps). It would still judder on movement (which is one of the main things they are trying to remove - that and blurring) and not have the look of 48/60/120.

Good article. Check out the comparison videos. You be the judge.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/28/e...h-frame-rates/


Ian

yup you need the motionblur with 24fps , each frame is approximately 1/48th of a second capture interval , any faster than that and it will look strobey ; think certain scenes in Gladiator or Saving Private Ryan ; small shutter angle , faster capture interval ...strobey look.

I really think this is just so much old rope; go take a look at video shot 50/60 fps or even interlaced and bob deinterlaced. I'm amazed anyone is surprised with the resulting look of 48fps capture not being to everyone's liking.