Some comments on a 48fps showing of some Hobbit footage

[Neil]

As you know, fast moving action - especially in 3D - is often a little blurred. Increasing the frames per second from 24 to 48 at the cinema will change this. But by the sounds of it, it gets some getting used to!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55212

-- -------- Post added 29-Apr-2012 at 07:00 PM ---------- Previous post was 25-Apr-2012 at 08:55 AM ----------

Peter Jackson talks about the complainers who didn't seem to like 48fps!

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/peter-jackson-the-hobbit-cinemacon-317755
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17885833

[Sammich]

Based on what the aintitcool guy described about 48fps, it sounds like the removal of motion blur makes the movie look like a video game. I wonder if this is also going to make the image depth much shallower. The human eye is not able to focus on multiple objects at varying distances at the same time and a distortion of depth perception could turn people off.

I am curious to see what it looks like for myself.

[Neil]

Based on what the aintitcool guy described about 48fps, it sounds like the removal of motion blur makes the movie look like a video game. I wonder if this is also going to make the image depth much shallower. The human eye is not able to focus on multiple objects at varying distances at the same time and a distortion of depth perception could turn people off.

I am curious to see what it looks like for myself.
Can't see it affecting image depth at all. All I can see it doing it removing the motion blur and slighly stuttery nature of the current cinema experience. After tens of years of everyone being used to this, I'm sure 48fps will take some getting used to, but I suspect it wil be a positive move, and even more so for 3D.

[Rumsfeld]

I suspect that in 10 years we won't need 3-D glasses in movie theatres.

[Neil]

I suspect that in 10 years we won't need 3-D glasses in movie theatres.

Sounds impossible to me... Cannot begin to imagine the technology to deliver that, yet alone it being here in just 10yrs!?

[SymphonicX]

Sounds impossible to me... Cannot begin to imagine the technology to deliver that, yet alone it being here in just 10yrs!?

ha it's here already brah....
glasses-less 3D TVs exist already....!

[Danny]

Sounds impossible to me... Cannot begin to imagine the technology to deliver that, yet alone it being here in just 10yrs!?

dude thats totally possible.

[SymphonicX]

dude thats totally possible.

if you think about it, it's already here...you remember those little moving hologram things you'd get in packets of cereal....you move it to the left and Donald Duck is straight faced, move it to the right and he's smiling like a dumb facebook b*tch.

Same sort of idealogy - polarising images displayed at specific angles...

10 points to whoever guesses the year of the first 3D image...

[Danny]

if you think about it, it's already here...you remember those little moving hologram things you'd get in packets of cereal....you move it to the left and Donald Duck is straight faced, move it to the right and he's smiling like a dumb facebook b*tch.

Same sort of idealogy - polarising images displayed at specific angles...

10 points to whoever guesses the year of the first 3D image...

first 3d flick that springs to mind is house of wax but first image?

I'd bet money its a magic eye picture but ive got no godamn idea how long those have existed for.

[Neil]

glasses-less 3D TVs exist already....!
Huh? Surely you have to sit at the correct angle so it's a single viewer experience!? (Like 3DS)

[Rumsfeld]

I know the Nazi's developed the first 3D film, as for the first image I don't know.

[Mike70]

i don't care if this movie is going to be shown a bald dude's huge forehead, i'll be there.

[SymphonicX]

I know the Nazi's developed the first 3D film, as for the first image I don't know.

I think it was actually something like 1894 - could have even been earlier....they were called Stereoscopes and you could view two similar images through a binocular type device which had a slightly offset image in each eye, creating the 3D effect...they figured it out even back then, that depth was percieved through the interocular distance between the eyes - so they put two cameras side by side and made those things...which were of course very popular among the rich and bored.

First 3D movie was in the 20s - and to be honest, not a huge amount has changed in the way it's shot - two cameras side by side or looking at a mirror rig. Fascinating stuff.

[krakenslayer]

I wonder if it will take off. We've had faster framerates in various media for quite a while (30fps, for example, is a very common rate in camcorders and webcams), it's not the technology that's holding it back, it's the look. That's part of the reason you can instantly spot a shot-on-video horror flick, for example; no matter how good the lighting and cinematography, it just LOOKS like a video.

I wonder if it really is simply a matter of what we're used to, or if there's more at play. I suspect that the slower framerate of 24fps gives movement a sort of subliminal pseudo- "slow motion" vibe, which makes it feel more epic somehow. Perhaps the fact that they're going with a multiple of 24 will help?

[Sammich]

I wonder if it will take off. We've had faster framerates in various media for quite a while (30fps, for example, is a very common rate in camcorders and webcams), it's not the technology that's holding it back, it's the look. That's part of the reason you can instantly spot a shot-on-video horror flick, for example; no matter how good the lighting and cinematography, it just LOOKS like a video.


IIRC the old Tom Baker episodes of Dr. Who contained indoor scenes shot on video and outdoor scenes shot on film. I always thought that was kind of strange.

[Mike70]

I wonder if it will take off. We've had faster framerates in various media for quite a while (30fps, for example, is a very common rate in camcorders and webcams), it's not the technology that's holding it back, it's the look. That's part of the reason you can instantly spot a shot-on-video horror flick, for example; no matter how good the lighting and cinematography, it just LOOKS like a video.

I wonder if it really is simply a matter of what we're used to, or if there's more at play. I suspect that the slower framerate of 24fps gives movement a sort of subliminal pseudo- "slow motion" vibe, which makes it feel more epic somehow. Perhaps the fact that they're going with a multiple of 24 will help?

i don't know, man. the flicker fusion rate of the human eye plays an key role in choosing frame rate. important note: the human eye does not have a "frame rate" it works by constantly processing the light reflected off objects and into your eyes. rod cells process images faster than cone cells, so the brightness, frequency and direction of the image have a lot to with it. your flicker fusion threshold is much lower in peripheral vision than in something you see directly.

flicker fusion is a physics term. it is the rate that your eye can resolve a moving image as steady. if the frame rate is significantly above or below this threshold, then the image no longer appears steady and instead appears to flicker and reveal itself for what it really is: a moving series of still images. 24fps is the most common frame rate (some tv shows are shot at 30fps) because your eye has a very easy time perceiving it as a smooth, steady image.

anything above 60fps becomes a problem in most people. anything below about 18-15 also ceases to appear as a smooth image. there is a very fine line in how fast your eyes can resolve moving images as a steady picture.