Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
48p is king
  • 49 Replies sorted by
  • @Roberto you forgot to mention that Arri Alexa, The Genesis, and even the Canon 5D MKII were also used on that Captain America movie. The new Avengers movie shot on Arri Alexa and Canon. As much as I love film and want it to be around as a creative choice long into the future, it's starting to become clear that digital acquisition is going to jump ahead of film as main acquisition format.

    The thing is, Hollywood is sometimes a slow moving machine when it comes to technology. That's why I don't buy this claim of 48P being mandated because there are a lot of hurdles to get over to shift the entire industry over to a new frame rate, not to mention the resistance they may receive from some DPs, and people who will be impacted by the demands of moving to 48fps. 3D is an area where filmmakers are discovering the benefits, and I think that is a logical progression. Whether it moves from that application into the mainstream filmmaking world, time will tell.

  • I am not against film, not at all. I love the look of film. But times are changing. We are in a singularity with Moore's law and each cycle is going faster. So innovation and technological advances go faster and faster. One big break through in sensor design and film doesn't hold any advantages anymore. So the big breakthroughs won't take 90 years again or so (from analog film to digital). What happened to Polaroid?

    And how can Kodak produce film when it goes out of business? Please enlighten me.

  • Who owns native 48p TV? Any rumors about such TV at consumer price? If not, don't worry about 48p. It wouldn't be disruptive technology for sure. The change, if it happens, will be slow. Who will create darn good looking 48p films? Of course those who mastered 24p. Technology don't create films. Same old people do.

  • @Roberto, Sheesh, sorry about that, brain fade, yeah, the Variety article said digitial had reached the tipping point and that more features are now shot with digital.

  • @sohus

    "how can Kodak produce film when it goes out of business?"

    Well, ipso facto, Kodak itself couldn't. You throw out the bath-water, keep the baby. Kodak may not be able to voluntarily administer itself out of insolvency. But Kodak's creditors will demand that they sell their better patents. One of these is the motion picture section.

  • @smsjr Digital acquisition is the preferred format for digital effects. It cuts-in and does supers better with computer-generated images. These days, the RED shoots the virtual explosions, film camera does the rest of the movie. Every camera gets a credit, like the Best Boy. Even if it's only 30 seconds.

  • @Athiril

    " Film is double flashed at the cinema"

    The film roll has to roll through the projector. To not see it rolling you have to make the picture black while the film rolls on. (There are no consecutive frames displayed; we see a frame, a black screen, the same frame, a black screen, the same frame, a black screen, then the next frame).

    I agree with you about the stupid film debate; the industry ignores it. My 6 movie cameras are well-oiled, cost me little and I continue to buy film for short TV commercials and will do so as long as there are clients wanting what it offers. Even my 1942 Eyemo (ex-NASA general scientific lenses) was ready for the next upgrade as soon as soon as Vision3 was made available - and will happily shoot 48 fps!

    "18 fps isn't enough"

    When you say this, you are really referring to images moving across the screen at speed, as I said before.

    The human eye and its brain interface, the human visual system, can process 10 to 12 separate images per second, perceiving them individually.The visual cortex holds onto one image for about one-fifteenth of a second, so if another image is received during that period an illusion of continuity is created, allowing a sequence of still images to give the impression of smooth motion.

    from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

    For more on human perception of movement, "How many frames per second can the human eye see?" look at

    http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

    @Sohus

    I agree that Moore's law will provide us the processors and storage space to evolve painlessly to higher frame rates. More frames per second will allow shorter exposure times, replacing motion-blurred pictures with sharper-detailed ones. Especially better for action sequences and sport.

    -If @blues 's industry source is real, I can see that we could easily make a move to better frame rates. (It's just this kind of plausible rumour that vapourware is made of!)

  • Depreciation of a high-end digital camera is quite high and rental prices reflect this. (cost - residual value) / Years of useful life). You have to make it work for you.

    On the other hand - I don't know if anyone else has noticed - our GH.x series cameras' value to us suddenly increased as soon as Vitaliy hacked them, and continue to do so with every new setting developed.

    Breaking old depreciation rules, rolling with the punches. We really are living in fascinating times.

  • Try this frame-rate test online: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

    The above also links to Peter Jackson's Facebook page on 48 fps switch.

    "..while it's predicted that there may be over 10,000 screens capable of projecting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps by our release date in Dec, 2012, we don’t yet know what the reality will be. " https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/48-frames-per-second/10150222861171558

    215793_10150222876561558_141884481557_8844575_4624739_n.jpg
    720 x 540 - 76K
  • @stonebat, actually modern TVs are higher than 48p, they interpolate frames for smooth motion from many source materials.

    @Robert look at an actual 24p @ 24p. In digital you have the ability to simply play one frame consecutively after another, 24 fps isn't enough for the illusion of continuous motion, because it jerks around, even in slow smooth motion. Eg, like a tilt, everything stutters upwards instead of being one continuous smooth motion. Wiki entries don't suddenly stop this effect from occurring. "24" fps.. these figures were deemed back in the day when running through a projector. Not a digital projector or digital screen.

    @sohus Kodak didn't 'go out of business' they filed chapter 11, not chapter 7, which is what one would think the way you are talking about, they're allowed to continue to trade under chapter 11, and have already done some reorganising, and digital is dead (for Kodak), one of the first things they did is discontinue all digital products, and can many digital printing section employees iirc.

    Polaroid type film is still around you know.

    The same argument has been used for still photography, but a sensor cannot match film, you have choices with film, there's more than enough detail in film, so that's kinda moot anyway. People use cost as a factor, bu even in still photography it is an irrelevant cost, such as doing landscape photography, it costs so many of your hours, and travelling to find locations, travelling back to said location costs money, printing and framing if you happen to make something good you're going to do with more than just stick online that 5 people may look at it costs a fair bit for that one frame, the cost becomes irrelevant in many cases compared to the cost of performing such photography.

    Regards to having no advantages, colour negative film has accurate colour for one, the mask is variable in density with the dye density (self-masking) to offset and correct for colour cross-over, as there is no such thing as a perfect dye in the universe. Secondly you can retain a retarded amount of highlights, they do not clip or blow out, obviously you can get them too dense, but that is a long way off, even in a situation where your highlight areas are just starting to clip/peak, well-processed film will record more shadow detail at the same exposure, regardless of that you can overexpose several stops and those same highlights won't be clipped off.

    Regardless, you do not need technical superiority as a reason when it satisifies all ends when it leaves nothing to be desired for the job at hand.

  • @Athiril

    If a 24 fps movie (shot at a standard 1/45th of a second exposure and the inherent motion blur) jerked as you say then we'd have noticed it 70 years ago. With digital, some people are using short exposures which should be reserved for sports and viewed frame-by-frame. Not enough blur, therefore jerky.

  • "we'd have noticed it 70 years ago" As I've said numerous times, film is played back through a projector and flashed multiple times. 24 fps (film) is not the same as 24p. 1/50th jerks if you play the footage back at the native frame rate with no in betweens.

  • @athiril

    We watch 24p Blu-Ray all the time. If it jerked we would again have noticed it in 2008. I have had all my films re-telecine'd recently to 24p. If they'd been jerky I'd have got my money back.

    The projector's shutter doesn't affect the smoothness - and never has; its sole purpose is to stop displaying an image while the pawl goes and fetches the next frame and holds it in place to be displayed.

    athiril, are you referring to footage you've shot yourself and which shows jerkiness at 24P? Could you post a few frames of the mts?

    Again, to explain motion blur...

    *Imagine yourself watching movie of an unbelievably slow fog. You don't see edges and sharp borders. Now play the movie with 10fps. It will look fluid. Why? Because the difference from one frame to the other is very low. The extreme would be a totally unmoving wall: Then 1 fps would equal 1000 fps.

    Now take your hand and move it slowly in front of your face. Then move it faster until it's blurry. How many frames per second do you see? It must be little, because you see only a blurred hand without being able to distinguish every change per millisecond, but it must be many, because you see a fluid motion without any interruption or jump. So this is the eye's trick in both examples: Blurring simulates fluidity, sharpness simulates stuttering.*

    from http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

  • @Roberto You're making a good point, but I just wanted to address the slight variable in your example.

    Keep in mind that if you are watching the movement of your hands in real life, the look is affected by the "refresh rate" of the light source used. Try moving it when illuminated by a light bulb plugged into a wall socket vs when illuminated by sunlight (or another continuous light source) and the rate at which you perceive any "blur" or "strobing" will change radically.

  • Maybe old news:

    Douglas trumbull's Showscan looks like a good way to go: during normal motion, use 24p, during fast motion: use a faster fps. That way you can have both the 24p cadence that makes movies disconnected from reality (and more immersive in a strange way, making you believe the narration) and have that high kinetic flow of a higher frame rate when the action kicks in.

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

  • @oscillian

    Yes, I like this concept. Perhaps we'll see something like this - or we'll convert faster action a smarter way, like sprite objects in computer games.

    In any case, the future looks bright. Naturally, the best of digital will win us all over by what it can do rather than just emulating film.

    Or, just as has happened in the past, maybe processors and storage will get so fast & cheap that we'll just stay lazy & throw more terabytes at it, displaying even slow-moving clouds at 200 fps!

  • @Roberto, HD TVs interpolate extra frames, the BluRay player itself may do it also. I mentioned that above in another post already.

    "actually modern TVs are higher than 48p, they interpolate frames for smooth motion from many source materials."

    You cannot get a 24Hz TV afaik.

    Same with a monitor, your monitor isn't 24Hz, even old ones, and needs to be synced to refresh rate.

    I've even been able to notice it at the cinema as well, as it describes in the following link:

    http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm

  • @Athiril

    As I keep saying, the answer to this, in 24p, is to make the pans blurrier. As I keep saying, faster fps is better for fast pans. We will get better action shots with 48fps!

  • You cannot get a 24Hz TV afaik

    This is just bullshit.

    Almost all modern TVs have didicated 24fps mode.

    Also many monitors support it.

  • @Roberto, no you were arguing against the fact that 24p isn't fast enough to sustain the illusion of motion. Stuttering happens even on low speed, but that is moot since the point is that 24p stutters.

    @Vitaliy_Kiselev

    Do you know what afaik stands for? It stands for "as far as I know", so before you start being offensive, perhaps take that into I said "as far as I know", on top of which you need offer proof for your statement since you are calling it bullshit.

    Because again, as far as I know, that only means it will accept a 24Hz signal, and not actually display it at 24Hz, because the refresh rate of the screen is not 24Hz.

    I don't know of any consumer device (TV or monitor) that is 24Hz.

    This would only work on a 120Hz, 240Hz television that accepts a native 24Hz signal (this is the only way to get 24Hz out of a bluray player, otherwise bluray player will send a different signal) and doubled up frames and did no interpolation.

  • @Athiril

    24p stutters

    I don't know what you are talking about, sorry. I give up. Can we close this thread, please?

  • @Roberto,

    Yes you do. You were arguing against me saying 24p is not enough for the illusion of motion. You then added provisos/exceptions of being gentle with the camera and not moving it fast. Which just proves it isn't fast enough for the illusion of motion. Because if it was, it would be fast enough for the illusion of motion.

    That may sound circular, but you've already admitted to the fact it isn't fast enough for the illusion of motion by talking about the speed, and making exceptions and offering solutions (I wouldn't call it a solution).

  • We need a beginner's topic on refresh rates, fps and elementary cinematography. This cinematographer is going to bed.

  • I don't know of any consumer device (TV or monitor) that is 24Hz.

    I offer you to make simple experiment. Get any good note with HDMI, cable and decent software player and go to nearest large store. As this is really total bullshit.

    I am closing this topic per request.

This topic is closed.
← All Discussions