The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras

[Ron Evans]

In a fictional film then all the tricks to get the audience involved are usable. Frame rate colouring etc great. But when its a record of a live event then in my mind it should be at the highest frame rate and resolution. The audience need to feel they are there. Unfortunately a lot of people think that if 24p is good for film its good for everything. Even if their camera work is terrible. That's when you need to switch on the 120hz or 240hz interpolation to make the picture viewable !!! For TV my Sony 240hz LCD interpolation is switched on all the time !!

Ron Evans

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

But does the "why" matter? 24 fps feels hypnotic and dreamy. High frame rates feel real and dull. Whether intrinsic or learned, it's true for our audience.

"Real and dull"? Maybe the first, but I don't go along with the second - rather the opposite. Some past TV dramas have deliberately been shot with video techniques (even when film may have been the norm) to get not only a "real" look, but to heighten the excitement.

Even if your points about 24fps are accepted, is it really a good thing for the majority of films to have a "hypnotic and dreamy" look to them? And the harsh reality that you may be ascribing to 48fps can be dulled down by some grading techniques.

To pick up on Charles point about ticket sales, then first point to make is that 48fps PRODUCTION shouldn't cost much more in the digital world than 24fps. And a 24fps end product can be easily and satisfactorily derived from it with no compromise, whilst the reverse is not true. (And regardless of the aesthetic arguments, such will be needed for a long time for legacy technology reasons.)

Second is that whatever the argument may be in the 2D world, 3D is crying out for higher rates, and 48fps would certainly make me much happier about 3D in the cinema.

Yes, glasses is still a current bar to general 3D acceptance, but it's likely technology will solve that in the future. In that case, what a good thing to have high frame rate content as a degree of future proofing?

If you accept all of that, then once the 48fps content starts to get around, the acceptance will start to happen, and it will become the new norm. And eventually 24fps will just end up as jerky and old-fashioned.

[Brian Drysdale]

I'm not sure which video techniques you're talking about, but fast moving "shaky" camera moves go way back to the days of Abel Gance in the early 1920s. Quite a few modern productions would appear pedestrian compared to some of his stuff.

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

And I think we all agree that future audiences (i.e. children of today) will be able to assimilate 48p without issue--the question is, whether the adult public can "unlearn" and embrace.

I wonder whether the effect 24p has on a viewer is down to more than just conditioning. As has been suggested, it appears to aid audiences with their suspension of disbelief. Does anyone know of research on the subject? I think it is presumptuous to presume either way without it.

In the same way that B&W photography is still sometimes preferable to colour, I think 24p motion cadence will continue to be a subjective preference in the future. Like 24p, B&W also had technical origins, however that alone does not void its artistic merits. With time, higher frame rates may loose their negative stigma but I think 24p will be around for a while yet.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by David Heath

"Real and dull"?

Real and dull is my personal experience. Hollywood sets don't look like other worlds. They look like sets. Being on a set is dull to me, while being in Gotham City, or the Shire would be enthralling.

Your experience may differ.

3D is crying out for higher rates, and 48fps would certainly make me much happier about 3D in the cinema.

This is why I'm not against high frame rates. I want controllable frame rates. Yes, when things start to fly in 3D, give me 48+ fps. But just as I don't think a 30 degree shutter is appropriate in a dramatic scene, I don't think 48 fps is appropriate in a fantasy film during low motion scenes.

The frame rate should be adjustable like shutter time, aperture, and grading. It doesn't have to be one-size-fits-all.

[Heath McKnight]

Peter Jackson responds to "48gate:"

48gate - Peter Jackson responds

He's probably right, that we'll get used to it, but it's a BIG risk with a $250 million+ budgeted film. Maybe start small with lower budgeted films that still attract a decent-sized audience, then "hit 'em" at home with DVD, etc.

heath

[Brian Drysdale]

Here's an article on recent image styles:

What is the difference between The Hobbit and the news? Not as much as there should be | Charlie Brooker | Comment is free | The Guardian

I'm waiting on the Mark Kermode take on all this; BBC - Mark Kermode's film blog It should be an amusing Friday afternoon.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Heath McKnight

He's probably right, that we'll get used to it, but it's a BIG risk with a $250 million+ budgeted film.

Not really - it would be very easy to derive a conventional looking 24fps version from it. And I'd assume it will be done anyway, if only to produce film prints.

And whatever the conventional argument, it's almost certain it will help the 3D version.

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

First one clarification:
Film although 24fps has a 48hz flicker, because the shutter blogs the light before and after each frame in order to hide frame movement. Otherwise a descending black line would appear during projection.

In regards to the 24fps vs 48fps argument:
Form antiquity is known that light flickering (ie camp fire) would induce a hypnotic or trance state to mind making the person more docile*1. Therefore, since film and TV*2 is also a medium where still images alternate at high rate and are seen continuous because of the persistence of vision effect, it may induce the same hypnotic effect and make its content more believable.
I presume that 48hz of film projection or 50/60hz of TV viewing falls within the limits of human sensory induction and doubling to 48fps/96hz could lessen the hypnotic and persuasive effect of film projection. Same may apply to upping the Hz rate to 120 or240 on TV.
So the complains against 48fps may not unfounded.

*1 such technics along with repetitive sound effects were used extensively during religious initiations or ceremonies.
*2 how many people want to watch TV before bedtime in order to fall asleep.

[Bart Walczak]

Originally Posted by David Heath

48fps PRODUCTION shouldn't cost much more in the digital world than 24fps.

While the production itself perhaps should not cost more, the post-production, and especally VFX (3D, roto) will definitely cost more. Perhaps not twice as much, but it IS 2 times as many frames to work with. Bigger storage, longer render times, new pipelines to develop, etc.

It's not necessarily an argument against, but it is something to consider.

Interesting times.

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

I forgot to mention that many hypnotists are using pulsing lamps to hypnotize their subjects and I have heard that their frequency is around 20-30 Hz, although I cannot objectively know if the latter is true.

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

A few years later I started sending projects to Filmlook who had the original 60i to 24p processing facility, which became my new "secret sauce".

I'm with ya Charles. I spent a lot of money sending all of our TV spots and films to Filmlook for processing at that time. Then the process became available in-house, then we got one of the original P&S adaptors and used it with Canon's Frame Mode faux 24p....

I just showed the trailer to my partner and wife without telling her anything. She's a big Tolkein and Jackson fan and she was appalled. She's really been looking froward to the release and is afraid it's been ruined.

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Heath McKnight

He's probably right, that we'll get used to it

I doubt he's right. He's definitely not right with me.
I've seen what he's doing my entire life and his look and film look are the polar opposites. It's not only we in the production world that have worked with this differentiation our entire lives but the viewing public has had the same experience going from movies to news, movies to soap operas, movies to reality TV.

I'm not going to get used to paintings on velvet because they're now on 3D, I want to see the magic of the Dutch masters when I watch story telling.

[Jon Fairhurst]

I watched "The Jazz Singer" the other night on TMC after having only seen short clips. The transfer was excellent. For those who haven't seen it, the sound is really about the music and singing with most of the dialog done in the silent style. There is only a bit of Foley, like applause and the occasional slap or hit. It's more of a "singie" than a "talkie".

But even without audible dialog, it doesn't look like a silent film. The sync'd sequences were shot at 24 fps, as compared to the 16, 18, or 20 fps undercrank that we associate with silent films. (Some parts were still undercranked, but not the majority.) My understanding is that shooting was often undercranked to reduce film costs, but in the theaters, playback was overcranked to shoehorn in more showings per day.

So the "talkie" era didn't just introduce sound. It also introduced real-time action at a pleasing, consistent 24 fps. Audiences loved it and silent film died almost overnight. I've never read that audiences didn't like the transition from variable frame rates to 24 fps in the late '20s. 24 fps was a clear market success - even though audiences weren't trained to associate 24 fps with the cinema experience.

Anyway, it was an interesting film to watch historically. (And yes, the blackface thing was terribly out of context - and preferably off topic.) I was surprised by how many of the songs I recognized - nearly every one. I'd also recommend Fritz Lang's "M" as an example of an early sound film - it's like they released it before the sound editing was complete. Peter Lorre's court plea, even in German, is spectacular. In both cases, it's as much the 24 fps as the sound that sets them apart from earlier productions.

[Adam Letch]

does everyone remember the old days of VHS, how we all watched movies in the 320x288 glory, we thought it looked great! Now when you watch it its like looking through a jam jar.

Well I would suspect once we get use to 48 looking back even though it won't be as exaggerated will probably give rise to the same perspective. Though on a simple note, we are referring to cadence primarily, but we also must consider the video look is given to sharpness and clarity of image.

I hate watching Movies and even free to air on a LED TV, over sharp and nasty, looks 'video'. The plasma by comparison is a lot more pleasing to the eye. If the industry adopts the standard, in 5 to 10 years time, the norm will be shard and clean with judder.. For us old timer traditionalist we probably won't budge from what we know, just like with music styles, standards change, and the new generation which drives the economy won't look back