http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/your-comments-on-48-fps/10150235459531558
We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious 48fps.
We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious 48fps.
Whoa - Hobbit at 48 fps
- Thread starter glen
- Start date
Time for an update. Actually, we've been intending to kick off with a video, which is almost done, so look out for that in the next day or two. In the meantime, I thought I'd address the news that has been reported about us shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 frames per second, and explain to you what my thoughts are about this.
We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps, rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920's). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok--and we've all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years--but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or "strobe."
Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D. We've been watching HOBBIT tests and dailies at 48 fps now for several months, and we often sit through two hours worth of footage without getting any eye strain from the 3-D. It looks great, and we've actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring. We're getting spoilt!
Originally, 24 fps was chosen based on the technical requirements of the early sound era. I suspect it was the minimum speed required to get some audio fidelity out of the first optical sound tracks. They would have settled on the minimum speed because of the cost of the film stock. 35mm film is expensive, and the cost per foot (to buy the negative stock, develop it and print it), has been a fairly significant part of any film budget.
So we have lived with 24 fps for 9 decades--not because it's the best film speed (it's not by any stretch), but because it was the cheapest speed to achieve basic acceptable results back in 1927 or whenever it was adopted.
None of this thinking is new. Doug Trumbull developed and promoted a 60 frames per second process called ShowScan about 30 years ago and that looked great. Unfortunately it was never adopted past theme park use. I imagine the sheer expense of burning through expensive film stock at the higher speed (you are charged per foot of film, which is about 18 frames), and the projection difficulties in cinemas, made it tough to use for "normal" films, despite looking amazing. Actually, if anybody has been on the Star Tours ride at Disneyland, you've experienced the life like quality of 60 frames per second. Our new King Kong attraction at Universal Studios also uses 60 fps.
Now that the world's cinemas are moving towards digital projection, and many films are being shot with digital cameras, increasing the frame rate becomes much easier. Most of the new digital projectors are capable of projecting at 48 fps, with only the digital servers needing some firmware upgrades. We tested both 48 fps and 60 fps. The difference between those speeds is almost impossible to detect, but the increase in quality over 24 fps is significant.
Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew--many of whom are film purists--are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience. It's similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs. There's no doubt in my mind that we're heading towards movies being shot and projected at higher frame rates.
Warner Bros. have been very supportive, and allowed us to start shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps, despite there never having been a wide release feature film filmed at this higher frame rate. We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out where we can seriously explore that possibility with Warner Bros. However, while it's predicted that there may be over 10,000 screens capable of projecting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps by our release date in Dec, 2012, we don’t yet know what the reality will be. It is a situation we will all be monitoring carefully. I see it as a way of future-proofing THE HOBBIT. Take it from me--if we do release in 48 fps, those are the cinemas you should watch the movie in. It will look terrific!
Time to jump in the car and drive to Bag End for the day. Video coming soon!
We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps, rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920's). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok--and we've all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years--but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or "strobe."
Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D. We've been watching HOBBIT tests and dailies at 48 fps now for several months, and we often sit through two hours worth of footage without getting any eye strain from the 3-D. It looks great, and we've actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring. We're getting spoilt!
Originally, 24 fps was chosen based on the technical requirements of the early sound era. I suspect it was the minimum speed required to get some audio fidelity out of the first optical sound tracks. They would have settled on the minimum speed because of the cost of the film stock. 35mm film is expensive, and the cost per foot (to buy the negative stock, develop it and print it), has been a fairly significant part of any film budget.
So we have lived with 24 fps for 9 decades--not because it's the best film speed (it's not by any stretch), but because it was the cheapest speed to achieve basic acceptable results back in 1927 or whenever it was adopted.
None of this thinking is new. Doug Trumbull developed and promoted a 60 frames per second process called ShowScan about 30 years ago and that looked great. Unfortunately it was never adopted past theme park use. I imagine the sheer expense of burning through expensive film stock at the higher speed (you are charged per foot of film, which is about 18 frames), and the projection difficulties in cinemas, made it tough to use for "normal" films, despite looking amazing. Actually, if anybody has been on the Star Tours ride at Disneyland, you've experienced the life like quality of 60 frames per second. Our new King Kong attraction at Universal Studios also uses 60 fps.
Now that the world's cinemas are moving towards digital projection, and many films are being shot with digital cameras, increasing the frame rate becomes much easier. Most of the new digital projectors are capable of projecting at 48 fps, with only the digital servers needing some firmware upgrades. We tested both 48 fps and 60 fps. The difference between those speeds is almost impossible to detect, but the increase in quality over 24 fps is significant.
Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew--many of whom are film purists--are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience. It's similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs. There's no doubt in my mind that we're heading towards movies being shot and projected at higher frame rates.
Warner Bros. have been very supportive, and allowed us to start shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps, despite there never having been a wide release feature film filmed at this higher frame rate. We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out where we can seriously explore that possibility with Warner Bros. However, while it's predicted that there may be over 10,000 screens capable of projecting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps by our release date in Dec, 2012, we don’t yet know what the reality will be. It is a situation we will all be monitoring carefully. I see it as a way of future-proofing THE HOBBIT. Take it from me--if we do release in 48 fps, those are the cinemas you should watch the movie in. It will look terrific!
Time to jump in the car and drive to Bag End for the day. Video coming soon!
mmntech
Lifer
- Sep 20, 2007
- 17,501
- 12
- 0
Less blur and smoother movement.
This is even more important when 3d is involved because of the increased eye strain, which this will correspondingly decrease.
One reason I posted this here is to see what other effects people at ATOT might think it will have as I am not an expert on this.
I'm excited to see the difference. I'm one of those picky people who drool at 85hz CRTs and 120hz LCDs cause I can tell the difference.
I don't have any interested in 3D, but rather 2D at 48fps.
I don't have any interested in 3D, but rather 2D at 48fps.
One of the points of a movie theater is that it is significantly better than the average person can achieve at home. Peter is just raising the bar that home theaters are strating to get close to.
Texashiker
Lifer
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
This
I do not understand why anything would be filmed at less then 32 fps anyway? If someone can go to wal-mart and get a camera that films at 32, fps, why shouldnt movies be filmed that way?
Personally, I am wondering why movies are not filmed at 128, or at least 64 fps?
I do not understand why anything would be filmed at less then 32 fps anyway? If someone can go to wal-mart and get a camera that films at 32, fps, why shouldnt movies be filmed that way?
Personally, I am wondering why movies are not filmed at 128, or at least 64 fps?
Ns1
No Lifer
- Jun 17, 2001
- 55,420
- 1,600
- 126
I'd bet the cost of film probably came up somewhere in that discussion long ago.
hanoverphist
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2006
- 9,867
- 23
- 76
we always animated at 30fps just to make it look more fluid. tv is 24 because it saves film, and the human eye can view it without any real blips. now that tvs and cameras are of higher quality, there needs to be new standards to keep that quality level going. while most people dont notice the difference between 24 and 48 fps, once they do it is hard to go backwards again.
Texashiker
Lifer
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
In todays digital age, why are they using physical film?
Wasn't there are recent movie that was filmed in 100% digital format, with no old fashioned film?
Yeah... Hell, even going from 60 hz to 75 hz on my LCD is like night and day, the image is so much easier on the eyes, and everything becomes smoother
Im really excited for this, its about time they moved on from such an outdated frame rate
Ns1
No Lifer
- Jun 17, 2001
- 55,420
- 1,600
- 126
Well in this digital age why are we using physical anything?
The answer to your question is yes, but the issue of digital v film is long standing and there are players who will chastise digital forever. Until recently, many filmmakers have said that digital does not compare to film in quality. (until that red camera came out, shown down below)
I mean shit there are still recording artists who demand TAPE.
Last edited:
SKORPI0
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2000
- 18,483
- 2,418
- 136
FB page forgot to mention that Hobbit will be filmed in 5K (5,120 × 2,700) too. :awe:
http://screenrant.com/the-hobbit-3d-cameras-ian-mckellen-sandy-89710/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company
http://screenrant.com/the-hobbit-3d-cameras-ian-mckellen-sandy-89710/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company
It comes down to detail and dynamic range that is captured by film. Of course RED is doing a pretty great job challenging that.
In the future, we can rescan SW:Episode 4-6 for much higher digital fidelity each time, or you can watch the clusterfvck interpolation of EP1 with the original source stuck at 1080P for ever and ever.
FB page forgot to mention that Hobbit will be filmed in 5K (5,120 × 2,700) too. :awe:
http://screenrant.com/the-hobbit-3d-cameras-ian-mckellen-sandy-89710/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company
IMO until we can digitally shoot at something at a resolution equal to that of films....we shouldn't
gonvik
Member
- Mar 11, 2005
- 119
- 0
- 0
There are quite a number of movies that are shot digitally only: look for David Fincher's latest films like "Zodiac" or "The Social Network".
Then there are movies still shot on film because, well you may not agree, the director prefers the look of film. Quentin Tarantino, for example.
I think there will always be directors and cinematographers who prefer to have their movies shown in 24fps, as well as those who wish to go above that. It's all about what they are looking for to get the audience best absorbed into the story.
hanoverphist
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2006
- 9,867
- 23
- 76
ive been out of college and the animation business for about a decade, i dont know why. except that digital projectors are hellishly not cheap, and i bet most normal theaters are still fitted with film projectors. also, film gives some effects you cant easily reproduce digitally. some say its "warmer, more realistic" looking. same reason a lot of tv shows will filter some grain into their shows now to compensate for the 240hz refresh of newer HD tvs making the show look too fake.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter