James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps) • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by alexqgb » Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 8:30 PM UTC

bpeebles wrote: post #33

jwr wrote: post #27

Notice he's leaning towards 48p as opposed to 60p, which is an already standardized framerate that your modern TV likely supports. I do not think that is an accident. After all, once we all buy our new 3D TVs, something will have to happen for people to buy new TVs again in 3-4 years. And before you mention bandwidth considerations, I do not have actual data, but I suspect that when using H.264 High Profile, the diff…

48 divides evenly into 240, so in theory a 240Hz TV could take a 48Hz signal and display it without any pulldowns, while 120Hz is 2.5 times 48, so it needs to do some work to create extra frames. (And really, that's the main advantage, currently, of 120Hz and 240Hz: 24, 30, and 60 (the primary American frame rates) all divide evenly into them, unlike 24 into 60).

Seems like you wouldn't count on the TV to do this work. Instead, you'd shoot at 48, then convert to 60 before delivery, in the same way that TV shows shot on film and edited at 24p subsequently convert to 25 for PAL markets and 29.97 for NTSC.

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

#52

Post by ChuckMcM » Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 8:34 PM UTC

mhb wrote: post #35

ChuckMcM wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a cinematographer but having gone to USC I met and talked with some (both aspiring and those who came back to give guest lectures). There was a digital projection system back in the 80's which had 60fps video, the output was much more 'real' in the sense of looking at the screen seemed more like you were looking at real life, and it jarred folks. One of the directors who was giving a lecture on the future of…

This sounds like an argument similar to the one lamenting the advent of digital photography because the grain of the film no longer provided the same effect in photos. But although the grain effect is available for digital photos, it is seldom seen.

Your claim "But although the grain effect is available for digital photos, it is seldom seen." is a fallacy. I'm sure if someone wanted a grain effect in their photograph they would be more likely to actually use film rather than use a digital simulation of what film would have looked like had they chosen to do that. I don't see wide spread use of the 'water color' effect either but people still make water color pictures. It is just that they start out with water colors.

I was rebutting the claim that shooting film on celluloid would 'go away' because there were higher frame rate technologies available. I don't believe that conclusion is supported by either current or past experience the art world. It was not a 'lament', it merely challenged the reasoning that 24 fps celluloid movies would be replaced in their entirety by higher frame rate ones.

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

#53

Post by jeremyswank » Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 8:36 PM UTC

mhb wrote: post #35

ChuckMcM wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a cinematographer but having gone to USC I met and talked with some (both aspiring and those who came back to give guest lectures). There was a digital projection system back in the 80's which had 60fps video, the output was much more 'real' in the sense of looking at the screen seemed more like you were looking at real life, and it jarred folks. One of the directors who was giving a lecture on the future of…

This sounds like an argument similar to the one lamenting the advent of digital photography because the grain of the film no longer provided the same effect in photos. But although the grain effect is available for digital photos, it is seldom seen.

a grain effect added to a digital photo is a kind of affectation, an artifice that is not intimately connected to the process of making the image, included as a stylistic decision; possibly an afterthought. it seems dishonest (not necessarly wrong) but it is part of a panoply of effects that can be applied that constitute what's possible with digital. there's no need to 'lament' since each medium has its own panoply of possiblities: photochemical emulsion gets to be 'honest' about grain, however, and digital does not, since with emulsion grain is not an 'effect': it is what emulsion, in fact, consists of. the same cannot be said about digital.

there are analogous issues between film and video, and even between older video formats and digital video. the future of movies no doubt includes a choice of frame rates, frame resolutions, interlace vs. progressive, and aspect ratios as creative choices. they will be part of the panoply of possibilities that artists will be able to use.

n.b.: in the silent era, there was no real standard film speed, and the film was often exhibited (in the days of hand crank projectors) at varying speeds to suit the content of the image and the music that was invariably played live alongside it. for example, romantic scenes might be cranked a bit more slowly; comedy scenes could be cranked a bit faster. it was only when the industry started to be professionalized that silent films were shot a 16 or 18 fps. with the sound era, the fps was upped to 24 partily to improve the fidelity of the optical sound. most projectors have for decades now multi-leaf shutters which actually interrupt the light path as many as 3 times per frame elimitate the perception of flicker.

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

#54

Post by iuytghyjuyh » Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 8:37 PM UTC

andos wrote: post #42

Why not adaptive framerate? Project the film at 60fps but gradually switch (this is the tricky part) between low and high framerate as the scene demands?

That already sort of happens. In fast scenes there is a big change between frames so they appear different = high frame rate. In low rate scenes the frames are more similar so equivalent to shooting more slowly - you can even do this in post, simply double up frames to make a scene 24fps

Either way they will be projected at 60 - just like your TV shows 24fps movies at 100,120,240Hz or whatever

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

#55

Post by FiddlerClamp » Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 8:39 PM UTC

totalforge wrote: post #4

Douglas Trumbull's 'Showscan' fprmat shot and projected 70mm film at 60 fps. The huge cost kept it from succeeding, though the visual impact was supposed to be amazing. Cameron's proposal will introduce similar perceptual problems to HD video - fake stuff will look more fake, every tiny detail of a performer's face will be apparent, and scenes that play a certain way at 24fps might fall flat at 60. One study showed t…

I saw one of those 'ride movies' in Las Vegas that had been shot in Showscan, and can't say I noticed much of a difference -- the seats were shaking and vibrating and careening though, so it may not have been the best test.

Trumbull's research found that 60fps somehow resonated the most with the brain -- no slower, no faster.

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

#56

Post by SteveJS » Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 8:44 PM UTC

mhb wrote: post #35

ChuckMcM wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a cinematographer but having gone to USC I met and talked with some (both aspiring and those who came back to give guest lectures). There was a digital projection system back in the 80's which had 60fps video, the output was much more 'real' in the sense of looking at the screen seemed more like you were looking at real life, and it jarred folks. One of the directors who was giving a lecture on the future of…

This sounds like an argument similar to the one lamenting the advent of digital photography because the grain of the film no longer provided the same effect in photos. But although the grain effect is available for digital photos, it is seldom seen.

That is an argument of professional taste. This is different. Many non-professionals unconciously associate the more realistic quality of video with TV movies, soap opera's and game shows. (e.g. 60fps video is a sign of lower quality content.)

The same was not true for still photography. It certainly is an open question on whether a negative association with Video will go away or if it will remain.

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

#57

Post by neilk » Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 8:47 PM UTC

mhb wrote: post #35

ChuckMcM wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a cinematographer but having gone to USC I met and talked with some (both aspiring and those who came back to give guest lectures). There was a digital projection system back in the 80's which had 60fps video, the output was much more 'real' in the sense of looking at the screen seemed more like you were looking at real life, and it jarred folks. One of the directors who was giving a lecture on the future of…

This sounds like an argument similar to the one lamenting the advent of digital photography because the grain of the film no longer provided the same effect in photos. But although the grain effect is available for digital photos, it is seldom seen.

Instagram is showing that people do like low-fi effects.

But I agree with you -- this is a mere affectation, a slightly way of turning common images into something evocative. And this becomes much easier to achieve when starting with a high resolution image.

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

#58

Post by alexqgb » Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 8:58 PM UTC

jwr wrote: post #27

Notice he's leaning towards 48p as opposed to 60p, which is an already standardized framerate that your modern TV likely supports. I do not think that is an accident. After all, once we all buy our new 3D TVs, something will have to happen for people to buy new TVs again in 3-4 years. And before you mention bandwidth considerations, I do not have actual data, but I suspect that when using H.264 High Profile, the diff…

Assuming the bitrates are the same, 48fps will require 80% of the bandwidth needed to handle 60.

To the best of my knowledge, H.264 only supports two GOP structures (short = 6 frames / long = 15 frames), both of which operate independently from the playback speed.

In other words, a short GOP setting produces 8 blocks per second running at 48, and 10 per second running at 60. Assuming a constant bitrate (I know, I know), the throughput of the entire system needs to increase by an additional 20% to handle 60. And that's where things fall apart.

Consider the iTunes store, where I believe HD rentals top out at 720p. Or most HD broadcasters, who skew away from the 19.39 Mbps ceiling on the ATSC MPEG-2 spec in favor of programs encoded at 13.something Mbps (the legal floor) thereby allowing an SD channel encoded at ~6Mbps to be delivered in parallel. Does this exercise in bandwidth maximization impact the quality of the HD component? You bet. Do the networks care? If an additional SD means they can dramatically increase the number of ads served, then no, absolutely not.

So regardless of how great the acquisition setup, and how awesome the playback system, there's always the network in between them to consider. And with providers moving toward bandwidth caps, I see picture quality going down, not up. So, streaming 1080p60 H.264 encoded at (say) 7-9 Mbps? Choice, yes, but total fantasy for the time being.

Of course, Cameron is talking about making theaters competitive, so maybe that's his point. Given that BluRay has effectively failed as a universal home standard, and that instant-availability is hugely favored over order-and-wait programs, image quality of filmed entertainment at home is now tied to network limits.

The real question, then, is "are there enough cinephiles who actually care?"

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

#59

Post by bpeebles » Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 9:01 PM UTC

alexqgb wrote: post #51

bpeebles wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

48 divides evenly into 240, so in theory a 240Hz TV could take a 48Hz signal and display it without any pulldowns, while 120Hz is 2.5 times 48, so it needs to do some work to create extra frames. (And really, that's the main advantage, currently, of 120Hz and 240Hz: 24, 30, and 60 (the primary American frame rates) all divide evenly into them, unlike 24 into 60).

Seems like you wouldn't count on the TV to do this work. Instead, you'd shoot at 48, then convert to 60 before delivery, in the same way that TV shows shot on film and edited at 24p subsequently convert to 25 for PAL markets and 29.97 for NTSC.

I would rather count on the media player (Blu-ray player or whatever) or TV to do it than in the source. Think of it this way: in NTSC, DVDs were either had hard 3:2 pull down for 24Hz to the 29.97Hz to show on the interlaced CRTs of the time. But now that we have TVs that can show 24Hz, if you play those DVDs they still have the interpolated frame artifacts. While if you left it up to software pulldown in the DVD player (which they basically all had, since I believe it was part of the standard), they can now be shown at the proper frame rate without interpolation.

Most theatrical DVDs released after the early 2000s were 24Hz, as far as I know and depended on the DVD player to convert to NTSC. So now in modern players, they're outputted at 24Hz for 120Hz and 240Hz TVs.

The only downside is if you get crappy TVs and/or Bluray players that do horrible pulldown, I guess. But I've gotten hardpulled down DVDs that look horrible as well (I'm looking at you, BBC).

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

#60

Post by julian37 » Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 9:20 PM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #25

kwantam wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 think people read my initial comment as some sort of plea for more and more tech, but that's not the way I meant it. My point was for archival purposes. If you record data at a degree or two higher level than human perception, you can always add whatever post-processing you want to get any kind of artistic effect desired. You want that old jerky 24fps stuff? Fine. Post-process it to get it. People 200 years from no…

As other people have commented, the medium is part of the artwork. To quote a comment from above: "If Leonardo could have taken a picture of Mona Lisa instead of painting her, would it be in the Louvre today?"

Also, the days of watching just the raw footage are long over. These days, almost every frame you see in a movie has been heavily post-processed. Quadrupling the frame rate for no reason other than to be safe or to allow others to remix your work in the future means quadrupling render times and, for jobs like rotoscoping, quadrupling people's workload. It just doesn't make any economic sense.

Unless you were talking about shooting just the raw footage with higher resolution and frequency (and downsampling it prior to post-processing), but then what people are remixing isn't your film but your footage. Plus, you still have increased cost for more sophisticated equipment and for storage.