Well, I just want to make sure we're clear in our terminology here, because not everyone understands every term. Refresh rate /= framerate. 60hz is the standard refresh rate for TVs, and it doesn't change. It's confusing if you call the framerate the refresh rate.
The Hobbit 48fps first impressions
- Thread starter Edmond Dantès
- Start date
- Status
Well, I just want to make sure we're clear in our terminology here, because not everyone understands every term. Refresh rate /= framerate. 60hz is the standard refresh rate for TVs, and it doesn't change. It's confusing if you call the framerate the refresh rate.
It's been an hour and half since his last post. I'm sure the process is time consuming; depending on his upload speeds, we may be here for a while.
cutmeamango
Banned
The actual recording is measured in frames per second, which tells how many unique frames (pictures!) were captured. Refresh rate in hertz which is cycles per second.
What I'm trying to prove is:
30fps displayed in 60hz is in no way the same as 48fps displayed in 48hz.
And it isn't even close to a poor but honest comparison of '(cinematic or soap opera) frame perception effect'.
But neither one is CINEMATIC.
I suspect in the long run, many directors will purposely go for a slower shutter in order to add a bit of 'cinematic blur'. I can live with that as long as it's less than what we typically see in modern film. That way we'll get all the benefit of reduced judder, and some improvements in temporal resolution. Seems like a good balance.
What does the refresh rate matter?
That isn't entirely correct.
Even assuming there's been a consistent look, much of the issue is based on the realities of capture equipment and film stock. In order to get sufficient brightness, you can't mess with the shutter speed too much unless you use exotic film stock. With modern digital photography, the same limitations no longer exist.
I hate to bring up motion interpolation because it's not really a perfect analogy, but the funny thing is people are actually making the opposite point than they think with it. Everyone seems to have it stuck in their heads that motion interpolation automatically gives a very specific 'SOE' look. That's not the case at all. That's simply based on seeing shit algorithms and settings on TV, particularly with jacked up demo TV's at stores.
The reality is there are myriad different algorithms out there, and the better displays offer a number of different modes ... and they've only expanded due to faster processors and refresh rates. Motion interpolation can vary from barely noticeable to obvious SOE, and in the middle there are varying impacts to judder, temporal resolution, and the like. With modern digital cameras, they can control the shudder speeds sufficiently to do basically anything. Will the Hobbit look like an SOE shit-fest? Possibly ... but that isn't an automatic strike against 48p. As both tech and directors' experience continue to evolve, all sorts of looks are attainable.
Actually I just thought of a more practical example. Think back to 'the scene' in Saving Private Ryan or the battles in Gladiator. That look was not done via faster frame rates, they were done by using a faster shutter speed and expensive film stock that could capture sufficient brightness. That was all done at 24p, and look how different it is from conventional film. The level of variance possible with 48p is even greater.
Vire
Member
Because in these impressions, people are saying things like "In some places, it looks like their running or swinging movements are sped up...". It is a fact that the actor's motion is the speed that they performed it on set, and no matter how many snapshots of that movement you see, it will always be the same speed. However, first hand impressions like this point to the "problem" being entirely psychosomatic. The fact that people said different corners of the frame looked like they were playing at different speeds is literally just their brain getting mindfucked because they have never seen footage of this clarity before. I would wager that the feeling of uneasiness will subside by the time they're 30 minutes into the final film, let alone the year-long wait in between An Unexpected Journey and There and Back Again.
That's not why. The vast majority of digital projectors in current theaters simply don't support 60p.
Only because you've noted the worst examples of it. Either you haven't seen good ones, or you simply weren't even aware of it and simply thought it had a nice smooth picture.
Vimeo recompresses all videos to 30fps...so yeah you're not seeing 48fps there.
Alrighty. I just want to believe.
Marty Chinn
Member
Well it's a bit of a mishmash to begin with because it's all relative to what you're talking about 30 fps on the display doesn't mean the source material is 30 fps. Coming from a game development background, I'm used to talking about unique frames of information in hz because back in the PS1 days, games would technically be 30 fps but they were being refreshed at 60hz because it was interlaced frames. Either usage of hz or fps is going to be confusing to some person.
This is true, but I was trying to use hz as a reference to unique frames.
I don't think that's true at all because we can look at 60i and 60p and while there are some differences, they are way closer in visual look than 30p. So regardless of what 48p is displayed at, it's going to have a much closer effect to what 60i or 60p will be than at 30p.
Because 30fps at 30p has half the motion refresh rate of 30fps at 60i.
You'll be getting a 24fps version.
Apparently not
This has given me an idea for a new line of high-end televisions, video cameras, and gaming console accessories.
With the CINEMAGIC 24hz SUPER HDTV, experience the magic of movies, even when watching standard television programming. With our patented and top-secret UNTELECINING ALGORITHM(that's tech person-speak for CINEMAGIC), everything you watch on television is converted to a CINEMAGICAL 24 frames per second.
:lol
Regardless of Vimeo and YouTube not being able to play 48p videos, every person in this thread is using a computer monitor incapable of natively refreshing at 48hz. Which means that even if we were able to get the impression of clarity from a 48p Hobbit trailer .mov, there would still be some kind of pulldown going on between 48p->60hz, resulting in artifacting that wouldn't be present when we see the movie in theater.
No, that's adding frames to video that isn't at 48fps, whic makes it look weird.
Boo. I'm just going to watch it in theaters, anyways.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Why are people using 60mhz and 60 fps as if its they are same thing? Am i wrong in thinking they are different?
Why? I have a "240 hz" tv (LG 55LH90 Backlit LED). if games can run at 48fps, why can't movies?
Does this have to do with 3:2 pulldown and all of that?
Of course there would be pulldown, but it really wouldn't be a big deal.
The blu-ray standard does not support 48fps.
What about a stream or download from Apple or Vudu?
dat (lack of) foresight
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Time for Purpl-Ray!
"Hz" is used to describe the rate at which a screen/projector cycles the frames it is asked to project. They use "fps" or "p" to refer to how many times per second a camera captures a frame.
cutmeamango
Banned
It is technically possible though.
AnathemicOne
Banned
So is there a video that shows The Hobbit at 48 fps?
Wouldn't a firmware update fix this? Then if you had a capable bu-ray player that has been updated, the movie would play at 48fps. If not, it would switch to 24fps.
To Far Away Times
Member
Hope this doesn't turn out to be a big budget soap opera.
This isn't really possible unless two videos were included on the disc...but 48fps already consumes vastly more bandwidth so it isn't really an option unless you want to be stuck with aggressive compression across the board. It would be a clusterfuck of a release, I don't really see how it is possible.
faceless007
Member
How does the 48fps work with 3D? Are both lenses shooting in 48? I thought there was something about half the frames are dropped because they alternate between each eye but that might be something else I'm remembering.
LOL Cameron, with Avatar being 3D and Avatar 2 being 60p he is incessantly trying to fuck up the blu-ray consortium's standards.
Averaging 28.8mbps, the Avatar 1 2D theatrical cut takes up 44.9gb of a 50gb dual layer blu-ray disc.
If Avatar 2 was somehow identical in runtime, and the home release was encoded at the exact same video bitrate, but was 3D and 60p, it would take up 224.5gb.
They released all of those Extended Editions of LOTR on two DVDs, what would stop them from releasing The Hobbit pt.1 on two blu-rays, being that twice the framerate takes up twice the space (besides laziness/greediness)? I would hope that Jackson would never over compromise on bitrate.
I don't agree with that. By 60i I presume you mean 30 frames of odd lines mixed with 30 frames of even lines. When there is motion from the camera or subjects you are going to get teeth horizontally through the image and your resolution cut in half, which is going to give you a very ugly version of motion blur. In the end the quality is going to be more comparable to 30p than 60p. The 60p is so much cleaner in motion. Having said that, you can't equate them so neatly, there are definitely equally perceivable differences between all 3 formats.
3D BD players would be able to do it. The question is whether TV's would be able to handle it correctly. I doubt most displays' video processors are sufficiently upgradable.
1) Passive 3D displays would be hosed unless they could completely reprogram the VP.
2) Active 3D displays actually could work fine assuming they are all consistent as far as which eye is shown first. If that's the case, it could simply treat it as 3D ... you just wouldn't wear your glasses. If they aren't consistent, they'd at least be more likely to be upgradable. Again though, matters how programmable the VP is.
I'd expect the next iteration of BD will actually support BD XL, so it would be viable then.
That said, early reports seem to point to many BD players being upgradable to support BD XL IIRC. Not sure they'd want to try that avenue though. BD replication is quite cheap now, so there's little point in bother with would be a fragmented production (have to release both XL and separate ones). They'd just as soon throw both discs in the case like many 3D movies do.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
Sorry guys, this 48 FPS footage is going to have to be outputted at 50FPS since Premiere won't allow custom FPS of 48. I doubt any of you will be able to tell apart the 2-frame difference though.
See, but now we're choosing between getting 24fps in each eye stereoscopically, or all 48 blasted at both our eyes, flat. I wanna know when we will have TVs/players capable of both put together. It's impossible to know right now.
By the time Avatar 2 comes out we'll be using holodiscs or some bullshit so it won't matter then. :lol
I was talking in reference to including both a 24fps and a 48fps version of the movie on the same disc. And this movie is 3D to boot...and blu-ray only supports high-framerate(60fps) at 720p anyway. I mean this would have to be one crazy firmware update, I doubt the hardware in most blu-ray players would support 3D+1080p+48fps. Yeah I just don't see this happening.
For the ASPIRING FILMMAKER, we also offer the highly-anticipated CINEMAGIC REEL MAGIC Digital Video Camera. But be warned, this camera is only for those who want an authentic CINEMAGIC filmmaking experience. The REEL MAGIC digital camera is the ONLY digital camera which offers patented CINEMAGIC technology such as:
-The CINEMAGIC Non-Integrated Light Meter(sold separately); only CINEMAGIC will offer you this high-end technology that gives you all the power of film, but with a digital camera.
-The CINEMAGIC QUICK ERASE DOOR- this powerful feature allows you to quickly and irreversibly erase all your data. NO other digital camera gives you this authentic filmmaking experience. Just tap the quick-release button, pull open the camera door, and ALL OF YOUR DATA IS GONE. CINEMAGIC.
-And of course, like all CINEMAGIC products, the CINEMAGIC REEL MAGIC Digital Video Camera only shoots at a CINEMAGIC 24 frames per second.
But don't just listen to us, listen to what these acclaimed Hollywood directors say about the CINEMAGIC REEL MAGIC Digital Video Camera:
"It's like my film career, but in camera form"- M Night Shyamalan
"I have to say, I've never seen a digital camera quite like this before. It kind of reminds me of my old Super-8"- Peter Jackson
"How did you get into my office?"- George Lucas
Sounds good.
-The CINEMAGIC Non-Integrated Light Meter(sold separately); only CINEMAGIC will offer you this high-end technology that gives you all the power of film, but with a digital camera.
-The CINEMAGIC QUICK ERASE DOOR- this powerful feature allows you to quickly and irreversibly erase all your data. NO other digital camera gives you this authentic filmmaking experience. Just tap the quick-release button, pull open the camera door, and ALL OF YOUR DATA IS GONE. CINEMAGIC.
-And of course, like all CINEMAGIC products, the CINEMAGIC REEL MAGIC Digital Video Camera only shoots at a CINEMAGIC 24 frames per second.
But don't just listen to us, listen to what these acclaimed Hollywood directors say about the CINEMAGIC REEL MAGIC Digital Video Camera:
"It's like my film career, but in camera form"- M Night Shyamalan
"I have to say, I've never seen a digital camera quite like this before. It kind of reminds me of my old Super-8"- Peter Jackson
"How did you get into my office?"- George Lucas
Sounds good.
Stalwart defenders of 24fps have obviously never seen a panning shot, like, ever.
48Hz 3D?
Yeah that's not practical now. You'll have to wait for the next iteration of BD for that ... and that won't happen until h.265 is done and has decoder chips being fabricated in high volume.
They won't be using h.264 in the next iteration of BD. Plus it will support BD XL discs.
- Status