48 Fps movies - Will the Cinema world allow it to happen?

[Trionz]

Basically current movies are framed at 24 Fps, owing to comparitively high film print cost if the alternatives 48 or 60Fps is used.
For years, Audience are served feasibly slower frame rate & allowed motion blur, which eventually became un-noticeble for audience.

Peter Jackson with his "Hobbit" will be bringing in 48 Fps, and might spark another massive change after 3D.

This will include theatre to be equiped with 48Fps projectors.
Those who bough Full HD television won't be able to watch it, as they can't process that and so forth.
Loads of hinderance, so will better clarity of movies happen?

 

[mariachi-19]

Surely HD tv's will be able run it given they run 60fps video games perfectly fine.

 

[Gambit]

To much is being made of this and you can get equally good effects and clarity just upping the shutter speed. It's the same as all this 4k malarkey. It's pointless as the effects of seeing the actual difference to the human eye would be to stand a foot away from the screen at an imax and concetrate on an area a centimetre square. The latest modern projectors work at these rates digitally anyway. It's th smaller cinemas that ar going to suffer although reds projector is a good alternatve for them.

 

[nimic]

There's a myth going around that you can't actually see the difference between, say, 30 and 60 fps. Which is obviously false.

 

[Gambit]

Although if you get a chance check out super high vis. Ultra high def. 4000 - 8000p. Great for looking at but you do stop noticing once the game/programme starts.

 

[Sky1981]

I've tried watching the blue rays, full hd and stuff, they just doesn't feel the same.

Cinema experience is ... different, in a way they're not the smoothest of all in terms of resolution, but it's unique.

I don't think I'll enjoy watching FULL HD on a cinema wide screen

 

[Pexbo]

I thought his filming at 48fps was down to the 3D technique rather than just upping the frame rate? It's like twin 24fps or something? Might be wrong but I'm sure unread that somewhere.

 

[dumbo]

I've tried watching the blue rays, full hd and stuff, they just doesn't feel the same.

Cinema experience is ... different, in a way they're not the smoothest of all in terms of resolution, but it's unique.

I don't think I'll enjoy watching FULL HD on a cinema wide screen

Film has a higher resolution than any current blu ray standard. A 1080p source projected on your average cinema screen probably wouldn't look too hot. Almost all current tvs and the blu ray standard won't be able to display a native 48fps signal.

What 48 frames gives you over the slower frame rates is more fluid moving images. Movement that is more often associated with video. The biggest resistance to 48fps seems to be from people who associate the image with cheaper looking video. I can see this being a problem, at least initially, for myself.

One of the problems with 3D at 24fps is that film judder, particularly during panning shots, is amplified. Doubling the number of frames should smooth this out and this seems the main reason for the 48fps push.

The fact remains, 24fps is and has been the standard and is a part of what makes up the beauty of the projected image as we have come to know it. Higher frame rates look different, video tape and digital video look different. The question is whether the industry and the consumer is prepared to accept the difference, as to whether higher frame speeds become the standard or not.

 

[rcoobc]

I'm really confused, current gen tv's easily display 120fps. What is so unique about 48fps?

Regardless the major cinema companies usually like this type of thing. It kills the independent ones off because they can't afford the equipment.

 

[cinc]

My TV had a 100Hz feature turned on by default, everything on it looked like cheap video documentaries, I was mad till I figured it out. So yeah, I fear the 48fps thing will bug me. Just as 3D does.

 

[dumbo]

I'm really confused, current gen tv's easily display 120fps.

120hz is a common refresh rate, not a frame rate. Tvs are designed to play specific rates and the latest tend to support the following frame rates: 23.976 (or 24fps)progressive frames, 29.97 progressive or 60 interlaced frames (US NTSC) 25 progressive or 50 interlaced frames (European PAL).

Just because a tv can play 50 or 60 frames per second it doesn't mean it can play everything from 1fps-59 and 60fps. They can only display what they are programmed to display.

 

[Brophs]

The porn industry's had 48 f@ps per second for years.

 

[dumbo]

That'll Hertz.

 

[mjs020294]

That'll Hertz.

 

[Brophs]

That'll Hertz.

It comes and goes.

 

[Trionz]

Almost forgot about this thread.
I knew someone like dumbo will clear things up.
Thanks.

 

[WeasteDevil]

120hz is a common refresh rate, not a frame rate. Tvs are designed to play specific rates and the latest tend to support the following frame rates: 23.976 (or 24fps)progressive frames, 29.97 progressive or 60 interlaced frames (US NTSC) 25 progressive or 50 interlaced frames (European PAL).

Just because a tv can play 50 or 60 frames per second it doesn't mean it can play everything from 1fps-59 and 60fps. They can only display what they are programmed to display.

The reason that 600Hz displays exist is because they can natively support 24, 25, 30, 50 and 60Hz inputs and display them without interpolation - simply repeating the frames a certain number of times. Obviously in the case of 48, interpolation would be required as it's 12.5 repeats of the frame as opposed to 25 for 24fps. Clearly, the other option is to speed up the video as they have always done due to the PAL/NTSC 25/30 differences. TV signals are still broadcast in this way. We will all have noticed the juddering of the credits of a film when broadcast on TV.

I don't see the problem here anyway, the content will simply be adjusted at source at is is now.

 

[Count Orduck]

Hang on Weaste, are you telling me that when I watch a film here in PAL, I'm actually watching it at 110% the speed it's meant to be played at?

Mind = blown!

 

[dumbo]

I don't see the problem here anyway, the content will simply be adjusted at source at is is now.

That's true. I know blu ray publishers of early silent films, sometimes shot at 16 and 18 frames per second, are currently devising various algorithms to repeat a specific number of frames, in order to get a natural film look. With less judder than you would get with typical NTSC pull down. Even if they still express frustration that every frame rate is not supported natively.

I suspect The Hobbit will simply get a 24p Blu Ray release.

 

[dumbo]

Hang on Weaste, are you telling me that when I watch a film here in PAL, I'm actually watching it at 110% the speed it's meant to be played at?

Mind = blown!

I'm not good at maths but it's a 4% speed up. It also means the sound pitch is higher, unless it has been altered.

That's the best thing about HD and Blu Ray, they provide much more accurate film reproduction than the standard def NTSC and PAL formats.

 

[Sarni]

How would it be different though? In a space of 1 second can you even notice the difference between seeing 24 frames or 48 frames? I imagine it should look very similar.

If true, then Peter Jackson is a bit of a twat as it'll generate additional cost for already expensive cinemas that consumers will have to cover through rising prices of tickets. All of that because he decided to make a 48fps movie for no particular reason.

 

[Vato]

The porn industry's had 48 f@ps per second for years.

 

[rcoobc]

Cheers Dumbo and Weaste and others. Interesting.

How would it be different though? In a space of 1 second can you even notice the difference between seeing 24 frames or 48 frames? I imagine it should look very similar.

If true, then Peter Jackson is a bit of a twat as it'll generate additional cost for already expensive cinemas that consumers will have to cover through rising prices of tickets. All of that because he decided to make a 48fps movie for no particular reason.

But he can just play every other frame, and there will be no problem?

 

[dumbo]

How would it be different though? In a space of 1 second can you even notice the difference between seeing 24 frames or 48 frames? I imagine it should look very similar.

If true, then Peter Jackson is a bit of a twat as it'll generate additional cost for already expensive cinemas that consumers will have to cover through rising prices of tickets. All of that because he decided to make a 48fps movie for no particular reason.

Most digital projectors can probably project 48fps with a simple software update.

The big hurdle for 48fps to become an industry standard film speed, is cost of film. If celluloid film continues to be used and is not killed off by digital, I can't see film makers wanting to double their filming costs. It's all well and good for 2 hugely profitable filmmakers like Cameron and Jackson to push for faster film speeds but I can't see those with small independent budgets being particularly moved to follow suit.

 

[dumbo]

But he can just play every other frame, and there will be no problem?

Ah, this is where it gets complicated. You would need someone who knows more about shooting film than me to tell you. But when you shoot film the shutter speed and shutter angle plays a big part in how a film looks, particularly how much motion blur you get on each frame. Shooting 24fps and 48fps might require two completely different presets to look acceptable. Therefore simply dropping every other frame may not be feasible.

But as I say, I'm getting way out of my depth. You would need a cinematographer to tell you if it could be done.

 

[Pexbo]

Most digital projectors can probably project 48fps with a simple software update.

The big hurdle for 48fps to become an industry standard film speed, is cost of film. If celluloid film continues to be used and is not killed off by digital, I can't see film makers wanting to double their filming costs. It's all well and good for 2 hugely profitable filmmakers like Cameron and Jackson to push for faster film speeds but I can't see those with small independent budgets being particularly moved to follow suit.

Is film really that expensive? Genuine question by the way as I have no idea. Say a film is 3 hrs long and they film 18 or 20 hours to cut that from, how much are we talking?

It could be 60, 100, 200 or 1000 hours for all I know after various cuts or whatever, I'm interested in what that costs though.

 

[Easy V]

I'm pretty sure I read an article where he said that the film would be released both in 48fps and 24fps, to give people a choice of which version they want to see (like you can choose between seeing a film in 3D or 2D), and giving cinemas a choice of which version they choose to show.

 

[Sky1981]

I'm no techie to be honest.

But any of you notice a certain familiar feeling when you hear a radio compared to HQ sound system?

It seems that they have a certain ambience that we can tell it's radio.

Perhaps there's a technical explanation to this?

 

[rcoobc]

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

 

[WeasteDevil]

Motion blur is one of the things what gives film its unique look, obviously due to the amount of time the lens shutter is open per frame.

 

[WeasteDevil]

I'm no techie to be honest.

But any of you notice a certain familiar feeling when you hear a radio compared to HQ sound system?

It seems that they have a certain ambience that we can tell it's radio.

Perhaps there's a technical explanation to this?

It's called "digital". Many people for example still prefer the sound of vinyl over the CD @ 44Khz 16-bit sampling.

 

[Pexbo]

It's called "digital". Many people for example still prefer the sound of vinyl over the CD @ 44Khz 16-bit sampling.

I didnt understand this until a friend who studies music played two pieces for me and pointed out the differences. It's obviously a trained ear to generally appreciate it without it pointed out but it does make a difference.

He explained it as a graph, one is a curved line from x to y while the other is in square steps. The square steps is digital and represents the notes it can play while I between the steps are notes it cannot. The analogue obviously has no limit.

 

[WeasteDevil]

Well of course, analogue is constant and has an infinite range, digital is a collection of "snapshots" (no matter how many that is per second) and is limited in its range.