Peter Jackson's Great 48 FPS Experiement

[njiska]

So apparently Peter Jackson has been shooting The Hobbit using 48 FPS cameras and will be releasing the film in that frame rate at a few select theatres. Jackson claims the higher frame rate will lead to clearer, more life-like images, but reaction from viewers at CinemaCon has been mixed at best. While no one disputes the existence of added clarity, the issue is that it looks too real and by extension not cinematic.

http://www.digitalspy.ca/movies/news/a3 ... macon.html

This is inline with the stance I've always held that the higher the frame rate, the more real a production looks, but the harder it is to suspend disbelief. It's like the uncanny valley all over again. You're no longer watching a film, but a glorified stage play and all of it's fallacies are put on display. High FPS is great for recording sporting events or documentaries, but when it comes to narrative fiction it's just a deal breaker.

I'm curious to see how the film looks in 48 FPS, but I'm doubting it will be a better experience.

[GaijinPunch]

Agreed. I shoot my video on my camera at 24fps (or whatever it is).

Side Note: I just now today figured out that Bilbo is played by Tim from The Office. Man, he has aged. But, I have confidence he will pull it off.

The bigger debate should be the announcement of it becoming a trilogy. The book is a paltry 300 pages, indeed, but I felt the book skipped over quite a bit of shit. And I'm a terrible reader.

[CMoon]

The bigger debate should be the announcement of it becoming a trilogy. The book is a paltry 300 pages, indeed, but I felt the book skipped over quite a bit of shit. And I'm a terrible reader.

There's no way The Hobbit should be more than one movie. Honestly, Jackson has gone crazy with making absolutely huge movies and despite what fans may have to say, LOTR is just way too goddamn long. Although the discs offered even longer versions, what they really needed were some strong edits.

I am imagining now that this film will be no less than 6 hours long, an absolutely bloated running length for a relatively lean story (something I thought always made it preferrable to LOTR.) Oh well, just looked up on our favorite site IMDB that he's apparently adding all kinds of stuff from Tolkein's other writings so as to fill in the gaps. When they remake Casablanca, I hope they make it a trilogy and fill in the entire history of WW2.

[njiska]

Agreed. I shoot my video on my camera at 24fps (or whatever it is).

Side Note: I just now today figured out that Bilbo is played by Tim from The Office. Man, he has aged. But, I have confidence he will pull it off.

The bigger debate should be the announcement of it becoming a trilogy. The book is a paltry 300 pages, indeed, but I felt the book skipped over quite a bit of shit. And I'm a terrible reader.

I agree that's a problem, but it's not really the debate I'm interested in having. I'm far more concerned/intrigued by the high frame rate proposal.

[dan76]

I'm with you on the higher frame rate - it looks appalling.

Why anyone would want to make a film look like video is beyond me - but then again modern tv's have that setting that creates extra frames when you watch films. Dreadful - so is Peter Jackson.

[njiska]

I'm with you on the higher frame rate - it looks appalling.

Why anyone would want to make a film look like video is beyond me - but then again modern tv's have that setting that creates extra frames when you watch films. Dreadful - so is Peter Jackson.

Well, that is a little different. At least The Hobbit is being produced at the framerate, rather than relying on motion interpolation algorithms to generate in-betweens. However the final experience should look about the same. I can see the benefit for productions like documentaries where you're looking for reality, but that's about it.

Oh and apparently the sequels to Avatar will be 48 or 60 FPS.

[Lordstar]

Oh and apparently the sequels to Avatar will be 48 or 60 FPS.

thats just what i wanted to see CG dust and pollen at 60FPS and in 3D

[Drum]

I am waiting for ObiWanShinobi's opinion.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ahh, the good old frame rate debate. Interestingly enough, no less a film pioneer than Thomas Edison himself suggested a frame rate of 46 fps - "anything less will strain the eyes." The article cites famous film historian H.A.V. Bulleid's statement that "To obviate flicker from white light projected on a bright surface requires about 48 obscurations per second." These statements are for earlier films with primitive technologies (the "silver screen" isn't silver anymore, so probably some of the problem Bulleid alludes to with the "bright surface" has been reduced) but I wonder how much impact they have had on Jackson's decision.

Peter Jackson has courted controversy in filmmaking before with his Tolkien movies, as he was a major early adopter of RED digital cameras. Whether the controversy had merit or not, I don't remember at this point, but it did illustrate his efforts to push technology and also to strive for better realism. The comments that you cannot hide things in the shadows seem to disregard the abilities of a good production such as Jackson is certainly capable of. Merely acceding to old conventions would not do much for the state of the art.

Still, I think that traditional "slow" film speeds definitely do have some uses even in action. With a fast shutter speed, one can create a sort of strobe effect (utilizing "flicker") where each movement comes out in sharp relief and allows the mind to process the images the director intends, or the frantic pace of a scene, and doubling the frame rate would make this harder. On the other hand, I have to ask whether capable actors and a director could make up the difference with careful choreography and poses. I am surprised to read that motion blur is explicitly being attacked by the technology. Flicker I can understand getting rid of (even if, properly applied, it also can make iconic scenes more easily comprehensible; think of the famous one-frame still photo used between two takes in Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds" to underscore the emotion he wishes to convey) in many situations. Blur is not necessarily an evil, although I suppose again that it can be used sparingly. If they are running the shutter angle for as quickly exposed frames as possible in every frame, that seems too simplistic.

I doubt that the viewers are all being influenced in their opinions by the cliches about high-fps footage looking terrible. I would be interested to know what shutter angles Jackson is using, and whether he is varying them for different scenes. New digital cameras allow a considerable amount of latitude in shutter angle and shutter speed not seen with film cameras, partly due to the digital "first [shutter] curtain," and partly due to the high sensitivity of new sensors. I don't expect that exposing a 1/48 second frame for most of its duration will duplicate the effect of a 1/24 frame (often exposed in traditional productions for 1/48 second, or half the frame length, but this can and should be varied to match a desired effect) but it will be a much closer match than running a 1/48 second frame at 1/96 second exposure or faster. Many consumer digital cameras give poor blur capability because they either tie the shutter speed to a very high shutter angle, or they are set with high sensitivities in mind so that the frame rate remains high to avoid burning out the highlights. Of course many consumer cameras have very limited or nonexistent shutter angle (called shutter speed, confusingly) control (the video rate is preselected, usually either 24 or 60 fps for NTSC cameras, so shutter speed controls will dictate how long each frame is exposed). This seems to be getting better though.

Personally, I see the 48 fps idea as an intriguing compromise. It's much less PC- and TV-friendly than 30 or 60 FPS would be and so probably the choice will be accused of displaying some egoism. Still, doubling the 24fps standard shows a clean and simple logic, although I wonder if they trialed other speeds for comparison. I would think that even 30 fps could be a notable improvement over 24fps and as a bonus many modern displays could render it correctly. At the same time, it's not as fast as 60 fps, which might not have compromised flicker and blur more, while still retaining good home display compatibility. As it stands, Jackson is probably fighting against some ingrained characteristics of the film pipeline. The projectionist mentions the low scene contrast - not surprising if the equipment is new or being run at an unusual or off-spec frame rate. As each frame is visible for less time on-screen, there's less time available to push light through that footage, which would explain at least some contrast loss.

[dan76]

Ahh, the good old frame rate debate. Interestingly enough, no less a film pioneer than Thomas Edison himself suggested a frame rate of 46 fps - "anything less will strain the eyes." The article cites famous film historian H.A.V. Bulleid's statement that "To obviate flicker from white light projected on a bright surface requires about 48 obscurations per second."

Yes, that's why each frame of film is projected twice - you're probably aware of this though.

Completely different from capturing something at 48 or 60 fps.

[Paradigm]

I am waiting for ObiWanShinobi's opinion.

If it ain't 60, it ain't shit.

[louisg]

It seems strange that they'd choose 48. As long as they're figuring out a new framerate, why not have one which fits in with the refresh rate of home equipment better?

[Fudoh]

As long as they're figuring out a new framerate, why not have one which fits in with the refresh rate of home equipment better?

3D Blu-Rays output at 1080p48, so making current displays compatible to a 1080p48 2D signal would only require a very minor firmware fix. With a few tricks and tweaks it's even possible to output a 2D 1080p48 stream to a 3D-enabled LCD or plasma right now.

[BryanM]

Man, remember when they introduced color and sound and ruined movies forever?

[njiska]

Man, remember when they introduced color and sound and ruined movies forever?

Actually sound arguably did ruin movies for a while when it turned out that no major actor had a decent set of pipes on him.

And it's important to not that this issue here is not the technology. Higher frame-rates show you a better, more realistic image. There's no doubt about that. But when you're shooting something that is fake in a hyper-realistic way you enter the uncanny valley.

[xbl0x180]

I'm with you on the higher frame rate - it looks appalling.

Why anyone would want to make a film look like video is beyond me - but then again modern tv's have that setting that creates extra frames when you watch films. Dreadful - so is Peter Jackson.

There already are directors not using film at all, but digital video. Danny Boyle and David Lynch, just to name two who have gone on the record for not using film for their movies. I have absolutely no issues with higher frame rates as long as it looks and sounds good

[njiska]

I'm with you on the higher frame rate - it looks appalling.

Why anyone would want to make a film look like video is beyond me - but then again modern tv's have that setting that creates extra frames when you watch films. Dreadful - so is Peter Jackson.

There already are directors not using film at all, but digital video. Danny Boyle and David Lynch, just to name two who have gone on the record for not using film for their movies. I have absolutely no issues with higher frame rates as long as it looks and sounds good

I think Dan was implying the difference in appearance between a professional film and home video recordings. I.e. the look of your 30 FPS Sony Handicam. Not the difference between celluloid and a CCD.

[drunkninja24]

Man, remember when they introduced color and sound and ruined movies forever?

Kinda my take on the issue. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a higher framerate, but I think everyone's image is kinda marred by the fact that up until now, it's really just been cheap soap operas and such using high framerates and, well, those don't exactly have the highest production values.

[BryanM]

But when you're shooting something that is fake in a hyper-realistic way you enter the uncanny valley.

Kind of hurts my head ><

Anyway, you know that sequence in Terminator 2 where the helicopter flies under the overpass? Know how they did that?

By flying a helicopter. Under an overpass.

[dan76]

There already are directors not using film at all, but digital video. Danny Boyle and David Lynch, just to name two who have gone on the record for not using film for their movies. I have absolutely no issues with higher frame rates as long as it looks and sounds good

Shooting on video and then being transfered onto film isn't what we are talking about - as that is still 24 fps.

Video at 48fps is different, and as people have said it resembles live tv in the 70's - or rather an interlaced tv signal. Find an old episode of Saphire and Steel and that's what you've got (only it doesn't look half as good because it's not the 70's )

Bringing in Danny Boyle as some kind of justification of the possibilities of video is poor btw. As for Lynch, I don't think it matters what he shoots on, as long as he shoots something!

[njiska]

But when you're shooting something that is fake in a hyper-realistic way you enter the uncanny valley.

Kind of hurts my head ><

Anyway, you know that sequence in Terminator 2 where the helicopter flies under the overpass? Know how they did that?

By flying a helicopter. Under an overpass.

That is not at all what I meant and you know it. This quote sums up things nicely:

"The footage I saw looked terrible … completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets … sets don’t even look like sets when you’re on them live, but these looked like sets. The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely.”

http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/24/cine ... per-secon/

[xbl0x180]

I thought 28 Days Later warn't half bad. For me, trying to distinguish film and video when it comes to movies leads to misnomers as I would not call some of those movies "films" and, for the home versions, I would definitely not use the word "film" (unless it's an actual reel-to-reel). "Movie" is the catch-all, general word for all of it.

Sapphire And Steel was totally awersome - and weird. I'm reminded of those Twilight Zone episodes from the 60s that used that high frame-rate and made them look like daytime soaps

[GaijinPunch]

I thought 28 Days Later warn't half bad.

It wasn't, and Trainspotting is Top 10 material if you have any kind of taste in film.

[xbl0x180]

That's the thing. I don't have anything against Danny Boyle's work, so his choice of digital video over film - I'd think - makes for a compelling argument for people trying to say "film" is better than video, or that certain frame rates are better than others (remind me never to recommend La Jetee to some of you peeps). Movies are way more than just frame rates

[Ed Oscuro]

Ahh, the good old frame rate debate. Interestingly enough, no less a film pioneer than Thomas Edison himself suggested a frame rate of 46 fps - "anything less will strain the eyes." The article cites famous film historian H.A.V. Bulleid's statement that "To obviate flicker from white light projected on a bright surface requires about 48 obscurations per second."

Yes, that's why each frame of film is projected twice - you're probably aware of this though.

Completely different from capturing something at 48 or 60 fps.

Or 72 frames per second (3 passages for each frame). Actually I did not know this - film is a very side-topic for me usually!

As you say, that's completely different from Edison's original proposal which was to have 46 frames of actual content per second. His concern was somewhat similar to that driving Jackson's move, and if something sinks 48 fps, it'll probably be cost issues once again. The resulting solution (duplicating frames) would've been just as useful for preventing damage to the projection reel as it was in eliminating actual flicker, so what Jackson's calling flicker is really just the persistence of an image. Obviously shooting at the higher rate would be very expensive for film stock and the amount of CGI rendering needed, and even today 48 fps is going to be impossible for many current theaters to display.

[ZacharyB]

The kids'll love it.

Their kids'll love it even more.

[neorichieb1971]

I'm all for advancement.

24fps is not enough fps imho. It was a restriction due to cost in the early 1900's and the fact that if you went faster the reels would be huge.

In this day and age we should go as high as possible. There are ways to mask the disillusion its real.

I can't even stand the Universal logo going round the world intro. It looks like a juddery mess. Most Tv's are providing the viewer with interpolation techniques anyway. (this is the term used to adding "guessed" frames between the real ones).

And like the first post in that link states, you can always select 24fps. Just like you can add scan lines to HD.

Saying you don't want advancement on this subject is saying "I don't want anyone else to experience it either". Which is just selfish really.

[GaijinPunch]

Just like you can add scan lines to HD.

If you're a hardware programmer or have obscure hardware.

Saying you don't want advancement on this subject is saying "I don't want anyone else to experience it either". Which is just selfish really.

Definitely not. Once something has advanced, the "old version" will only be available through pain staking efforts. No? Go play your PS1 games in 240p on your PS3.

[dan76]

It wasn't, and Trainspotting is Top 10 material if you have any kind of taste in film.

Oh no... In the entire history of film Trainspotting makes top ten?!? wtf

[burgerkingdiamond]

I'm definitely skeptical about The Hobbit being made into a trilogy. A two parter I guess could be ok. There's a lot of stuff in the book that is just given a passing mention. This could all be expanded.

As for the frame rate thing...

I don't know if it's the same thing, but it reminds me of when I got my new TV last year. It's a big 55 incher and the first HD tv I ever had. I hooked up the PS3 and put in Big Trouble in Little China on Blu-Ray and was absolutely horrified at how shitty it looked.

It was way too "real" looking. It was like sitting on a set watching the actors in real time. That's not what a movie is supposed to be like, especially something as ridiculous as BTinLC.

I figured out that if I turned on gaming mode it made it look like a movie again though. I guess it get's rid of a bunch of extra processing.

I hope that's not how the Hobbit turns out. It totally does not look good for a fantasy movie.