jackson shooting the hobbit films in 3d @ 48fps

[aedipuss]

interesting. anyone have any idea if he's shooting on filmstock or digital?

http://www.shadowlocked.com/201104121721/news/peter-jackson-easing-3d-eyestrain-for-the-hobbit.html

[intracube]

Digitally, with the Red Epic cameras:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/28/peter-jackson-nabs-thirty-red-epic-cameras-to-film-the-hobbit-t/

It'll be interesting to see how much the look of the movie is changed by shooting at 48fps.

In the past when film has been tested at higher frame-rates, some have commented that movement looks too much like TV.

While that may be true, I would've thought that the choice of lenses, shallow depth of field, high production values, vfx etc would mitigate against that.

As digital cinema becomes more popular, having the option of shooting at higher frame-rates has got to be a good thing, IMO.

[aedipuss]

i don't mind the digital look, except when crud like rolling shutter distortion is noticable. and those reds have big rolling shutter cmos chips.

[edDV]

Must have jerky film look to provide illusion?

Seems to be all the talk since Cameron's NAB keynote.

[deadrats]

i have to be honest, i've seen some 60fps 720p and 1080p and thought it was great, i don't understand how the 24fps international film standard came about, i would assume that shooting the film at 48fps should provide much higher quality than shooting at 24fps.

[aedipuss]

the higher quality comes at the cost of not being compatible with any current projection equipment. they are hoping to update the digital projectors firmware and increase the throughput of the drives to handle double the data rate. no "film" projectors will handle 48fps.

[redwudz]

Just curious, how do they shoot a digital movie video in 3D? Special lens or a two camera setup?

[aedipuss]

things like this panny AG-3DP1.

[Cornucopia]

They'd only use that cam on a FEW 2nd unit shots, if at all. No, the 2 current main feature cinema setups/rigs for true 3D shooting are both 2 camera - 1st is side-by-side, 2nd is using a beamsplitter (there hopefully will be a 3rd ).

Scott

[Cornucopia]

The problem with 48fps+3D is that most new Digital Cinema projectors may do 48fps, but only for 2D. To make it 3D, you'd have to do 96fps total (and that's without double- or triple-flashing). It's not in the DCI spec. Not sure how they're gonna get around that without having dual projectors.

But, I'm excited to hear Jackson is back in the pilot seat for that flick - there was alot of turmoil in getting the project started.

Scott

[elkfir]

Douglas Trumbull developed a cinematic process back in the '70's that photographed and projected at 60fps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan

"Showscan...renders a picture that is not only extremely high in definition, but is dramatically smoother and more realistic in its rendering of motion, similar to that seen in video."

[jagabo]

Can't IMAX theaters handle 48 Hz 3d? In any case, it will also be available as 24 Hz 3d and 2d for theaters that can't handle it.

[intracube]

i have to be honest, i've seen some 60fps 720p and 1080p and thought it was great, i don't understand how the 24fps international film standard came about, i would assume that shooting the film at 48fps should provide much higher quality than shooting at 24fps.

Shooting films at 48fps would require twice the amount of film stock (added expense). Also the lighting requirements would probably be higher as each frame would be exposed for half the amount of time (even more expense).

It seems in the early days of film, the decision was more 'What's the minimum frame rate we can use to give the illusion of movement' rather than 'what frame rate gives the most realistic/transparent viewing experience'.

Months ago I read an interesting page explaining frame rates and the early days of cinema. It said that both the shooting frame rate and play back frame rate could vary, based on the wishes of the director. Even if a film was shot at 20fps, the director might request the projectionist to show the film at a higher frame rate to give a different 'feel' to the movie.
EDIT: found the link:
http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/18_kb_2.htm

Just curious, how do they shoot a digital movie video in 3D? Special lens or a two camera setup?

American Cinematographer did an article about this:
http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/January2010/Avatar/page1.php

also:
http://electronicsnews4u.blogspot.com/2010/06/avatar-new-technology-in-cinema.html
-click on photo at the bottom of the page

[redwudz]

intracube, Thanks, great links.

[Seeker47]

Douglas Trumbull developed a cinematic process back in the '70's that photographed and projected at 60fps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan

"Showscan...renders a picture that is not only extremely high in definition, but is dramatically smoother and more realistic in its rendering of motion, similar to that seen in video."

I saw the Showscan demo many years ago, and recall it being very impressive. It did have a hyper-real / immersive "You Are There" feel to it, which did not strike me as being all that akin to video, either. From what I remember, this process only found a limited amount of business -- for amusement park attractions, mainly -- and that could be a loss to the history of cinema. It was a lot more compelling than 3D, IMHO. (Even good 2D IMAX or Omnimax is better than 3D.) But, if anything more was ever to come of it, we would have heard something by now.

[yoda313]

(Even good 2D IMAX or Omnimax is better than 3D.)

Isn't omnimax the dome version of imax?

There used to be one of those in the metro Detroit area and that was stomach chruning with the wrap around of the dome. If your eyes wondered off from dead center any flight type movement left you sick.

But I like flat imax. That is just phenomenal. I had seen Star Wars episode 2 at imax on a flat screen and was impressed (I believe the domed imax got replaced). (fyi that was before the extended play time at imax theaters and they had cut a lot out of the movie to fit the roll (what was it two hours max or something? Can't remember)

[Seeker47]

(Even good 2D IMAX or Omnimax is better than 3D.)

Isn't omnimax the dome version of imax?

Correct.

There used to be one of those in the metro Detroit area and that was stomach chruning with the wrap around of the dome. If your eyes wondered off from dead center any flight type movement left you sick.

The few times I saw an Omnimax presentation, I did not have that problem. Much more of an issue might be what it could do to your neck. (Chiropractor, here we come !) The seats did not have the sort of headrest you would need to remain comfortable for that.

The last time I saw an Omni was several years ago in L.V. (Caesars Palace ?) There may be very few of them left, these days.

But I like flat imax. That is just phenomenal. I had seen Star Wars episode 2 at imax on a flat screen and was impressed (I believe the domed imax got replaced). (fyi that was before the extended play time at imax theaters and they had cut a lot out of the movie to fit the roll (what was it two hours max or something? Can't remember)

At one time, it was more like 70 minutes -- could even have been 45. I think the turning point was that Rolling Stones documentary. (Not the more recent one that Scorcese did, but the earlier one.) After that, IMAX seemed to have turned the corner, and we started seeing some "feature length" presentations.

[CubDukat]

Douglas Trumbull developed a cinematic process back in the '70's that photographed and projected at 60fps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan

"Showscan...renders a picture that is not only extremely high in definition, but is dramatically smoother and more realistic in its rendering of motion, similar to that seen in video."

Having actually seen Showscan in action, it is definitely something to behold.

Unfortunately, it was also every expensive, which is why the various Showscan films out there are no longer than 20 minutes.

It was a lot like the jolt you'd get from seeing something at ordinary 480i, then seeing that same material at 1080p resolution.

It'll certainly be interesting to see if Jackson's plans work out similarly. Perhaps he can achieve what Trumbull never did: setting a new official standard. And as much of a fan of 35mm as I am, I'm starting to come around to the idea that maybe 24p HD production really has come of age now. I'm definitely gonna see how it works out...

[edDV]

Douglas Trumbull developed a cinematic process back in the '70's that photographed and projected at 60fps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan

"Showscan...renders a picture that is not only extremely high in definition, but is dramatically smoother and more realistic in its rendering of motion, similar to that seen in video."

I saw the Showscan demo many years ago, and recall it being very impressive. It did have a hyper-real / immersive "You Are There" feel to it, which did not strike me as being all that akin to video, either. From what I remember, this process only found a limited amount of business -- for amusement park attractions, mainly -- and that could be a loss to the history of cinema. It was a lot more compelling than 3D, IMHO. (Even good 2D IMAX or Omnimax is better than 3D.) But, if anything more was ever to come of it, we would have heard something by now.

48p is only near as "hyper-real" as 50p/50i but less "hyper-real" vs 60p/60i.

The only difference is you are seeing a film vs. video projection. Today that doesn't make much difference for 4kx2k.

[CubDukat]

Douglas Trumbull developed a cinematic process back in the '70's that photographed and projected at 60fps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan

"Showscan...renders a picture that is not only extremely high in definition, but is dramatically smoother and more realistic in its rendering of motion, similar to that seen in video."

I saw the Showscan demo many years ago, and recall it being very impressive. It did have a hyper-real / immersive "You Are There" feel to it, which did not strike me as being all that akin to video, either. From what I remember, this process only found a limited amount of business -- for amusement park attractions, mainly -- and that could be a loss to the history of cinema. It was a lot more compelling than 3D, IMHO. (Even good 2D IMAX or Omnimax is better than 3D.) But, if anything more was ever to come of it, we would have heard something by now.

Showscan, Inc. went bankrupt, and Trumbull eventually retired. There's only so much you can make off of 20-minute movies shown at Showbiz Pizza.

The reality is that any kind of large-format motion picture production is going to be expensive, especially one that goes through two times the footage in a minute that conventional 24fps 70mm does. In addition, there's always the risks you take whenever you run film through a camera at higher than normal speeds for a sustained period of time. In short, Showscan just wasn't cost-effective.

[edDV]

Did "Showscan" use a 1x gate? or 2x (96 Hz rate)?

Ahh a wiki ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan

65 mm film, but photographs and projects it at 60 frames per second – 2.5 times faster than standard movie film.[1] It renders a picture that is not only extremely high in definition, but is dramatically smoother and more realistic in its rendering of motion, similar to that seen in video.

a series of tests with 35 mm stock filmed and projected at various speeds, shown to audiences who were instrumented to biometrically test their responses. He found that as the frame rate increased, so did the viewer's emotional reaction.

Trumbull discovered that although viewers see smooth motion from film displayed at 24 frames per second (fps), the standard in motion pictures for decades, they are subconsciously still aware of the flicker. This awareness reduces the emotional impact of the film. As the speed of projection ramped up, so did the emotional response, peaking at 72 fps. After that speed, no further improvements were noted.

[The village idiot]

One reason to use 48fps is simply because it shows less jello from the rolling shutter. Grab a GoPro HD and do recordings at both 720p settings (30 and 60 fps) and compare if you need to check what I just said.

[intracube]

One reason to use 48fps is simply because it shows less jello from the rolling shutter. Grab a GoPro HD and do recordings at both 720p settings (30 and 60 fps) and compare if you need to check what I just said.

The rolling shutter effect isn't inherently tied to the framerate used. In basic consumer cameras (like the GoPro) it might be - because of design limitations. But for high end cameras the effect has been greatly reduced, irrespective of the fps.

The Sony F950, HDC1500 and F23 were listed as being used on Avatar, and they all have CCD sensors.

Post #10 here has details on the read-reset time of the various Red cameras. They say they've halved the time for their more recent cameras compared to the Red One.

Cameras like the Arri Studio and Sony CineAlta F65 additionally have a physical rotating shutter which functions as a global shutter. Arri/Sony say this eliminates the rolling shutter/jello artefacts:
http://www.arri.de/camera/digital_cameras/learn/alexa_faq.html
http://www.eoshd.com/content/3921/sony-cinealta-f65-8k-priced-to-compete-with-arri-ale...a-and-red-epic
- search for rolling shutter on both pages.

[aedipuss]

rolling shutter is only within a single frame and has to do how slowly each individual pixel of a cmos sensor is read from left to right and then down to the next horizontal row starting over again at the left. shutter speed has no affect on it.

[Hoser Rob]

I just wish Guillermo del Toro was still going to direct. Jackson really needs a hit these days, so I can't blame him for taking over, but still...