48fps 3D preview of 'The Hobbit' gets mixed reaction at CinemaCon - Page 3

Originally Posted by wonka702

I think this is gonna not change a thing. I think people who like 3d still will and those who don't aren't going to even know or care what 48fps even is.

Originally Posted by studiotan


Even the 2D versions will be 48fps.

Originally Posted by studiotan


Even the 2D versions will be 48fps.

Originally Posted by studiotan

Even the 2D versions will be 48fps.

Originally Posted by Fang Zei

Actually, I'm pretty sure the 2D versions will be 24fps.

Originally Posted by Fang Zei

Actually, I'm pretty sure the 2D versions will be 24fps. I think they're only showing it in 48fps for the 3D version. I'm thinking they'll play the 3D version on every projector they've upgraded for 48 and then show the 2D version on the projectors that haven't gotten the upgrade. Also, let's not forget there will still be actual film prints, and all of those will of course be 24fps.

Shooting and projecting at 48 fps gives you the illusion that a hole has been cut in the wall of the cinema, and you’re watching the story unfold with a heightened sense of reality. It’s terrific for 3D; I’ve looked at the 48 fps dailies for ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ in 3D for over a year now, and with the reduction in strobing and flicker, it is a much more gentle experience on your eyes. 48 fps is not just limited to 3D. A film shot in 48 fps looks fantastic when projected in 2D, and converts well to 24 fps as well.

Originally Posted by cbcdesign

I notice a lot of people likening the footage to the look given to soap operas, live sports events and news feeds. Perhaps some of you can enlighten me but I assume by this they mean clear sharp images with realistic colour saturation?

If so, that sounds good to me because I am tired of the sapia and teal palettes that seem to have become the cinematic norm in recent years.

Originally Posted by Airion

Interesting. Is the judder so bad that it's actually unwatchable?

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).

Originally Posted by ditcho

...Basically this means that pre-processing frame interpolation must be used to achieve satisfactory results when transferring 48 fps material to 1080p60 blu-ray.

Originally Posted by Nick Laslett

With great timeliness PBS have just uploaded to their Youtube channel "The Great Framerate Debate" featuring Douglas Trumbull.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1aMD...feature=relmfu

I believe this originally took place back in November 2010.

http://notesonvideo.blogspot.com/201...workshops.html

Monday, October 25, 2010
PBS Quality Television Workshops
On Wed, November 3 and Thur, Nov 4th at WGBH Boston, the Public Television Quality Group will be holding a two-day seminar designed to provide training for PBS producers. This "The Great Frame Rate Debate" with Douglas Trumbull.

As a long time admire of Mr Trumbull, I had always wished that he'd had more success with his Showscan format and bringing higher framerates to motion pictures.

Originally Posted by Airion

Perhaps the solution is some sort of digital distribution instead of Blu-ray. Maybe not likely, but technically doable.

“It does take you a while to get used to,” he said. “Ten minutes is sort of marginal, it probably needed a little bit more. Another thing that I think is a factor is it’s different to look at a bunch of clips and some were fast-cutting, montage-style clips. This is different experience than watching a character and story unfold.”

Because of that, he isn’t planning to release a 48 fps trailer for the movie. “I personally wouldn’t advocate a 48-frame trailer because the 48 frames is something you should experience with the entire film. A 2 1/2 minute trailer isn’t enough time to adjust to the immersive quality.”

"You get used to it reasonably quickly,” he said, commenting that now when he views traditional 24 frames footage, “I’m very aware of the strobing, the flicker and the artifacts."

“We have obviously seen cuts of our movie at 48 and in a relatively short amount of time you have forgotten (the frame rate change). It is a more immersive and in 3D a gentler way to see the film.”

Originally Posted by William

...and what would a 4K 48Hz file be played on other that the vaporware (late 4th qt release at $10,000) RED projector? Even if down converted to 1080p/48 there is still only one display I know of (JVC HD10 projector) that could play it (in 2D only).

The film will be released on regular 1080/24p BD (3D too) and that is it for now. It will be a double dip (and one of the oldest native high frame rate releases) when the consumer market for 4K is *standardized and developed. So don't expect to see it in your home at native for at least 3 to 6 years (unless RED gets some type of exclusive distribution rights since they are also making a proprietary 4K REDray player).

*It still yet to be decided if consumer 4K is 3840 (2x HD) or Digital Cinema 4K at 4096 much less other thing like color space and depth.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

You could see both 4K and 2K 48 FPS 3D as early as next year on Bluray. H.265 would handle both using the current 50 GB dual layer discs. Of course you would need 4K displays too. They have been showing them at CES for years.

Originally Posted by Victor Matsuda, chairman of the BDA promotions committee

There is currently no activity within the BDA to bring 4K into the Blu-ray specs...

Originally Posted by William

How could it be transferred to BD at 1080p/60 since there is NO such specification It will have to be 1080p/24 since BD doesn't support 1080p/60 (or 1080p/48).

Originally Posted by shinksma

Here is a thought experiment:

Encode the 2D 48 fps film onto BD using the 3D standard, with the "left eye" being every odd frame and the "right eye" being every even frame.

Play on your 3D display. Set 3D offset/effect to "zero" or neutral". Do not wear 3D glasses.

Shouldn't that result in a 48 fps display on my screen, seen by both eyes?

Or am I experiencing some sort of Jedi mind-trick that this should be possible using current technology and a fake-around?

shinksma

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

48 divided by 2 (L & R eyes odd/even) = 24.

You have to encode the L & R eyes at 48 each. Which would be no different then 1080x48P . . . which BD doesn't support.

Originally Posted by TitusTroy

how does 48FPS work?...does everyone need to buy new hardware (televisions, receiver. blu-ray player etc) which support this feature in order to view it?

Originally Posted by shinksma

Sorry, I think I mis-stated my intention: this is for encoding the 2D version at 48fps, not the 3D version, and viewing it as 2D, not 3D. I realize 3D at 48fps will require a new standard for the throughput.

Isn't "3D 24fps" material encoded with 2 sub-frames, one per eyepoint, i.e. a total of 48 frames encoded per second? Which is then decoded by the player as 24 left-eye frames and 24 right-eye frames per second, which is displayed by the PJ or TV as 48 total frames per second (or frame doubled at 96 Hz)?

So if we cheated and encoded 48 fps 2D material as though it were 3D 24fps, the result would be the display showing 2D material at 48 frames per second? As long as the encode order of left/right was the same as the playback order?

Sorry again if I'm being obtuse.

shinksma

Originally Posted by wonka702

I stand by what I said. The average movie goer wont even know it exists unless they start charging extra to pay for the "presentation" costs

Originally Posted by shinksma

Sorry, I think I mis-stated my intention: this is for encoding the 2D version at 48fps, not the 3D version, and viewing it as 2D, not 3D. I realize 3D at 48fps will require a new standard for the throughput.

Isn't "3D 24fps" material encoded with 2 sub-frames, one per eyepoint, i.e. a total of 48 frames encoded per second? Which is then decoded by the player as 24 left-eye frames and 24 right-eye frames per second, which is displayed by the PJ or TV as 48 total frames per second (or frame doubled at 96 Hz)?

So if we cheated and encoded 48 fps 2D material as though it were 3D 24fps, the result would be the display showing 2D material at 48 frames per second? As long as the encode order of left/right was the same as the playback order?

Sorry again if I'm being obtuse.

shinksma

Originally Posted by Josh Z

The movie will still be teal and orange, like every other movie made these days, and like Peter Jackson gleefully updated The Fellowship of the Ring to look like. Shooting in a higher frame rate has nothing to do with the color grading. It will just look like a teal and orange soap opera.

Originally Posted by bd2003

The irony of this is that even though higher frame rates are technically superior, they've so long been associated with low quality content (soap operas and bad tv), that there is almost certainly going to be a backlash.

That being said, this is about 20 years past due.