Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Hobit shot at 48fps  (Read 6213 times)
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461


WWW
« on: April 15, 2011, 05:53:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I see Peter Jackson is shooting The Hobit down here in NZ at 48fps rather than the usual 24. He is also using RED cameras. The production has bought dozens of them.
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2011, 07:46:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I see Peter Jackson is shooting The Hobit down here in NZ at 48fps rather than the usual 24. He is also using RED cameras. The production has bought dozens of them.

He's shooting at 48fps because he's shooting in the latest fad: "3D." I haven't been able to confirm if that means that only the "3D" version of the movie is 48fps, or whether also the 2D version is.

I'm mostly concerned that it'll have the same too-smooth hyperreal video look that utterly, completely and irrecovably ruined the cinematography of both Public Enemies and Miami Vice. I felt so disgusted about the look of the latter I considered demanding my money back - and Michael Mann is in my top 5 directors of all time. Curiously, it worked wonderfully in Collateral which is one of my favorite movies of the previous decade.

In the end I guess 48fps is where we're headed, and in 5-10 years 24fps will start looking outdated - and in 20 it'll be retro cool again. I hope Mr Jackson has the decency to make a good movie, instead of resorting to pure visual bravado, lacking substance and with the misanthropic story like Avatar did.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2011, 07:49:22 PM by feppe » Logged

Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2011, 11:56:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Shooting at a higher frame rate is actually a technical requirement for 3D. Cameron himself prefers to shoot at 60p or more. It won't matter if the story is told well, will it?
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2011, 05:55:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Shooting at a higher frame rate is actually a technical requirement for 3D.

It's not a technical requirement; it's possible to shoot 3D at 24fps, but it would have an effective framerate of 12fps, which would look jerky.
Logged

Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2011, 06:32:30 AM »
ReplyReply

You misunderstood my definition of technical requirement. Anyway, the higher the frame rate, the better the 3D effect. 48fps probably is a compromise between 24 and 60fps, plus the fact that PJ uses a lot of slo-mo. It makes perfect sense in his case.
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2011, 09:35:33 AM »
ReplyReply

You misunderstood my definition of technical requirement.

No, I didn't; the phrase you used incorrectly implies one needs higher than 24fps to get a 3D effect.
Logged

Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2011, 12:56:39 PM »
ReplyReply

You are right. I should have been more precise.
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2011, 01:04:48 PM »
ReplyReply

How are the stereo cameras set up - are they both 48fps, or are 2x24fps combined to yield 48fps 3D picture? If latter, it wouldn't help smooth out slomo - although there's some very convincing software available to do that in post (think that's Twixor), technique pioneered by John Gaeta in The Matrix -, and the 2D version of the film would be in traditional 24fps.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2011, 01:07:54 PM by feppe » Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2011, 02:10:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree with feppe about the effect of higher frame rates as far as regular 2D projection goes. If the 2D version is at 48fps the result would be similar to what you get from some of the newer 120hz flat panel TV's which interpolate to higher frame rates - something I don't care for at all. Some people like that hyper-real 3D look, but I personally would rather not have movies look like soap operas or news broadcasts.
Logged

Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1705


« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2011, 03:41:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Higher acquisition speeds than the traditional 24 fps used by film cameras have decided advantages.  I shot aerials in Showscan format many years ago and the 60 fps camera rate made for some remarkably clear imagery. However, crystal clear rendition of motion may not be consistent with the film-maker's creative vision.  Motion blur can be attractive to the eye, as any computer animator knows.

James Cameron knows what he's doing.  He's considering using 60 fps for future 3D productions.  "Good!", I say.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2011, 06:40:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree with feppe about the effect of higher frame rates as far as regular 2D projection goes. If the 2D version is at 48fps the result would be similar to what you get from some of the newer 120hz flat panel TV's which interpolate to higher frame rates - something I don't care for at all.
I think that the "guesswork" of so-called 120Hz tvs cannot be directly compared to the real information recorded by increased capture rates.

I am all for equipment that has the capability of increased realism. If someone wants the esthetics of jerky 24fps, that is easy to do in postproduction, but the other way around is harder.

-h
Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2011, 07:28:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Here's an article about someone who probably knows what he is talking about: http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/james-cameron-wants-avatar-2-to-be-60fps-3d-2011041/
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2011, 07:47:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Info from Peter Jackson here: http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/48-frames-per-second/10150222861171558

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2011, 08:04:47 AM »
ReplyReply


Thanks - he puts a clear marketing spin into it, but I'll pass judgment when I see it. It looks like it's 2x48fps, so the 2D version will be available at 48fps as well.

I wonder how Bluray and 2D/3D TV standards work with 48fps and 60fps. It won't go well with the consumers if they are expected to buy a new set in 3-5 years to display 48/60fps.
Logged

Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2011, 08:13:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Absolutely we need to see it, but there's no reason why it shouldn't look great, and also provide a perfect 24fps extraction for legacy applications - indeed, that's the true beauty of it. Although a bit more expensive in WETA render times for all the VFX, it's almost a no-risk experiment.

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2011, 06:50:28 PM »
ReplyReply

fascinating!  although i truly wish he'd left out the analogy regarding vinyl and cd's - a properly setup and aligned turntable with a decent moving coil cartridge simply blows away any cd.......
Logged

Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2011, 06:55:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Agreed on the vinyl, John.

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2011, 07:00:19 PM »
ReplyReply

CDs don't sound like crap because of an inherent shortcoming of the technology, but because of loudness war. You can't press a vinyl with flat audio, ie. lacking headroom (dynamic range) and have it play properly (or so I've heard), but you can do so with CDs.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 07:15:32 PM by feppe » Logged

Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2011, 07:30:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Loudness war certainly doesn't help. There's a lot that can be done in the mastering process that can destroy the music. CD though, as a sound replay medium, has come on a long way since it's inception, and when done well, it can be quite superb indeed. The main issues I see with digital audio are not in that it's sampled, but that often such poor filters are used in the sampling and reconstruction process.

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2011, 10:37:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Graeme:  Agreed!  In respect to "loudness" or more properly dynamic range; analog media such as an LP is capable of storing relevant musical information well under the noise floor, not to mention intangibles such as timing and pace.  Great or poor engineering is exactly that, irrespective of the medium.

Feppe:  Two legendary mastering engineers, Stan Ricker and Bob Ludwig would disagree with you.

Finally, I don't mean to hijack this thread or confuse the issue - digital audio is quite a different thing than digital imaging, primarilly because of the issues raised in the Stereophile article.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 10:47:37 PM by John.Murray » Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad