Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

I agree. We are unfortunately still stuck in the business decisions of the last century. The dependence on playback of a 24fps film projector. That isn't used now !!!! We are happy to use VBR to store the data on a DVD rather than CBR but seem unable to extend this to the frame rate. The rational is the same . Use more when you need it and less when you do not.

It is the misuse of 24p that bothers me the most. If I am watching an instructional film of how to assemble some thing etc I want to see this as if I am there right next to the camera man, no judder no fancy color grading just there. For me this includes documentaries as well for the same reasons. I want to be there.

If you want to take me on a dream trip you can use whatever you like in frame rate, color grading etc and I will decide if you were successful in entertaining me. With modern computer technology there is no need to be constrained. We shall see if we can break free over the next few years !!!

Ron Evans

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

For instructional video, shallow DOF is the worst! I might want to pause the video, see a detail, read if the model number is the same as mine, etc. But if the detail that I'm interested in is out of focus due to shallow DOF, I can't see it.

Oh well. I like creative control, but not everybody will use it the way I would like.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

Another article on Peter Jackson's 48p experiment-

Switch to high-frame-rate 3D movies may not be smooth - tech - 03 May 2012 - New Scientist

I thought this was an interesting observation-

"Some short cuts used for a long time in moviemaking may not now work," says Michele Sciolette, head of visual effects technology at Cinesite, also in London. "Every little detail in make-up, costumes and props will have to be absolutely perfect in terms of visual detail - otherwise they may not be perceived as real."

So now while it's not the cost of film footage that is holding us back the fact that a much higher level of attention to detail might be required of props and sets might be just as much of a financial disincentive.

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

But unfortunately another one just repeating uncritically what has previously been first reported. Read the previous comments in this thread, and it seems highly likely that the reason for the general dissatisfaction in the audience was nothing to do with framerate and everything to do with the fact that the material hadn't been properly graded. For example, comments from the article like "the preview was described as video-like and lacking in colour contrast," Is "colour contrast" really much affected by framerate?

As far as the observation you quote, then does this not also sound more of a comment on the fundamental definition than framerate? A comment more about ungraded material that hasn't had the "edge" taken off it by grading, than about the implications of high framerates?

I can only hope that any more "experimental" 48p screenings solely use fully graded material.........

Re: The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras
 

The answer to "why should we play back everything at a single frame rate?" is most probably because if it was decided to allow continually varying rates throughout a production, the chances of things going wrong increase dramatically. Yes, that SHOULDN'T be the case, but ask yourself how many times you now see something shown in the wrong aspect ratio on somebodys TV? Having continually varying framerates multiplies the chances of something going wrong along the chain, or at the very least gives a whole new set of potential headaches.

And for what? Yes, 25fps may "look" different to 50fps, but why introduce a lot of potential pitfalls to (say) have four successive sequences at 25, then 40, then 30, then 50fps?

In terms of artistic reasons, why not just define replay at 25 or 50fps - which is pretty much what happens now with broadcast TV anyway? Typically, on HD services in the UK, drama is likely to be 25p, sport etc 50fps (albeit via i/25, not 50 frames progressive) For the cinema, if all projection became 48fps the "traditional cinema look" could be very easily got by shooting at 24 and showing each frame twice. (Exactly as a film projector now does via the shutter.) I'd hazard that would give 90% of the effect and look you wish, with none of the potential pitfalls.

If you're still not convinced about the technicalities, then just as example, ask yourself about issues such as timecode. The more I think about it, the more potential problems come up, I wonder how long it would be before a vision sequence got filmed at 40fps, and the sound with timecode at 30fps........ :-) ?

And that's before we even begin to think about backwards compatability. Mercifully, we are spared matters like 29.94Hz framerates and drop-frame timecode in 50Hz lands, but bear in mind that they stem from issues with audio receivers in the earliest monochrome US TV receivers, and the introduction of colour in 1953. Can you imagine the legacy issues that continuously variable playback frame rates would give?