Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

latimesblogs.latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 141 posts

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#41

Post by jonhohle »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #12

My idea of great film tech? 8K, 60fps, and true 3-D (not the hokey 2-level thing) It'd be awesome, but it's a long, long way away. As Jim says, this is low-hanging fruit. Easily done with most everything that's on the shelf today.

It may be low hanging fruit, but imagine rotoscope work on a 24fps feature vs a 60fps feature. The work has just increased 2.5x for the same shot.

For fully rendered content, there is likely no additional man hour time, but for any frame by frame work involving humans, post processing could take a lot longer.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#43

Post by jrockway »

bartman wrote: post #29
jrockway wrote: post #24

I'm a big fan of 60fps video. It takes a bit of getting used to because it looks so different, but after you watch 60fps content for a while, 30fps content looks like a slideshow -- almost unwatchable. (And there's plenty of content that's 60fps, just not a lot of American content that's 60fps.)

Could you give some examples?

Visit your favorite torrent site that has Japanese TV shows and search for 60fps. (Sometimes the video is encoded as 30fps and is interlaced, in which case you need to turn on bob deinterlacing to get 60fps. But this seems to be rather rare these days.)

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#44

Post by BoppreH »

kwantam wrote: post #17
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"120 fps ought to be enough for everyone."

Given the way your eyes work... yes! 120FPS is beyond almost everyone's internal "frame rate," so going any higher really doesn't make much sense except in special cases (trying to deliver different frames to each eye using higher frame rate and shutter glasses, for example).

I can't recall the source, but this "max eye frame rate" was shown to be a misinterpretation.

The individual eye's components do have a frame rate, but they are not synchronized, so the eye as a whole can detect changes smaller than that.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#45

Post by 9999 »

alabut wrote: post #22

Film geeks in here will eat up the story of MaxVision48 - it's an equally inexpensive upgrade to existing film capture and projection that results in a much higher picture quality, way higher than even the Red camera. Check out this infographic on Roger Ebert's blog comparing the different formats: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2011/01/resolution%... The full blog post is well worth a read, especially give…

In what way is it equally inexpensive to shoot twice as much film and use twice as much film to make every print? Digital tech is what's going to make high framerate capture and playback economical.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#46

Post by alexqgb »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #26
alabut wrote: post #22

Film geeks in here will eat up the story of MaxVision48 - it's an equally inexpensive upgrade to existing film capture and projection that results in a much higher picture quality, way higher than even the Red camera. Check out this infographic on Roger Ebert's blog comparing the different formats: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2011/01/resolution%... The full blog post is well worth a read, especially give…

That chart is seriously misleading. They wanted to represent the 2x increase in framerate, so they showed that as a 4x increase in resolution, which doesn't make any sense. And they seem to suggest that RED made the entire chart, which they didn't. RED made the accurate part of the chart, but MaxiVision48 added their own nonsense. The impression I get about this company is that they tried to sell a product to a bunch…

"BluRay. It's the next generation of a dead technology."

Slightly off topic, but you just nailed it, sir. Upvoted accordingly.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#47

Post by alexqgb »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #13

> The filmmaker said that when he begins shooting the "Avatar" sequel in about 18 months, he will be shooting at a higher frame rate, though he has yet to decide if that will be 48 fps or 60 fps. He said George Lucas was "gung-ho" to make the conversion, and also called Peter Jackson one of his allies. Jackson, he said, had at one point been heavily weighing shooting "The Hobbit" at 48 fps. Awesome! It's finally happ…

This sounds a lot like "Now that we have color film, it's time for B&W to find it's true place - in the history books. It's time to move on."

Which is not to say that 24p won't get largely eclipsed. I suspect it will. But not because it's universally 'better'- just more appropriate to a growing number of things.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#49

Post by iuytghyjuyh »

deskamess wrote: post #30

What would be the impact on movie theaters? I am looking at this from the perspective of the simple 2D (non 3D) projection system. I assume if they have a modern digital 2D playback system this may not be a problem. However, what if they have just good ol' projectors that require film reels? Questions on my mind: - Can we roll film at a higher speed on the projector? Can we double the reel intake rate it if we go wit…

This is going to be for digital projection. Running the film at twice the speed would need new projectors, new film handling and so on - the physical film size would be twice as long and moving twice as fast.

Interestingly movie projectors do show 48fps - they simply have a shutter which exposes the film twice and then advances a frame. It would be trivial to project it more times but you wouldn't gain any more motion - just reduced flicker.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#50

Post by VMG »

Fargren wrote: post #40
swah wrote: post #32

Hm, I was still stuck into the "above 30 FPS the eye cannot notice the difference" mindset. What's going on?

That was never correct. The eye is not a camera, it doesn't work at frames per second. http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm Humans can notice stuff that hapens in 1/200th of a second.

Excellent link, thanks.

His other pages are worth a look too, you can find them in the upper-left corner under FAQ.

It is nice to see that I'm not the only hacker with an interest in video technology.

Post reply on HN