Here is the 48fps and 24fps sample for comparison: http://www.mediafire.com/?bpg35wg93vusryu
'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
81–90 of 91 posts
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a bit of a film buff, by that I mean I like shooting of film & I own 16mm film cameras. (I shoot most if my work in digital though, so I don't consider myself all that snobby about it) To me some arguments for film hold up, but are rapidly becoming less relevant as digital sensors improve. The biggest case form film to me is the dynamic range (in film terms "latitude") compared to digital. Film is currently still…
Latitude is something I am more interested in too. But, once I've tried Sony SRW-9000PL I was blown away. Full 12 stops, image looked (stock) like it was hand delivered from heaven without any lighting used (I had it only for a test), and even digital noise was pleasing, film like, in low light situations. I can only imagine what F-65 does then if 9k did that. Hell, even RED, post MX sensor, looks really great. Film…
Yea it seems like in the last year or two the sensors are finally starting to increase the latitude very close to film. I've heard film was 13-14 stops and digital cameras are just starting to hit near the 13 stop level. It's getting to the point where I can't even tell sometimes and I consider myself pretty well tuned into that!
I think it's a pretty exciting time actually in camera technology. I think film will still be an artistic choice for a while. Directors like Spielberg and Tarantino have claimed they will never stop shooting on film. But, I heard that same kind of stuff about audio back in the 90s, so we'll see!
I'm also one of those guys waiting on my pre-order of a black magic cinema camera which claims 13 stops, so I'm pretty excited to get my hands on it!
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's one thing to creatively take advantage of limitations to make art better. It's quite another to insist that an arbitrary limitation must be present on every work, regardless of whether it's good or not. If 24fps is somehow good for certain types of film, then by all means, keep using it. But it's silly to say that 24fps is universally better, as I've heard some people say.
I can't disagree with that Mike. Absolutes have no place in art.
No absolutes in art, ever, no matter what! :D
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#84Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#85Just a personal 48FPS testimonial here... For some reason I found myself at an IATSE event. IATSE is a union for motion picture professionals. At the end, they projected a scene, once in 24fps, the second time in 48fps. 48fps looked "real" to my eyes, insomuch as it looked how I imagine it would've looked to have been in the room. Unfortunately, that's not the look I like in films and movies. It truly looked like a s…
My friend saw the 10 minute Hobbit footage and said the exact same thing. He felt like he was looking at a play of the Hobbit--watching costumed people walk around a set. He couldn't get it to shift into that "watching a movie" place in his mind. But you're right--it might be that 10 minutes is just not long enough to adjust. I'm skeptical but I do want to try it.
I half wonder if PJ has just spent so much time seeing his movies as they are being made,that he's frustrated that audiences don't see them -that way-... maybe on set is normal for him, and in order to get the audience to see "normally"...
...48FPS would nail it right on the head.
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#86High framerates give the appearance of and in some cases substantially better images reducing significantly various temporal aliasing effects. They are without doubt better in every way from a technical point of view. There is however a cultural issue that is worst amongst the film creators that "film" is regarded as expensive, high-end and good so that things that don't have the artefacts (low frame rate, film grain…
Yes, bigger numbers are always better! So, yes, increased framerates do make things like aliasing concerns -- long the bane of many an action movie director's existence -- go away. However, there is a concrete and visceral difference between 24fps and 30/48 that is impossible to ignore (unlike, say vinyl vs. digital, which requires an expert and a dollop of wishful thinking to recognize). This is not something that o…
> Yes, bigger numbers are always better!
Nice strawman. Do you have any actual arguments?
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like I'll go mental if I hear one more film buff talk about the essential nature of various imperfections in traditional film. It's so obvious that nobody would have chosen to go with film grain, low frame rates, or any of the other limitations that were foist upon them if they had had a choice. But now these technical limitations get enshrined as the medium's supposed true nature, at least by some....
As in so many creative endeavours it's the limitations which make the art. It's not always about going for perfection, but it always has to be emotional. Which is a more powerful statement? This: http://virgo.bibl.u-szeged.hu/wm/paint/auth/monet/parliament... or this: http://isitthattime.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/fog-over-the... There's no question that the latter is more technically accurate, more lifelike, more r…
The second one, no question about it. It make me think of storms and fog and winter.
The first one made me think of cartoon depictions of the evil lair and children's drawings. It also looked like those ink blob psychological tests were you can see anything you want in the picture. (Which is presumably why you like it better.)
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason a CRT seems to flicker with low refresh rates is because the screen goes dark in between beam traces, a LCD does not. So a static image on a LCD with 60 Hz refresh rate is stable whereas a CRT would flicker at that rate.
60Hz also synchronizes with the 60Hz flicker of fluorescent lights, which is especially bothersome.
Just how old are your lights? Fluorescent lights haven't flickered at line frequency in at least a decade.
Well, obviously old fixtures still exist, but if you have one in your office it's time to get rid of it. The new ones are much more energy efficient, but more importantly they are more pleasing to the eye.
(Specifically get a T8 fixture, not a T12.)
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
He discusses the difference between 1080i and 1080p which is exactly the difference you are talking about. Interlaced vs whole frame. Not all TV's have scan lines. Any that are 1080p do not interlace.
You and the person voting me down seem to be missing the point of what I'm saying. A piece of film is illuminated and shown fully on the screen. There is no scan line. A TV is drawn one line at a time. There is a scan line. Interlaced vs Non-Interlaced has nothing to do with what I am talking about as both draw one line at a time. Interlaced just means it draws half the first tick and half the second tick. Non-interl…
That's not true. A film projector has a moving shutter - only part of the image is visible on the screen at a time.
You can prove it by using a camera with a fast shutter and trying various shutter speeds. If you have a leaf shutter in your camera you'll have to hold the camera in all 4 direction to test it properly - you don't want the projector shutter and the camera shutter to interact weirdly.
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
60Hz also synchronizes with the 60Hz flicker of fluorescent lights, which is especially bothersome.
Just how old are your lights? Fluorescent lights haven't flickered at line frequency in at least a decade. Well, obviously old fixtures still exist, but if you have one in your office it's time to get rid of it. The new ones are much more energy efficient, but more importantly they are more pleasing to the eye. (Specifically get a T8 fixture, not a T12.)
It's been almost a decade since I used a CRT, either.