'The Hobbit' will not be widely released in 48 FPS - Page 4

I'd probably invite THAT Zombie, but he'd have to take a shower first.

If 48fps flops then no. If it does well then yes I dont see why not. 48fps will be alot more marketable than 4K and it'll be 4-5 years before all these moves are released home video anyways. Thought my answer was pretty apparent. Every 120hz 3D HDTV. Like I said it probably wont be perfect the same way a 60hz isnt perfect for blu rays.
Jonathanc gave you a better answer though so you can reply to him if you got an explanation.
Edited by ssjLancer - 8/14/12 at 8:58pm

In terms of whether or not a BD can hold an entire 48fps feature (assuming a 48fps standard is added to the spec), here's what a BBC Whitepaper on high frame rate television had to say about the subject:

Here is the entire whitepaper:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP169.pdf

So HFR movies will probably fit fine onto a single BD50, although the longer ones (like the extended Lord of the Rings / Hobbit movies) will still take up "just" two.

The problem is . . . it isn't HFR television. It's HFR 3D - totally different animal.

Why years? The Hobbitt will probably be released to home video on optical disc sometime in May/June 2013. It surely will only be 24 fps, both for 2D and 3D.

Please show me the specs for any 120 hz 3DTV that specifically says it will accept a native 48 fps 3D signal. I don't see how that is possible because there are no specs for a home video 3D signal that consists of 48 fps.

There will not be a HRF Blu-Ray standard and players before the work on the UHDTV-1/4K BD standard is finished. The work on the 4K BD standard has not started yet, and the project will not start before the HEVC/H.265 codec is finalised, which is scheduled for the beginning of 2013.

All news on new resolution and compression standards are discussed in the long running thread; 4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts?, for those that one to follow the developments.

Here from one of the latest posts; http://www.avsforum.com/t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/1590#post_22305148

Sony’s Marty, BDA’s Parsons Talk Blu-ray

Im talking about all the movies and an extended edition if there is one.
The BDA could decide to keep the format stagnant. Thats definitely a possibility.
Like I said though we'll at least have digital. It'll be 60hz per eye whether the content was shot 24 fps, 48fps, 14fps, or 33fps. Like you said 48fps movies arent available so I dont know why anyone would have to mention it specifically? Any 120hz 3DTV will be able to show a framerates up 60fps. Should they mention every framerate between 1 and 60fps?
"HDMI allows any video format timing to be transmitted and displayed."
https://engineering.purdue.edu/477grp10/Datasheets/CEC_HDMI_Specification.pdf

Digital from who? In what format?

That PDF means as of when it was written. 48 fps 3D didin't exist at that time. And if they convert, then that defeats the purpose of native 48 fps 3D.

BTW - not all 120 hz 3DTVs are the same as far as what input they will accept. Everyone knows that.

BTW, just because HDMI can carry the signal doesn't mean the TV can display it. Two different things.

Have you guys honestly never tried to feed a framerate to a TV that didn't support it?

I have.

And that was just in the world of 2D.

Whethr TV or a movie, it's a video image. The point is, since there is less of a frame to frame diffrence, one should not assume that the storage requirements will mathematically double. Sure, they will go up. My .mkv copy of Avatar (2D not 3D) is about 36GB. (Yes, I do own the disk) I'm willing to bet the 3D version is not 72GB. Nor would a 48fps 2D version be 72GB. Most movies I have, including the extended Lord of the Rings, are about 25GB per file. So in most cases, 48fps 2D would not have to span across two disks. Probably not even 48fps 3D, depending on how good the compression gets.

Personally, I couldn't care less for 3D. I just want to see it in 48fps 2D. If not in the theater, hopefully some day at home.

3D BD uses AVC MVC which is a video compression codec designed for 3D that is based on redundant data - as in not needing to store it. A 3D BD is usually about 50% larger (file size) then a regular BD. The missing 50% is the redundant data that is created to form the two 1920x1080 L & R eye images within the 1920x2205 "master frame.". The 3D BD disc is spun at 2X speed instead of normal speed for a regular BD and the max bit rate is 50% higher.

3D BD uses frame packing to get two 1920x1080 (L & R) eye images at 24 fps (1920x2205x24fps):



Increasing the frame rate to 48 fps from 24 fps is going to increase the storage requirement accordingly. It may not be a 100% increase but it will surely be more than a 50GB BD could handle.

And again, 48 fps 2D is not under discussion. There are no Hollywood productions slated for HFR 2D. Only 3D.
Edited by Lee Stewart - 8/15/12 at 1:24pm

If the film will be released in 24pfs 2D, why not 48fps 2D? The film is being shot natively at 48fps. It is actually costing the studio more to downconvert to 24fps because, according to Variety, they have to motion blur every frame.

Accordng to Forbes, the movie will actually be released in six formats - 2D-24, 3D-24, IMAX3D-24, 2D-48, 3D-48, and IMAX3D-48. I've been looking, but I can't find anything that says the film will ONLY be released in 3D at the 48fps rate.

The title of the thread is simply that the Hobbit will not be widely released in 48fps. That doesn't make the topic of 2D 48fps taboo.

Again, the hobbit isnt even out in theaters. So why would there be information. This is all speculation.
As for what format maybe it'll still be framepacked AVC. HEVC if its out. Maybe it'll be 720/48p.
The purpose is viewing HFR. Im viewing 2D 48fps red camera video on my computer monitor right now and so far my 60hz monitor hasnt exploded.
Edited by ssjLancer - 8/15/12 at 4:17pm

That Forbes info is old. WB has said nothing about releasing a 48 fps 2D version. Check out the OP and hyperlink within it. Nothing about 48 fps 2D. That is the latest info.

Did they show the footage at CinemaCon in 2D at 48 fps - or was it only shown in 3D at 48fps?
Edited by Lee Stewart - 8/15/12 at 10:07pm

This was just announced today as far as HEVC:

MPEG drafts twice-as-efficient H.265 video standard, sees use in phones as soon as 2013

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/15/mpeg-drafts-twice-as-efficient-h-265-video-standard/

720/48P is not a recognized format. And using 720P would be a huge letdown in a world of "full HD."

You can speculate all day long - at least try to come up with something that has it's feet in reality. All you are doing is trying to stick a round peg in a square hole.

So is that monitor showing 48fps? Or is it converting the 48 fps to 60Hz?
Edited by Lee Stewart - 8/15/12 at 10:28pm

And another question for him: If the latter, is it actually using all 48fps or is it throwing some of them away? ...and how do you *know*?

There is no problem playing 2D 48fps material on a computer. Just choose a playback software that can play 48fps at the right speed, like an editing program etc. The refresh rate of the screen has nothing to do about it as long as it is fast enough.

To playback 48fps on a TV is a different matter. You need a playback machine like a PC, as above. But the software in the TV has to be able to lock onto 48fps, or else the signal is just converted.

Just like it was with the first BD players that sent 24fps to the TV. If the TV was not enabled to lock onto 24fps, it just converted the signal or didn't show a proper picture.

I've always thought that for example, on 60 Hz display, every frame of 48 fps video will be shown at least once, and some of them will be shown twice. for example: F1-F2-F3-F3-F4-F5-F6... Was I wrong this whole time?

I actually don't know. I am familiar with typical TV refresh rates and how they handle the common incoming television/media signals, but computer monitors may work differently. That's why I was asking. I learned a long time ago not to make many assumptions about the software in TV sets. I saw some truly mind boggling deinterlacing algorithms in the early days of HD content, for example. Thankfully those days are long gone.

I'm just curious now about monitors and how hz relates to fps... perhaps the difference is one of the reasons why monitors seem to be so much more expensive than televisions for a given screen size.

I downloaded a couple 48fps demos. I believe they were both .mov files. My laptop's monitor is set at 60, and I can't change it.

When watching the 48fps video, I experienced something kinda like studdering not unlike the studdering which occurrs when 24fps is converted to 60fps. Mathematically, you would need an extra frame after four frames. ( 60 / 48 = 4.25) So every 4th frame or so being displayed twice explains the studdering, although overall it is smoother than 24fps. And so, we are again back at the issue of doing some sort of pulldown to convert 48fps to 60fps.

In my projector's manual, it does have a mode where it will display 1080p/50. So in this mode, there would only need to be one extra frame for every 24 frames. Still, it doesn't avoid motion related artifacts entirely. Looks like I know what spec to look for in my next projector!

"The footage I saw looked terrible … completely non-cinematic," wrote Devin Faraci

The problem is our expectations. We are not used to seeing anything more than 24FPS in a theatre, and when we do see something better, it weirds us out a bit. But you could simply replace the word "Cinematic" with "Jerky and Blurry" and that brings into perspective what is really going on here. 24FPS is almost as archaic as black and white. When a current movie wants to make something look "old timey" they often show it in black and white. In the future, I predict that they will drop to 24 FPS to make something look "old".

Most modern action video games run at 60 FPS. I went out of my way to get a 3D computer monitor (link), not for 3D, but so I could run my 2D games and my desktop at 120 FPS/Hz. The difference is dramatically noticeable. All you have to do is drag a window across the desktop and it will make you go "whooow. that was smooth."

Sony did an experiment at a trade show with 4 PS3s wired together to produce a fluid 240 FPS version of their Grand Turismo 5 game running on a special monitor with a 240Hz input (here is a link). The result was people were trying to look behind the monitor because they thought it was a window into something else.

So I see moving cinema from 24FPS to 48FPS as a baby-step in the right direction. Yes, there will be hiccups, such as the costumes and sets demanding more realism to successfully convey the illusion of reality, but this is a GOOD thing.

48 FPS is definitely going to look weird to people at first. Some will balk at it, etc. But once we all get used to higher frame rate content, we will not want to go back. I have a Sony camera that takes 1080/60p video (link), and it makes 30p content just seem jittery. The only thing that makes film look decent is motion-blur. But if you crank up the frame rate, you don't need the blur, and then your eyes pick up a LOT more detail. It's awesome! It might even make movies that use lots of shaky cam and quick editing watchable (I hate that stuff... to me, it's just an exploit of how crappy 24FPS really is)

And like someone else mentioned earlier. 24FPS will remain in the toolbox. If they want a "cinematic" moment, drop to 24. As long as the newer format is a multiple of 24, it would look exactly the same.

So here's me looking to the future, and I see 240 FPS to be the end game. That is the perfect number as every other standard divides evenly into it... and as far as I can tell, it's finally fast enough that any human can't distinguish it from real-life motion.

Motionblur needs a shutter close to 1/48 for each frame. If you use to many frames shutterspeed will increase to much. Aka Gladiator effect.

With very high framerate you don't need motion blur - eyes will blur things that are too fast on their own.

My post were about playing a new format at 24 fps.

What I meant by "If they want a 'cinematic' moment, drop to 24" is that they could shoot in 24 FPS with all the appropriate shutter speeds, etc. Then as long as the new format was a multiple of 24, it would have the exact same look as current movies.

I do think that if they convert The Hobbit from 48 FPS to 24 FPS it is probably going to be a problem too. They will probably have to computer generate the motion blur that is missing due to the higher shutter speed, and that algorithm will probably be just different enough from real motion blur to put off the audience a bit. Then there are the folks that will see it in 48 FPS, and not realize that the non-"cinematic" nature of the film is because it looks MORE REAL and will balk at it (such as the press reactions mentioned in the top post here).

The truth as I see it is: Higher frame rate is better, but it will take some getting used to. Lower frame rates will remain a tool of the director to use in cases where they are looking for a specific effect (such as we currently see with black and white, slow motion, etc.).

The sad/weird thing about all this to me is that the word "cinematic" is being used as some sort of quality mark. If you really think about it, how backwards is it to think that the less-real the frame rate, the better the experience?

There are some motion rides (such as Star Tours at Disney) that are using 60 FPS in 3D. The overall reaction to it is that it's pretty incredible realism. Why would we not want this in the movie theatre?

It'll be a step down sure, but digital has always been a step down from blu ray. I dont know how this is so hard for you to understand. The movie isnt even out in theaters. Why would there be details for a movie that isnt even close to home release. Like I said repeatedly it'll be like people with 60hz tvs viewing blu ray. Omg how in the world did people view movies before we had 24p capable displays?!?!?

If HFR is somewhat successful in theaters, it'll carry on to home viewing. You cant stop progress.

If it were just a technical question more frames would equal more quality. But in cinema its not really a question of the technical limits of the format. We dont strive for realism when we watch a movie (most of the time).

Is it realism to have a music score playing in the background, or even worse have actors burst out in songs during a movie?

Is it realism that desert scenes in most movies have a tinted yellow color, or winter scenes have tinted to blue? Wouldnt perfect whitebalance be what we aim for?

Is it realism when we can here a persons fotstep but everything else in the scene stays quiet?

Why does we see scenes with crushed black levels, wouldnt we want as much shadow detail as possible?


Yes a motion ride will benefit from 60fps since you are watching it in first person view. But an emotion ride will not get the same benefit.

All of those questions relate to tools of the director. I would like to see higher frame rate added to that toolbox. I agree with almost everything you said except for the very last part. Of course an emotion ride would benefit from a higher frame rate. Realistic motion does not necessarily have to translate into realistic events. I want to see Transformer robots transforming at a high frames per second. I want to see a sandstorm with a yellow tint at high FPS. I want to "fall into the screen" because of its immersion regardless if it's realistic in other ways. I guess HFR affects people differently, but I seem to be very frame rate conscious. Horizontal pans on a large screen at 24 FPS take me out of the moment sometimes... I just dislike everything stuttering across the screen... and then really fast action, editing, or camera moves bug me a lot, and those would be so much more watchable with HFR.

And I know this, because I play PC games at 120 FPS on a 120Hz monitor, and I can easily see/feel the difference over 60. 30 FPS in games does not look good at all. Movies are below that. Time to improve.

Gaming has more in common with motion rides then they have with movies. I have no doubt you can see the difference between different framerates. Its just that more frames doesnt help the cinema experience. Cinematography/filmmaking has been evolved so long for the 24fps rule, that you just cant add more frames or 3D and think it will improve the experience.

You have to create a whole new set of rules how to shoot a movie with the the new framerates. Alot of thing in movies gets masked by the low framerate that is used when you film. Few people seems to notice stuff like artifical lighting in movies, despite its right there in their face. Because 24fps creates an "unatural" look, we seem to ignore everything that looks unatural to our eyes.