or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Will movies filmed in 48fps require new home theater equipment?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will movies filmed in 48fps require new home theater equipment? - Page 2

post #31 of 190
Being a plasma owner (Panasonic G25), I actually went plasma due to it's color and black level production as well as there being no motion blur with the picture. As for the 24/48 FPS, 24 FPS is too slow for my liking. Tried some 30 FPS material, and it didn't have any stuttering effects. The 48 FPS might be overkill, but I haven't seen true 48 FPS material yet.
post #32 of 190
^^

Quote:
Originally Posted by HTguru3
View Post

Like I said, you make a lot of generalities and speculate as to how people will feel in the future. It's fine to post your personal opinion but one shouldn't try speaking for others. Let them voice their opinions.
post #33 of 190
Monty Cristo has seen (some of) THE HOBBIT at 48 frames per second. report:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55212

quote ''felt like the 1970 I, CLAUDIUS in HD''
post #34 of 190
Thread Starter 
Reading the rest of the review though, it sounds like there is definite potential.

"I did not see the digital seams around creatures like Gollum and the trolls, a major benefit over 24fps. The creatures had a sense of mass in the environment, which was disconcerting in a good way."

No doubt, there will definitely be controversy over it. Personally, i like the soap opera effect on TVs and this has definitely got to be a step above on clarity. I can only imagine how awesome 3D at 48fps will look.
post #35 of 190
Then there is this:

"The footage I saw looked terrible completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets sets don't even look like sets when you're on them live, but these looked like sets. The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely.

Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1452391.html
post #36 of 190
Thread Starter 
See, i'm totally for it. I just don't understand some of the comments against it. "It was too accurate -- too clear" or "it's too smooth." What? Why would one not want a smooth and clear picture? To me there's no such thing as "too smooth". In fact, i don't think we can ever get too smooth.

To me, the closer an image gets to seeing it in real life with my own eyes, the better it is. We all want higher resolutions, better brightness, better blacks, and better color production, all to mimic what we see in real life, yet we don't want higher frames per second?

I just never understood this. The more i can feel like i am there witnessing what's going on with my own eyes, the more amazing, realistic, believable, lifelike, etc. the motion picture is to me.

Higher frame rates do take some adjusting to get used to. I know frame interpolation is not the same as a true higher FPS, but they are similar and when i first got one at work it took about a month of watching to finally get used to it and realize how good it is. Ever since that point 5 years ago, i've never gone back.

And to comment on what that guy said about sets not looking like sets, from my understanding, the footage was not finalized so i'm sure this will be covered up in post production. Additionally w/ 48fps, film makers will have to change up the way they capture scenes to avoid these issues. Old style camera trickery is not going to be the same w/ higher frame rates and it will take some time to figure out what will work and new tricks that can be used.
post #37 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by maygit View Post

What? Why would one not want a smooth and clear picture?

Realism has rarely been the goal of art. People choose to shoot in soft focus but the world is not in soft focus. People choose to shoot in black and white but the world has colors. People even... no, I won't mention teal & orange, that's not art. But let's say 48fps is a huge hit, some people will still choose to shoot at 24fps. It's an aesthetic, it's art, realism doesn't enter into it. We either like it or we don't.

So with "art" and "aesthetics" in mind, people have already gotten a foretaste of higher framerates applied to films--in the form of interpolated frames on their televisions. So they (unfortunately) associate high framerates with the cheap gimmicky alteration of existing films, and that's too bad. I wonder, if Ted Turner had tried to colorize old movies BEFORE the advent of color film, if color films would also have been more widely derided as a cheap gimmick-by-association. Nevertheless, the fact remains that people are associating high framerates with cheap gimmicks, and the proponents of 48fps are doing themselves no favors in this regard by tying higher framerates to 3D. It was already an uphill fight without that albatross.
post #38 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Monty Cristo has seen (some of) THE HOBBIT at 48 frames per second. report:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55212

quote ''felt like the 1970 I, CLAUDIUS in HD''

Personally I am going to be very skeptical of most critics opinions on this issue since a good number of them love the poor quality motion of 24 fps video. Though that critic tried covering this issue from both sides considering the number of pro 24 fps comments he made I would consider it a bit more negative than neutral. Still that quote wasn't quite as negative sounding within the context of the paragraph it was taken. Also though I would disagree with many opinions made in that article I would agree that 10 minutes of unfinished footage isn't enough to tell us how the movie will be received by most critics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by maygit View Post

See, i'm totally for it. I just don't understand some of the comments against it. "It was too accurate -- too clear" or "it's too smooth." What? Why would one not want a smooth and clear picture? To me there's no such thing as "too smooth". In fact, i don't think we can ever get too smooth.

There were people who critized the "talkies" as well so though it is disappointing that some critics attacked the entire idea of higher frame rate movies based on 10 minutes of unfinished footage I am not surprised by it. That some critics are simply against the idea of higher frame rate movies means very little at the end of the day. What will matter is what the average person will think of higher frame rate movies since that is what will determine their future.
post #39 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul; View Post

Personally I am going to be very skeptical of most critics opinions on this issue since a good number of them love the poor quality motion of 24 fps video. Though that critic tried covering this issue from both sides considering the number of pro 24 fps comments he made I would consider it a bit more negative than neutral. Still that quote wasn't quite as negative sounding within the context of the paragraph it was taken. Also though I would disagree with many opinions made in that article I would agree that 10 minutes of unfinished footage isn't enough to tell us how the movie will be received by most critics.

CinemaCon is foremost a theater owner convention so critics will be in the minority. Indeed 10 minutes is just a glimpse (and it is also a glimpse in what 48fps articles will be like once THE HOBBIT hits the theaters ). I expect lots of negativity in the industry which will make the higher framerate transition even more unlikely in the near future, this is why i added the quote in my post.


LATIMES movies
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movi...pp-gatsby.html
post #40 of 190
Note that theaters play movies with a projector shutter speed of 1/48th of a second and display each frame twice so they are played at 48fps to reduce 24fps Judder.
post #41 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

Note that theaters play movies with a projector shutter speed of 1/48th of a second and display each frame twice so they are played at 48fps to reduce 24fps Judder.

That's three times in modern theatres (72Hz) and it pretty much eliminates flicker, but does very little for judder.
post #42 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

CinemaCon is foremost a theater owner convention so critics will be in the minority.

Sure, but most of the articles are from critics so that is the main perspective that we are currently hearing. And we won't know what the average person thinks of the higher frame rate until the movie is released.
post #43 of 190
Thread Starter 
I have a feeling The Hobbit won't be so successful and getting people to like 48FPS, but i'm willing to bet Avatar 2 will be the game changer to converting people over.
post #44 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by maygit View Post

I have a feeling The Hobbit won't be so successful and getting people to like 48FPS, but i'm willing to bet Avatar 2 will be the game changer to converting people over.

The big issue with Avatar 2 is that it won't be released until at least 2015 while the first Hobbit movie is coming out in December 2012 and the second Hobbit movie is coming out in December 2013. As such The Hobbit will be the first impression of higher frame rate movies for many people. I think in the short term how the The Hobbit is received will make a difference in the number of other movies that start production using a higher frame rate.
post #45 of 190
So....Is the final consensus that all new equipment (bd players and tvs) will be needed to view these movies? I see that as a major problem with distributors and consumers. I mean, I like new stuff, but even I would be mad if I had to buy new equipment for new movies. I can only imagine what joe six pack would think. I mean, if the Hobbit comes out in 2013 then hits home video by the begginning of 2014, very few people will be buying it because barely anyone will have the gear to watch it. The studio will be missing out on a lot of $$$ there. 3d hasn't exactly been a home run, I can only imagine what consumers reaction will be. Its a hard sell, telling someone "Its not 3d, its just more frames per second, but not more frames than you are seeing on broadcast tv, and oh ya... you need a new tv to see it and also get the blu ray player bundle because you will need that too.... but dont worry, there are like 5 movies you can watch at that framerate" to which most people will probably say "uh.... pass"
post #46 of 190
Thread Starter 
For 2D at 48FPS, current 3D TVs could handle that signal, but would need a FW update to allow the tv to recognize and display it correctly and that will come down to TV mfgs to release said update, which is probably unlikely they will. For 3D at 48fps, i dont believe current tv's can handle that much information at once. Thats essentially 96FPS the tv needs to pick up, where i think right now the cap is at 60FPS.
post #47 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadsdsmith View Post

So....Is the final consensus that all new equipment (bd players and tvs) will be needed to view these movies? I see that as a major problem with distributors and consumers. I mean, I like new stuff, but even I would be mad if I had to buy new equipment for new movies. I can only imagine what joe six pack would think. I mean, if the Hobbit comes out in 2013 then hits home video by the begginning of 2014, very few people will be buying it because barely anyone will have the gear to watch it. The studio will be missing out on a lot of $$$ there. 3d hasn't exactly been a home run, I can only imagine what consumers reaction will be. Its a hard sell, telling someone "Its not 3d, its just more frames per second, but not more frames than you are seeing on broadcast tv, and oh ya... you need a new tv to see it and also get the blu ray player bundle because you will need that too.... but dont worry, there are like 5 movies you can watch at that framerate" to which most people will probably say "uh.... pass"


I believe the video transfers for BD will be probably be converted to a compatible NTSC based frame rate. Coming from the marketing end of this business, I can't imagine that scenario you described as being practical for either the consumer or the industry.


Ian
post #48 of 190
I have a top-rated Panasonic BD player. The output is HDMI only, and it offers 3D compatibility, although I don't yet own a 3D HDTV. But the output frame rate can be setup in the player menu to match the 24fps BD source or the most common 60Hz display. I happen to run mine at 24Hz for my 120Hz display.

There is no reason that the same player would not also output 48fps except for planned obsolescence. I DO NOT expect this top-rated player (which only cost me about $150) to be updated for 48fps compatibility. I expect to spend another $150 when I want that.
post #49 of 190
I doubt there will be any release of The Hobbit in 48fps. for home media, at least for many years.
The Hobbit will only be released in 48fps~3D for those cinemas that have invested in a new HFR(high frame rate) DCP server. (about $10000)
The rest (majority) will get the movie in 24fps, both in 2D and 3D.

The Cinemacon showing was the first for many things that people had not experienced which might have been as important to the experience as the HFR.

Shot and post produced in 4K digital with slightly higher shutterspeed than normal.
Shot with more depth of field than Avatar.
Dual 4K projectors.
3D in 4K resolution for both eyes.
Silver screen that was calibrated for the light at the edge of the screen and equalised brightness uniformity towards the middle. (silver screens are notoriously brightest in the middle)
Equal brightness to a 2D screening.

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=2784
http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=2763

So for those that really want to see the Hobbit the way it is intended to be seen, they have to take care to visit a cinema that have dual 4K projection. Preferable with Christie or Barco DLP projectors if the screen is large (DLP sharpness is better than Lcos (Sony) on a large screen).
post #50 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

I have a top-rated Panasonic BD player. The output is HDMI only, and it offers 3D compatibility, although I don't yet own a 3D HDTV. But the output frame rate can be setup in the player menu to match the 24fps BD source or the most common 60Hz display. I happen to run mine at 24Hz for my 120Hz display.

There is no reason that the same player would not also output 48fps except for planned obsolescence. I DO NOT expect this top-rated player (which only cost me about $150) to be updated for 48fps compatibility. I expect to spend another $150 when I want that.

I also have my higher end Panasonic BD player set to 24p for my Panny PDP. I have no interest in 3D. As far as 48fps is concerned, just as we have a 24fps settings option on current players, I see no reason why they wouldn't also offer the 48fps option on future players for newer TV's that will accept that format. However, like I posted before, for current equipment, I also see no reason not to convert video transfers from 48fps films that can be compatible with today's NTSC frame rates.


Ian
post #51 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

I have a top-rated Panasonic BD player. The output is HDMI only, and it offers 3D compatibility, although I don't yet own a 3D HDTV. But the output frame rate can be setup in the player menu to match the 24fps BD source or the most common 60Hz display. I happen to run mine at 24Hz for my 120Hz display.

There is no reason that the same player would not also output 48fps except for planned obsolescence. I DO NOT expect this top-rated player (which only cost me about $150) to be updated for 48fps compatibility. I expect to spend another $150 when I want that.

I can think of two reasons why the Blu-ray player might not be capable of 1080p48 video besides planned obsolescence. The first reason is due to a hardware limitation such as the MPEG-4 AVC decoder being limited to Level 4.1 or due to any limitation in the video processing chain. If even one video hardware component in the Blu-ray player isn't capable of 1080p48 video than it wouldn't be possible to add support for it. The second reason is that if the BDA makes a version of Blu-ray that supports 4K video and higher frame rate 1080p video I think they will add support for the HEVC video codec. The plan is for the HEVC specification to be finished in January of 2013.
post #52 of 190
I have viewed a 60fps video. It was a shot from a helicopter. The panning was SMOOTH. The video wasn't very detailed. It was from high up and there were no people in the shot, so can't say anything about the soap opera effect. I will definitely watch the Hobbit in the theaters if it is 48fps.
post #53 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by surma884 View Post

I will definitely watch the Hobbit in the theaters if it is 48fps.

Make sure you choose a cinema that can actually show the movie in 48fps. There won't be that many that will upgrade. Preferably a cinema that also has Duo 4K projectors. It is not easy to find which cinema have the ability.
Regal cinema chain might be one good possibility.

Quote:


Peter Jackson Responds to 'Hobbit' Footage Critics, Explains 48-Frames Strategy

Jackson also explained the footage presented at Cinemacon would look different once it goes through the post-production process.

Because production is not scheduled to wrap until July, the customary postproduction that affects the overall look of a film has not yet been done, so the clips were unfinished. They were not yet color corrected, nor had the visual effects been completed. (In various scenes the actors were shown performing in front of a greenscreen.)

Jackson explained that his original The Lord of the Rings used various postproduction techniques to create a certain look for the movies, including “extensive” digital color grading, “added texture, and we took out highlights."

“We’ll do the same with The Hobbit, to make it consistent and give it the feeling of otherworldliness – to get the mood, the tone, the feel of the different scenes,” he said. “We are certainly going to experiment with different finishing techniques to give the 48 frames a look that is more organic. But that work isn’t due to start until we wrap photography in July (both Hobbit films are being shot simultaneously)."

Jackson is also lensing the movie – which is being shot in 3D, a first for the franchise – using Red Epic cameras with 3Ality Technica 3D rigs.

The Red Epic, Jackson explained, allowed him to shoot in 5K resolution. (5K refers to the number of horizontal pixels that compose a frame.) Today, movies are generally lensed and projected at 2K, though the industry is moving in the direction of 4K.

“It is very clean. On a 5K camera you are seeing very crisp pictures,” he said. “Part of the digital grading will give those incredibly sharp pictures a texture and a feeling that we want the film to have. We haven’t done that yet. What you saw [at CinemaCon, in terms of “crispness”] is partly due to the lack of motion blur (from the high frame rate) and partly due to the camera (in terms of resolution).”

As also from the links in my previous post and this; There where more elements that contributed to the experience from this "sneak preview" than just the HRF/48fps.
post #54 of 190
post #55 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by maygit View Post

For 2D at 48FPS, current 3D TVs could handle that signal, but would need a FW update to allow the tv to recognize and display it correctly and that will come down to TV mfgs to release said update, which is probably unlikely they will. For 3D at 48fps, i dont believe current tv's can handle that much information at once. Thats essentially 96FPS the tv needs to pick up, where i think right now the cap is at 60FPS.

Of course they won't release a FW update, they want you to buy new gear and just like the sheeple we will go out and purchase it.
post #56 of 190
Thread Starter 
Well, theres is a small possibility that samsung might release it w/ their "Smart Evolution"
post #57 of 190
I would like to know for the home market, what will be the noticeable difference between 24fps and 48fps flat panel displays? This 48fps technology is intriguing to me.
post #58 of 190
Quote:
So for those that really want to see the Hobbit the way it is intended to be seen, they have to take care to visit a cinema that have dual 4K projection. Preferable with Christie or Barco DLP projectors if the screen is large (DLP sharpness is better than Lcos (Sony) on a large screen).

How would you find out which Cinemas use dual 4k projectors? I know my local cinema recently installed all 4k projectors for all of its screens except for the Imax (lite) which is DLP.

I have to say I'm impressed with Sony 4k projectors, better than DLP in my opinion, athough DLP is sharper, but doesn't seem to have the colors like LCOS.
post #59 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

I would like to know for the home market, what will be the noticeable difference between 24fps and 48fps flat panel displays? This 48fps technology is intriguing to me.

FYI current flat panels support 48fps. High-end PDPs support 72Hz and 96Hz, whereas high-end LCDs support 120/240/480Hz. The real question is what would be the ideal screen refresh rate to avoid flicker?

Film projectors either double-flash film at 48Hz or triple-flash at 72Hz. This works great in a darkened room.

The Pioneer Kuro PDPs did 96Hz which worked great for 24fps film, but they lack firmware support for 48fps and are out of production anyways. Panasonic experimented with 48Hz screen refresh which was OK in a darkened room but flickered horribly in partial artificial lighting. I think a PDP needs to support 96Hz refresh to display 48fps film acceptably.

For LCDs, you want a screen that supports 240Hz or better (5x48fps). 120Hz is no longer enough, although there is no reason many LCDs could not also be run at 96Hz.
post #60 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

FYI current flat panels support 48fps. High-end PDPs support 72Hz and 96Hz, whereas high-end LCDs support 120/240/480Hz. The real question is what would be the ideal screen refresh rate to avoid flicker?

Film projectors either double-flash film at 48Hz or triple-flash at 72Hz. This works great in a darkened room.

The Pioneer Kuro PDPs did 96Hz which worked great for 24fps film, but they lack firmware support for 48fps and are out of production anyways. Panasonic experimented with 48Hz screen refresh which was OK in a darkened room but flickered horribly in partial artificial lighting. I think a PDP needs to support 96Hz refresh to display 48fps film acceptably.

For LCDs, you want a screen that supports 240Hz or better (5x48fps). 120Hz is no longer enough, although there is no reason many LCDs could not also be run at 96Hz.

Thanks for that explanation.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Will movies filmed in 48fps require new home theater equipment?