The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras

[Jon Fairhurst]

Yeah, that's the saving grace for Peter Jackson. He can play every other frame twice and will end up with 24 fps. In fact, cinema projectors already double or triple fire the frames. The screen flashes at 48 fps or 72 fps, but you see the same image two or three times. That keeps you from seeing the room flicker dark and light but preserves the 24 fps motion.

If I were Jackson, I'd do some 24 fps prints and some 48 fps prints - as well as some that are mixed with 48 fps only for fast motion scenes. Take those three versions, show them to test audiences, and see how they react.

Sign me up. I want to see all three!

[Brian Drysdale]

Here's an interview with Douglas Trumbull about high frame rates, poor screen brightness and what he's doing now:

Episode IV: THE NEW CINEMA OF DOUGLAS TRUMBULL - AIN'T IT COOL With Harry Knowles - YouTube

[Ryan Laytart]

I have some friends that aren't too happy about the 48 fps news... but to me it seems like it would be going from 60hz to 120hz. I got used to it pretty quickly.

The article I read about The Hobbit is that it will be available in SIX formats. lol.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

It was a business model that gave us 24p in the first place. Just about the slowest ( least celluloid used) frame rate that gave usable sound for the new sound movies. It did not meet either need well but just sufficient to make the business work. People have got used to the deficiencies and sound has been solved in other ways.

Exactly so - 24 frames per second was never chosen for "magical" artistic reasons - it was purely for economic ones, the lowest that could be gotten away with come sound. The studios would have preferred to continue with 16(ish)fps as in silent days and a three bladed shutter to keep the flicker down. The move to 24fps was purely driven by the need for a higher than 12ips linear speed for sound, and 24fps met the criteria for (just) acceptable sound, ease of implementation (change a 3 blade shutter to 2 blade) etc, whilst being the minimum possible for economy.

If 48fps hadn't meant doubling the film stock usage (and hence cost) it's pretty certain it would have been adopted then. It's pretty funny to hear 24fps now being given all these artistic attributes.

Yes, there used to be a big difference between "film look" and "video look", but it was way more significant than frame rate. Contrast range, highlight handling, interframe lag, comet tailing, artificial detail enhancement are just a few of the ways that made "video" look that way, and a way that most people found inferior artistically. (Rightly, IMO.)

But now it's vastly different. Electronic camera design has improved to the point where electronic cameras can match film in most of those respects - and higher frame rates don't come at the price penalties that film imposed. Unfortunately, frame rate has got added into the equation, not because 24fp is really better, but it's what people are used to.

I suspect that all production will inevitably move to 48fps, and it won't be long before it becomes the norm. At some point, a future generation will look back at those "old" films and say "don't they look jerky!" - a bit like we may now do with silent films.

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by David Heath

Yes, there used to be a big difference between "film look" and "video look", but it was way more significant than frame rate. Contrast range, highlight handling, interframe lag, comet tailing, artificial detail enhancement are just a few of the ways that made "video" look that way, and a way that most people found inferior artistically. (Rightly, IMO.)

I have to disagree that those factors were more significant than frame rate. In the late 80's when I was working at a small production company, I discovered that switching a frame synchronizer to "field" output from "frame" output effectively produced a 30 fps effect and the company started marketing the results to clients as a low cost alternative to film. I was also doing whatever I could on the camera side of things to mask the video look as well--lots of filtering, avoiding highlights, lighting film-style etc., but until I ran that footage through the processor, it just looked like well-shot video. A few years later I started sending projects to Filmlook who had the original 60i to 24p processing facility, which became my new "secret sauce".

The F900 and subsequent prosumer cameras like the DVX100 were far improved over the Plumbicon camera I was using back in those days, but those too suffered from highlight clipping etc. Still, they were good enough to fool a lot of people into thinking they were seeing film-originated footage.

If you were to put an F900 in 24p mode against a 48fp Epic and if you were to ask the average viewer which looked more filmic, which more resembled the news or live TV, my money would be on the 24p footage.

Really, the whole thing comes down to a programmed response as noted in posts above. I have no doubt that young kids who have grown up around 120hz TV's will take to high frame rate origination without much fuss. It may take a while to re-program the general majority and some will never feel that it is quite right, so I wouldn't expect that this will take hold overnight. People like what they like, and their wallets do the talking. If 3D had been the slamdunk financial success that the industry hoped it would be, you'd be seeing far more 3D movies and programming today.

On a sidenote and relating to the Filmlook process I mentioned above, it's a pretty fascinating story: a guy running a small post house in Burbank gets a patent for the 24p reverse telecine process, and subsequently all of the manufacturers of 24p cameras have had to pay him licensing fees since. You can well imagine he's not hoping for the 48 fps standard to popularize.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

I have to disagree that those factors were more significant than frame rate. In the late 80's when I was working at a small production company, I discovered that switching a frame synchronizer to "field" output from "frame" output effectively produced a 30 fps effect and the company started marketing the results to clients as a low cost alternative to film. I was also .......but until I ran that footage through the processor, it just looked like well-shot video. .

I don't disagree with any of that - if you wanted to make conventional video appear to look more like film, then yes, you need to change frame rate.

But it needs to be asked WHY anyone may think "film look" is better in the first place, WHY anyone may prefer the "look" of film. I'd argue it's there where the points I raised are significant. If film had run at 48fps ever since sound came in, I highly doubt that we'd be having this discussion - it would just be seen as the (desirable) norm.

Imagine film had always been 48fps, video had come along with 24p by default. Do you think any single person would be arguing along the lines of "well, the film look is nicer in a lot of ways, but I really prefer the "judder" of video"? (I suspect this is what Charles may mean with "If you were to put an F900 in 24p mode against a 48fp Epic ......."?)

I'd argue that the process Charles describes got used because film productions tended to be higher budget (and hence likely better produced). The "film effect" here was a psychological trick of the time to help make people subconsciously think the film was a higher budget than in reality - it had little to do with real quality. Hopefully, we can now get beyond that.

Go back 20 years and some attributes of film were unarguably superior to video - dynamic range, lack of edginess, etc. In other ways some film attributes were unarguably inferior - grain, weave in the gate, scratches etc. Frame rate may have been seen as a difference - but not necessarily one in favour of film. It's time now to stop thinking of making electronic cameras look just like film used to, and aim for the best that each system was known for. I'd argue that means letting 24fps R.I.P.

[Thomas Smet]

In the end our DVD and Blu-ray copies of the Hobbit will be 24p anyway since I'm not sure you could cram 48p onto those mediums very well. A lot of streaming video technologies cannot really go above 30p either. I guess you could convert 48p to a 50i disc but what the heck would you want that for? I will never buy it if they went 50i over 24p or 25p.

[Bob Hart]

Here's a piece of mischief to chuck into the stew. To optically trick the human eyeball into seeing smooth motion, cinema projection rotary shutters have been as I understand it 48FPS for years as in two flashes of the 24FPS frame.

So if every second frame is filmed out and projected from film conventionally it should look more "normal" except perhaps for a higher apparent shutter speed which will make it appear a bit more stuttery as in "Saving Private Ryan" battle scenes.

There will be post-production fixes if there is severe audience resistance. My guess is, with time we shall become accustomed to it.

24FPS is probably a conditioned default trigger in the brain to suspend "reality". Enhanced reality in reproduced images may therefore paradoxically defeat the ability of audiences to suspend belief and embrace the fictional world they are being taken into. I imagine that peripheral vision tricks to induce scares will work better.

[Simon Wood]

Lucas got his wish for digital cinema.
Cameron has brought back 3D.
Jackson brought back high frame rates.
I guess that only leaves us Spielberg to bring back smell-o-vision?

The funny thing is that most of this is rehashing older concepts that have already failed:

3D is nothing new in theory, its been and gone a number of times. The public usually lost interest after the novelty wore off.

Higher frame rates ware successfully demonstrated with Showscan. The public was uninterested after much the same response that was encountered at the Hobbit screening.

I'm definitely going to try and catch The Hobbit in the format that Jackson is recommending to give it the benefit of the doubt. But history has a way of repeating itself...

[Nicholas de Kock]

Personally I'll wait and see for myself before I make any conclusions. I've seen some horrible 24FPS slow motion work in films that makes me wonder how film makers get away passing that crap commercially. Cinematic is not a frame rate, it's story, acting, lighting, camera motion, set design, blah blah bla....

Interesting discussion...

Great Frame Rate Debate - Part 2 - Schubin, Trumbull - YouTube

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Simon Wood

Higher frame rates ware successfully demonstrated with Showscan. The public was uninterested after much the same response that was encountered at the Hobbit screening

Was it that the public were uninterested, or that they weren't interested ENOUGH for the studios to justify the large extra expense of film stock? I suspect the latter - and now the extra expense of 48fps over that of 24fps is nowhere near what it was in the days of celluloid film, it's no longer of question of why do it, but why not do it!?!

I'd also disagree about 3D. I think general audiences like the idea in principle - but the good bits come with bad. Glasses is probably the most obvious, brightness levels another, but my own experience is whatever you think of 24fps for 2D movies, it's totally inadequate for 3D with any real movement at all. A headache causer. Eventually, I'd expect the other objections to be overcome via technology and that's when 3D will become really mainstream, but better than 24fps will certainly make a big advance IMO.

I also agree with the views in the discussion in the previous link - 24fps came about not through any "magical" or psychological reason, purely that it was a compromise between quality and economy.

[Jon Fairhurst]

No doubt that 24p came about due to technological compromises, but I think it has flourished due to its subtle appeal. Had films since The Jazz Singer been shot at 48 fps, maybe our society would think that 48fps is a cue for the magical world of Hollywood. Who knows? I just know that my personal experience is that fast frame rates make things look real, and that narrative film is more effective when things are pseudo-real. Heck, we wouldn't grade scenes to be dark, orange-teal or silver-green netherworlds if we wanted reality. Dracula would show up at the drug store and the wolfman would raid Starbucks if reality were the goal. ("Is that Frankenstein in the SUV next to us, honey?")

One could also say that we are conditioned to have comedies brightly lit, dramas darker, and horror darkest. Conditioning or not, it's effective.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

No doubt that 24p came about due to technological compromises, but I think it has flourished due to its subtle appeal.

I think the reason it's flourished is simply because it was "the standard", end of story. Shoot film, it's 24fps, simple as that.

Had films since The Jazz Singer been shot at 48 fps, maybe our society would think that 48fps is a cue for the magical world of Hollywood. Who knows?

Yes!

Heck, we wouldn't grade scenes to be dark, orange-teal or silver-green netherworlds if we wanted reality.
.....
One could also say that we are conditioned to have comedies brightly lit, dramas darker, and horror darkest. Conditioning or not, it's effective.

Fully agreed, but I suspect a decent psychologist would be able to tell you exactly why it "works" for a comedy to be bright, a serious drama darker, etc, why such are fundamental to human psychology. Same for many attributes which are to do with individual frames - "edginess" of detail, dynamic range etc.

But framerate is different, more a conditioned attitude than an intrinsic one. We've got used to 24fps in the cinema, therefore 24fps is associated with cinema. But such can be unlearnt in a way that the former can't.

All this is nothing new, and similar remarks were made with the coming of sound and the coming of colour, they certainly weren't universally welcomed at the time.

[Jon Fairhurst]

But does the "why" matter? 24 fps feels hypnotic and dreamy. High frame rates feel real and dull. Whether intrinsic or learned, it's true for our audience.

[Charles Papert]

And I think we all agree that future audiences (i.e. children of today) will be able to assimilate 48p without issue--the question is, whether the adult public can "unlearn" and embrace. As I indicated before, the only factor that counts is ticket sales. I highly doubt whether I can ever unlearn my associations of 24 fps vs 48 or 60 etc; it's ingrained in me as a viewer and as a cinematographer. It's not like 48 fps video is going to be a whole new look; obviously I've seen and shot 60i and 60p footage for years so it's not something I have to get used to. When shooting high speed material on HD, the easiest way for me to tell that the camera is switched to the right mode is because it looks "newsy" on the monitor. I hate watching movies on a plasma or LCD that has 120hz mode (certainly it's the first thing I turn off when I buy a display, but I see glimpses in department stores or bars etc. and it's literally unpleasant for me to watch).

David--to clarify my comparison of an F900 in 24p mode vs an Epic in 48p: the point I was trying to make is that while the Epic as a camera may be more inherently filmic in the various ways you detailed--better dynamic range, resolution, shallower depth of field etc., the F900 footage in 24p frame rate would, in my estimation, cause more laypeople to consider that a more filmic image than the Epic. My argument being that frame rate is the most critical visual cue that separates narrative from news/sports/reality.