Peter Jackson Confirms He's Shooting The Hobbit at 48 FPS
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
It's hard to explain if you aren't working with cameras that can change between the frame rates that these people are talking about, but let me try anyway. I've worked with a camera that can do 24 frames, 30 frames, and 60 frames per second. You can tell the difference between each one, and artistically, I *always* go for 24 frames during a narrative production. As he said, the look is sort of surreal. When he's talking about filling in the gaps, it's kind of a metaphor for filling in the frames, but as you said that makes no sense. It's more about filling in the gaps for what the artistic frame looks like compared to the realistic frame.lunncal said:
As far as I know, American soap operas shoot 30 frames per second. If most of you didn't realize, that's the primary reason that American soap operas look so horrible. Independent filmmakers have had access to 30 frames or even 60 frames per second on their digital cameras for years. However, the last four or so years have only been so interesting for indie filmmakers because we're finally getting 24 frames per second in accessible packages. That frame rate looks like what we've come to expect for movies. The higher frame rates are great for reality shows, documentaries, wildlife exposes, and soap operas, but it doesn't make narrative work more compelling or nicer looking. Just the opposite in fact.
The real improvement will come in the slow motion. Try watching Gladiator, notice whenever it goes to slow-mo it gets choppy? They're basically cutting the framerate in half for those parts. So while at 24 FPS things will be mostly smooth, everyone will start to notice the pauses when you cut it down to 12. With this change you hopefully won't see that anymore.
There is a big drawback, especially for the movie. Most people unconsciously associate these kind of framerates with homevideos. I've seen it happen with TVs, where people dismiss them altogether, basically because they make a movie too smooth 
We'll see, I'm all for it.
We'll see, I'm all for it.
There's some big leaps of faith here. Let's start with a little theory (wikipedia):j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:It is insofar as vinyl is analogue, whereas CDs are digital. Thus, a vinyl record accurately mirrors the original sound (which is analogue), whereas digital essentially takes snapshots of the original sound, and pieces them together. This graph shows what happens better than I can explain it:unwesen said:
Higher bitrates can indeed get more faithful reproductions of the original source, but no matter how high the bitrate, you're essentially taking snapshots of the original sound, and piecing them together like a mosaic. While vinyl may not offer a total 100% accururate representation of the sound, the fact that it is analogue, and thus based off the original waveforms, not digital reconstructions of them, inherently means it will be a 'truer' representation.
I speak as someone who has an extensive digital library of music. There are many reasons to prefer CDs over Vinyl LPS: they scratch less eaasily, are more portable, you can listen to more than 20 minutes of music without having to change disc... but in terms of out-and-out sound, analogue methods of soundcapture such as as vinyl will always have the edge over digital.
But don't just take my word for it. Science tells us this is true.
Now put together that audio is usually sampled at 44.1 or 48Khz and that the human ear can not hear beyond 22Khz. Coincidence?
The image you use is in short greatly deceiving. Your assumption that analog-to-analog is inherently truer is also really strange. I can record audio on a clay pot if I'd want, I think you can imagine how crappy that will sound though.
You most likely just prefer the sound of vinyl, there is no need to defend that with incomplete science.
Film is just as discrete as digital, we do not have true analogue recording of images, it is the tape that is analogue, not the recording. It is just a difference in sensors and storage, for which digital is superior (as photography has already demonstrated). Both techniques use sampling though, which is the defining fasctor here and for instance the major difference between analogue and digital sound recording.Tupolev said:
Indeed. While I also feel that digital recordings have sounded worse and worse over the years, it's mostly because of the Loudness War [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war], which ironically is a byproduct of CDs having less limitations. But that's the fault of human sound engineers (or their employers), not the format.kingmob said:
Alternatively, this [http://xkcd.com/841/].
I was complaining about 24fps to a friend literally on the weekend just gone.
As far as I'm concerned, if this does anything to propel the adoption of higher framerates in cinema, I'll consider this move a bigger achievement than the rest of Peter Jackson's career combined.
As far as I'm concerned, if this does anything to propel the adoption of higher framerates in cinema, I'll consider this move a bigger achievement than the rest of Peter Jackson's career combined.
As a compositor, this means more frames to deal with, which is more work and more time consumed for every second of film, but also it means sharper images to composite with, less blur.
For the NTSC/PAL debate earlier, it's based off of the electrical pulse that the energy company delivers power to your house. I don't know the terminology, but basically the sin wave that travels across power-cords in the states has a frequency of 59.97 per second. When they were first figuring out broadcast, they decided to go half as fast, 29.97fps, to sync up with the pulse of the electric company. In europe, their electrical current is exactly 50/second, so they went with 25fps.
That was necessary for analogue connection, but with digital signal they can broadcast any frame rate they want. The only limitation now is how much information they can send in a second, and if your receiver can process it all.
A full-res 48fps movie might be a little big, but we have time to advance.
For the NTSC/PAL debate earlier, it's based off of the electrical pulse that the energy company delivers power to your house. I don't know the terminology, but basically the sin wave that travels across power-cords in the states has a frequency of 59.97 per second. When they were first figuring out broadcast, they decided to go half as fast, 29.97fps, to sync up with the pulse of the electric company. In europe, their electrical current is exactly 50/second, so they went with 25fps.
That was necessary for analogue connection, but with digital signal they can broadcast any frame rate they want. The only limitation now is how much information they can send in a second, and if your receiver can process it all.
A full-res 48fps movie might be a little big, but we have time to advance.
And that's why everybody prefers books to movies.Kragg said:
It's also why blind people enjoy movies more than the rest of us.
Less visual information=more engaging? LOL NVidia, you've had it wrong ALL ALONG
Also, in regards to the people who claim that vinyl is better than CDs, due to their perfect analog sound capture, I've got news for you: the reason vinyl sounds different than CDs isn't the harmonic frequencies that you can't actually hear, it's the noise of the wearing and scratching that the vinyl itself imparts to the needle. It's not the accuracy of the sound you're enjoying, it's the inaccurate noise of mechanical artifacts.
Just because something is analog is no guarantee of quality. The grinding of the needle against the vinyl means that every time you listen to a song on it, it gets noisier.
Well I remember being annoyed when the frame rate switched between scenes in Public Enemies, and I'm worried seeing the fast frame rate will make it look like they're fast-forwarding.
Feh, framerates. Ok, I bet up to 100FPS will make a difference to some people. I'm told the average eye can identify 12fps, but that doesn't mean you aren't aware of transitions higher than that. Same reason early flourescent tubes caused problems - although you can't SEE the 50Hz flicker you are still aware it is there.
So, yes I imagine stepping up the FPS is an improvement. But just like 3d and hd, a higher fps won't make an episode of friends any funnier. So, adding this to my order of importance...
writing > soundtrack > casting > film quality > resolution > fps > 3d.
And I only put fps above 3d because double fps is vital for 3d to work well.
So, yes I imagine stepping up the FPS is an improvement. But just like 3d and hd, a higher fps won't make an episode of friends any funnier. So, adding this to my order of importance...
writing > soundtrack > casting > film quality > resolution > fps > 3d.
And I only put fps above 3d because double fps is vital for 3d to work well.
It's all in your imagination man. Its so close you probably wont be able to tell the difference in a double blind test.Spangles said:
not stating that this was fact or even my opinion btw, just thought it was interestingCalatar said:
And a big reason why people still like books is because imagination fills in the visual gap, also why alot of people are upset when their books get made into movies and they don't hold up to what they made up.
Now he is a cinematographer and romanticizing things a bit (or alot) and im guessing noone here has the knowledge of brain function to debunk the fact that lower framerates lets the brain fill in those gaps itself hereby drawing you more into the story like he said, nor prove it. Now being blind and watching a movie or being able to see and use that part of the brain that translates visual stimuli for empathy is a whole different matter ...
finally, stuff being more engaging cause graphics cards get upgraded is rubbish, are you more engaged in games than you were 5-10 years ago? these upgrades happen for profit only not better experiences, which brings us back to the original story. More fps isn't going to make a notable better visual experience for movie-watchers, just more profits from buying new hardware and buying and having to rebuy your old movies, eventually
Technical shananigans aside - I've seen the example footage and don't see the difference. Except for the fact that I would think simulation sickness to be far more likely with higher framerates.
By the way, have there been any studies on what is the maximum framerate where the human brain can still make out a difference?
By the way, have there been any studies on what is the maximum framerate where the human brain can still make out a difference?