'The Hobbit' will not be widely released in 48 FPS - Page 3

You're talking about refresh rate, I'm talking about different frames. 48 fps 3D movie, would every eye see 48 different frames per second?

It depends on how the movie is presented (which 3D presentation process is used). It's like when film projectors show 24 fps 2D content - they show it at 48 fps - each frame is shown twice.

Native 48 fps 3D can be shown at either 48 fps per eye or each frame is shown twice - 96 fps per eye.

As I said - with RealD, they take 24 fps per eye content and show it at 72 fps per eye - each frame is shown 3 times . . .

L1L1L1, R1R1R1, L2L2L2, R2R2R2 . . . etc. This avoids strobing.

So, there is no combination in which every eye ends up with half of original frames?

I didn't say that BD supported 48 fps, I just said I would wait to see it on BD.

My point being I am not going to bother seeing it in the theater if they change it.

I WOULD go see it in the theater in 48fps.

As with all new tech, I would like to see this myself before I make judgement. Interesting for sure.

No. The minimum would be the native frame rate per eye.

We are talking about commerical theaters here - not consumer or home video stuff.
Edited by Lee Stewart - 8/10/12 at 1:12pm

I've seen 3D trailers for this movie at the theater, looked good to me.

Has it been confirmed that 3D players dont have enough bandwidth? Hmm not sure whats the issue here. PC gamers have been playing 3D 1080p games at above 30fps for awhile.

Based on my 30 seconds of sloppy research, I think you are correct, with a caveat that televisions would need a new firmware to support 48fps input, with the implication being that older sets might never get it. Strangely enough, it was another Hobbit thread where this was discussed. Here's a link: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1328745/will-movies-filmed-in-48fps-require-new-home-theater-equipment

Not surprisingly, that thread degenerates into a pissing contest over whether or not higher frame rates are better. This thread has been much better behaved IMHO. Some guy over there started things off by basically accusing film purists of liking a bad picture... pure troll bait.

What are the specs for 48 fps 3D BD?

I am talking about a 3DTV that will accept a native 48 fps 3D signal. Please link for me any 3DTV currently on the market that will accept and display such a signal.

I couldn't care less about 3D, but 2D at 48fps+ is of great interest to me. I'm so tired of seeing terrible image judder in modern, high action films and during simple panning sequences. If anything tires my eyes and takes me out of the film, it's that. I'm hoping that the excellent Dolby Atmos and 48fps+ are the future of cinema. It would represent a massive improvement and make it worth going out to the theater again.

I dont think they would even need a firmware update. It wont be perfect probably the same way BD doesnt look perfect when watching it on a 60hz tv. But its still capable.
It isnt an hdmi issue, and afaik todays 3DTVs should be at least as capable as $150 3D computer monitors.
"HDMI allows any video format timing to be transmitted and displayed."
https://engineering.purdue.edu/477grp10/Datasheets/CEC_HDMI_Specification.pdf

If there is one it probably wont be announced until The hobbit is near video release.
Again can you tell me the specific issue here?
Are you saying 30fps+ 1080p 3D doesnt exist in PC games or isnt the same, or are you saying these 3D monitors are more capable than todays 3D HDTVs?

If 48fps ruins the cinematic look like frame interpolation does then it's no good and I hope they don't release it in that format.

Right . . . if. The BDA is going to spend the time to create a new standard for BD based on 3 movies.

It was a simple request. Show a link to a current 3DTV that will accept a native 48 fps 3D video signal. Can you do that please. This has nothing to do with PC games. It's a movie.

I do think it's likely that it would need a firmware update. It's not an HDMI issue at all. It's an inboard video processor issue. The TV's inboard processor has to know how to map the incoming signal for display. Software tells the set how to do that. It's the same reason that many televisions couldn't display native 24fps. It's no different.

Take an example that I dealt with a couple of years ago:

1) I owned a Blu Ray player that could output 24fps
2) I owned many Blu Ray discs mastered in 24fps
3) I owned an HDMI cable that had no problem whatsoever carrying a 1080p/24 signal

4) But, when I fed 1080p/24 to my Sony projector, I got a bank screen. Why? The projector COULD NOT DISPLAY 24fps. The software inside the set had no idea what to make of that incoming frame rate. After a firmware update, it worked... well, it SORT of worked. There were some visual issues still, one of which required an actual hardware replacement.

So I think if you're just assuming that any TV you happen to own will display incoming 48fps with no problems, you're likely making a mistake, unless the TV is already spec'd to deal with it.


P.S.

Do you actually have a game that you can run at 48fps? If so, run it out to the TV at that framerate and see what happens.
Edited by gremmy - 8/11/12 at 5:30pm

It isn't 48 fps. It's 48 fps 3D - a totally different signal. That's a massive amount of data with a very high bandwidth in a format that doesn't yet exist for home video.

And Frame Packed 48 fps 3D BD doesn't exist within either HDMI specs or BDA specs

To make 3D BD work, they had to change the BD drive from normal speed to 2X speed. It may be a case where to offer 48 fps on 3D BD, they will have to once again up the drive speed to like 4X. No firmware upgrade will accomplish that.

Fair enough. Even more reason why one should be leery of accepting blindly that their TV will be able to handle the signal, which was the point I was attempting to make.

I personally think that even without the 3D, there's no certainty that a TV will accept a standard 48fps signal. I'm not saying it wouldn't. I'm simply saying that I wouldn't count on it unless I had tried it or the TV was spec'd for it.

So per the poster's question about what the specific issue would be:

1) The software might not support it. This is where the firmware upgrade would come in.
2) The hardware might not support it, per Lee's post. In that case, nevermind #1.
Edited by gremmy - 8/11/12 at 6:09pm

The sets looked like sets because they had green screen elements and had not been added image background, texture and color grading. The negative reactions was very much based on peoples lack of knowledge.
I think it was a mistake by Jackson to show such unfinished work at such high image quality. But the showing was really for Cinema owners to convince them to invest in HFR equipment. Some wrong people was obviously admitted.
This is what Peter Jackson said in an interview in April, which should explain the difference between unfinished material with just a simple "Look" and finished material.



It was shown the way it should ultimately be shown, for those that will be so lucky.

Dual 4K projectors in 48fps for each eye. The press release from Christie doesn't specify that the projectors was 4K, but as this was an Industrial showing where they wanted to show their "latest and the greatest", I assume they brought out their Series-2 4K version. All series-2 projectors (Christie, Barco & Nec) can easely be upgraded to 4K.
Important point here about increased light levels and equal light levels at the width of the screen for 3D.
Edited by coolscan - 8/23/12 at 2:17am

AFAIK, they were Christie dual 2K (or 4k running in 2K mode) projectors showing 48 fps 3D. They can't do 4K 48 fps 3D yet.

I realized that the work wasn't finished, but I didn't realize they would be so short-sighted so as to show a Franken-film to a bunch of people who lacked the knowledge to know it was still a work in progress. I guess I can understand he was probably between a rock in a hard place: on one side the need to get theater owners to invest in equipment by the time his film debuts, on the other the lack of anything finished to show them. I'm not saying I have the answer or even that one exists, but this definitely wasn't it.

I mean, what the heck is the point of trying to impress people with 48fps who don't already intuitively understand the benefit of all the other missing elements? They're sitting there trying to evaluate something without having the slightest inkling of how to judge the impact that one thing is having on what they are seeing. Clearly the only way to get that type of audience to open their wallets is to show them something that is CLEARLY worth the investment, and that means controlling every variable that can be controlled, and that means showing them something that is not only FINISHED, but which is specifically framed to highlight the new technology.
Edited by gremmy - 8/12/12 at 5:52pm

No problem running 4K projectors in 48fps. Dual projectors, both with an integrated IMB which are synced, running 4K 48fps becomes 3D.

The people Tweeting and writing critical about this was not Cinema industry people, but journalists and bloggers. The mistake was that they where there.
It is possible that Warner underestimated the knowledge of the media types the admitted, or underestimated the "passion" of the 48fps debate.
The exhibition of The Hobbit HFR material have been done several other places in the world without these reactions.

I followed some projectionists on a Projectionist forum, and non of them mistook the unfinished material, or had any type of critical reaction that the (very few) media types had.

There are a lot of nonsense, passion and noise in the "24fps versus 48fps" debate. All reports from Cinemacon was positive to the outdoor scenes but was critical to the more unfinished finished Studio scenes. And if someone "needs a nail to hang their argument on", what would be more "obvious" than to hang it on the "48fps nail".

When the first movie is released I predict we will see a lot of similar critics of 48fps, and much of it from people that have no idea that they have just seen the film in 24fps. 3D.

So when we see posters here in December criticising The Hobbit for being shot in 48fps, I hope people here are persistent on asking the critical people to show some proof they actually was at a 48fps show.
It has been typical till now when people describe their 3D cinema experience that they have seen movie under very different conditions. It will nor become less with The Hobbit.

Peter Jackson is a great director and very much a technical cinematic nerd. He said recently he wanted to shoot LOTR in 70mm because of the increased image quality, but had to drop the idea because there where no lab in New Zealand that could develope the 70mm, so they would have to send the film back and forth between NZ and LA, which would have slowed things down too much.

This time he has the resolution in digital. What he want to do is to make the screen to "become a window into Middle Earth". This will look very very different from what people are used to in movies.

This is a very daring approach to such material. At the same time, it is a "high profile enough" movie that can move image development in the movie world forward.

I predict that the 24fps 2K 2D version will look very different than all the 3D versions. Not because of framerate, but because of the finished look the different versions will have (contrast, color intensity etc.).
Edited by coolscan - 8/23/12 at 2:18am

That's not what your link says:

And there is this article which also says it's not ready yet:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118057587
Edited by Lee Stewart - 8/12/12 at 1:33pm

Not so strange no matter how you look at it, since one of the benefit of 24fps is that it help mask studiosettings. Its easier to spot fake scenery the more real the footage look. I have seen the same thing on several 50i drama, outdoor footage always looked better(less fake) then indoor footage.

So I guess its not just a question of greenscreen or colorgrading.

Yours is a slightly different take on the argument I was making earlier, and I think you have a good point. In addition to giving the image a more literal look, it may in fact simply be more revealing. I do wonder whether there is actually more detail visible on screen or if the problem is that the brain interprets the motion as more literal and therefore is less willing to suspend disbelief. If the latter, I am hopeful that the effect of 3D (which tends to be non-literal), will negate the impact. If the former, the art department is going to have to do a better job than usual.

You misunderstand a little. (some misunderstanding on the part of Variety too, which is not important enough to discuss)

It's true that 4K 3D HRF from One Projector can't be done yet, but will in the future.
But 4K 48fps 2D can be done on one projector.
The Cinemacon show (Dual Christie Solaris series-2) and what I talk about is; TWO 4K projectors each running at 48fps in 2D where the IMB's are synced.
As you know; Two projectors each showing 2D on one screen make 3D.
(Just the way it's filmed, with two separate cameras shooting 48fps 2D each, in a "3D mirror rig" makes a 3D (and 2D) movie.)

This is how (I guess) The Hobbit will be shown at those prestigious "by Invitation Only" pre-show Premiers for media and celebrities in places like New Zealand, LA and London.
The ultimate way of seeing The Hobbit the way Peter Jackson envisions the imagery.
(maybe IMAX and Cinemark XD will have some of these dual rigs on their largest screens?)

Huge difference between 50i shot on small sensor video cameras and 5K RAW in latitude and freedom in what you can do to change the original image into something believable and "otherworldly".
There is a huge image quality increase in 48fps when there is much movement in the picture.
With little or no movement, it is hard to see difference between 24fps and 48fps.

But of course The Hobbit will overall look different from much of "conventional movies", which is the the purpose.

What I was most critical to when it comes to the debate from Cinemacon is that the several BTS video diaries films that has been posted to the web has shown scenes which is supposed to happen in nature (typical the forest scenes with the dwarfs) but are shot in studios.
This breaks the illusion and should not have been shown before eventual extra material on Home Media. Now everybody will look for signs of this studio work scenes.

Huge Mistake by Peter Jackson.

I believe ZERO that comes from the studio that still says nothing is wrong with the color on the extended FELLOWSHIP Blu-Ray.

This is why I don't for a moment buy into the footage first shown will look totally awesomely brilliant later on when it is 'color corrected.'

We will all know soon enough (well, some of us will) what these films look like at 48fps but I am absolutely certain I will not see THE HOBBIT at that higher frame rate the first time. I will go and see it in 2D at 24fps and should I enjoy the film, i'll be back to witness the hype and it it's smoke and mirrors or a game changer.

There is a term which basically explains the entire first page of comments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

3d 120hz native has been around for years, and many setups out there are doing 5760x1080p resolution, 3d and 120hz native. The problem is the only source material that is available to the common man is realtime rendering, IE games.

Tons of youtube proof of this with triple monitor iracing setups running in 3d at HFR (many above 100fps)

An example display is http://www.asus.com/Display/LCD_Monitors/VG236H/#overview

Basically the fullsize TV's for the home theatre market are intentionally left handicapped. I have no doubt that any modern 120hz LED display tv could also accept a 120hz 3d signal if the designers werent planning to release the spec later on once current technology sales cooled down.

That certainly explains why I've never invited a zombie to dinner.

You make Rob sad.