The Hobbit movies

[Fluffy Lothario]

This worries me a bit, but I guess if the 48fps sucks, I'll only see it once at the theatre, and wait til it comes out on DVD.

Though who knows, maybe it'll affect the DVD too.

[slycordinator]

Though who knows, maybe it'll affect the DVD too.

The DVD will have to be 24 fps, as DVD players don't have support for 48.

And it'd be simple for them to make it work.

[ReaPsTA]

Frankly there's a reason 24fps is considered the standard for 90 or so years and it's not due to lack of technology.

It's a very prosaic reason, the same why telephones in the years 2012 still transmit its signal in a 3kHz band, despite it not sounding good. It's plain market inertia (i.e. once people didnt get epileptic seizures in the theater they stopped improving it), not some magical sweet spot of technology. Btw, the epileptic seizure is only half-jokingly. They used to have city-ordained mandatory breaks in movies in order to protect the public from massive headaches and seizures due to the low frame rate. (I.e. < 24 fps )

What?  Dude, 24fps has a look to it you can't get with any other frame rate.  It's an issue of taste, not inertia.  I don't like the look of 30fps.  And 60fps looks like a video game.

[Fluffy Lothario]

Though who knows, maybe it'll affect the DVD too.

The DVD will have to be 24 fps, as DVD players don't have support for 48.

And it'd be simple for them to make it work.

Then I have a reliable backup option if I don't like the new framerate.

[yorost]

...there is an aesthetic to 24fps that is great for narratives. An almost fantastic feel. I am ALL for 48fps for documentary applications, but not for narratives.

How could you know?  We feel that way because we're familiar with 24fps, not because we have actual comparison.   You say the 24fps has a certain aesthetic, but the industry has decades upon decades of practice with it.  There's absolutely no reason to think it's the best choice for "narratives," it's just what's been used.

[unklejman]

How could you know?  We feel that way because we're familiar with 24fps, not because we have actual comparison.   You say the 24fps has a certain aesthetic, but the industry has decades upon decades of practice with it.  There's absolutely no reason to think it's the best choice for "narratives," it's just what's been used.

Because I make the choice between using 24fps and 30 fps on a weekly basis for my work. Even for stuff that is all motion graphics or animation, unless the client says otherwise, I choose 24fps for it's aesthetic.

48fps is even faster which means it will only lose that quality even more. I can make some comparisons if you would like to see.

Here is a short comparison between 24 and 48 I found on another forum:

24:




48:

[yorost]

That's still only two choices between framerates.  24fps doesn't even look as good if it isn't filmed correctly with the morion blur, right?  There's more to the equation than simply fps.  Each choice can have it's own optimum method of being filmed for a particular feel, until it's explored, again, how do you know?  How do you know 28fps isn't the best choice?  18fps?  32 fps?  192fps?  23fps?  ...maybe varying fps throughout a movie is best, no?

[unklejman]

I'm pretty sure this discussion is about 24 or 48.

[rumborak]

Frankly there's a reason 24fps is considered the standard for 90 or so years and it's not due to lack of technology.

It's a very prosaic reason, the same why telephones in the years 2012 still transmit its signal in a 3kHz band, despite it not sounding good. It's plain market inertia (i.e. once people didnt get epileptic seizures in the theater they stopped improving it), not some magical sweet spot of technology. Btw, the epileptic seizure is only half-jokingly. They used to have city-ordained mandatory breaks in movies in order to protect the public from massive headaches and seizures due to the low frame rate. (I.e. < 24 fps )

What?  Dude, 24fps has a look to it you can't get with any other frame rate.  It's an issue of taste, not inertia.  I don't like the look of 30fps.  And 60fps looks like a video game.

I was reacting to the idea that 24fps has some special physiological meaning and thus constitutes a "sweet spot" for the technology.
Here is a really interesting article on the topic: https://web.archive.org/web/20110708155615/https://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/18_kb_2.htm

Essentially there was a zoo of frame rates in the beginning of theaters, and 24fps was essentially chosen so that the nitrate films wouldn't start burning in the projector. Too slow a frame rate and the film spends too much time in front of the hot light, too fast and the friction will heat it up too much.

rumborak

[yorost]

I'm pretty sure this discussion is about 24 or 48.

It's still relevant that 48fps doesn't have the same history and experience tied to 24fps.  The overall point is that there's no reason to suspect 24fps is best, exploring other options shouldn't be considered bad.

[unklejman]

It's still relevant that 48fps doesn't have the same history and experience tied to 24fps.  The overall point is that there's no reason to suspect 24fps is best, exploring other options shouldn't be considered bad.

The Panasonic VariCam has been able to shoot incremental frame rates for years. The fact is that 24, 30, 60, and soon to be 48 are deliverable standards.  I really doubt any frame rates other than those will ever catch on.  You might have a point with varying frame rates for effect, as it is done with varying shutter speed, and that IS something having a higher standard frame rate would allow for, but would be better off at 60 or even higher for the math to work out better. Generally though, I find varying frame rates within a piece jarring and distracting.

I have access to both a VariCam and Red MX. When I get some free time I may shoot some test footage at different rates for fun.

[yorost]

Yeah, I'm not expecting other frame rates to be catch on, it's just that the standards are set for reasons other than being objectively best at some task.  Sticking with 24fps for film across the board seems silly when we can experiment.  To me trying different things shouldn't be jeered, not until it's been given a fair shake, at least.

You clearly know more about film than I do,  I just feel as though I want to see what filmmakers can do with different variables.  I don't want an across the board change.

[orcus116]

...there is an aesthetic to 24fps that is great for narratives. An almost fantastic feel. I am ALL for 48fps for documentary applications, but not for narratives.

How could you know?  We feel that way because we're familiar with 24fps, not because we have actual comparison.   You say the 24fps has a certain aesthetic, but the industry has decades upon decades of practice with it.  There's absolutely no reason to think it's the best choice for "narratives," it's just what's been used.

The whole point of a narrative is to, well, tell a story and immerse the viewer. It doesn't help the case when many comments about 48 fps seem to make the video play like you're on the movie set watching actors rehearse the scenes instead of viewing a finished product. I know exactly what you're saying but it seems like a problem that people won't get used to not because it needs time to be perfected but because it just plain doesn't work. If you have an HD TV go turn on the AutoMotion or MotionPlus or whatever feature that fills in the gap between frames for a "smoother picture" and see if you can handle that because it's very distracting.

[Xanthul]

Since most people seem to agree that 24 fps looks more "movie-y" because we're used to it, I would like to see what someone that has NEVER seen a 24 fps movie thinks about both framerates. Maybe that person would see the same clip in 48 fps and 24 fps and would say that 24 sucks because it looks "fake", instead of saying that 48 sucks because it looks too real.

[rumborak]

Sports would massively benefit from higher frame rates, that's for sure.

rumborak

[PetFish]

Thanks for posting that 24/48 comparison.

I love how the 48fps looks and can't wait to see it in action for the whole movie.

[jammindude]

It must be my screen...I've been staring at it for 2 or 3 minutes and I can't tell the difference.

I do have an HD screen. 

[ehra]

It's easier to notice if you focus on the black lines on the ball.

[orcus116]

It's not a great example. It'd probably be better showing pans on characters and dialogue scenes.

[rumborak]

It must be my screen...I've been staring at it for 2 or 3 minutes and I can't tell the difference.

I do have an HD screen.

That's the perfect example why I don't go to movies. To me the two videos are massively different.

rumborak

[unklejman]

Here is a larger example of 48fps that I found.

https://ge.tt/6Esr9oG/v/0?c

I still want people to see it on a dramatic dialogue scene though.

[TL]

One key thing with 24 vs 48;

For fiction, the extra motion blur of 24fps causes the brain to make a subtle distinction between the film and real life. Most viewers will be completely unaware of this on a conscious level, but subconsciously, it helps immersion, because the viewer is less likely to find small details that might otherwise take them out of the film to be jarring.

At a faster frame rate, like 30, 48, or 60, the brain doesn't make the distinction, or at least not to the same degree. This is why you often hear people complaining about the more realistic presentation looking 'fake'. Because fake elements, like sets, are being processed by the brain as supposedly real, and it knows that they aren't.

This is why something like a sporting event looks good at a high frame rate, but a film often won't.

[rumborak]

It will just become another tool in the repertoire of filmmakers. Back in the day of early filming, vastly different frame rates (even within the same movie) were used for cinematic effect.

rumborak

[jammindude]

It will just become another tool in the repertoire of filmmakers. Back in the day of early filming, vastly different frame rates (even within the same movie) were used for cinematic effect.

rumborak

Another tool is a good way of putting it.   Think about how many different *aspect ratios* existed in the 60's.   If memory serves, there were 4 or 5 different options.   Nowadays, we typically only have two....the two most popular won out.   Although the others are still technically available.

[Orbert]

One key thing with 24 vs 48;

For fiction, the extra motion blur of 24fps causes the brain to make a subtle distinction between the film and real life. Most viewers will be completely unaware of this on a conscious level, but subconsciously, it helps immersion, because the viewer is less likely to find small details that might otherwise take them out of the film to be jarring.

At a faster frame rate, like 30, 48, or 60, the brain doesn't make the distinction, or at least not to the same degree. This is why you often hear people complaining about the more realistic presentation looking 'fake'. Because fake elements, like sets, are being processed by the brain as supposedly real, and it knows that they aren't.

This is why something like a sporting event looks good at a high frame rate, but a film often won't.

I like this explanation.  I personally have been confounded by the paradox that something looking "more real" somehow ends up looking "more fake" and this explanation works for me.

[TL]

It will just become another tool in the repertoire of filmmakers. Back in the day of early filming, vastly different frame rates (even within the same movie) were used for cinematic effect.

rumborak

I could see it being used for documentaries, or for films where the director wants to go for an ultra-realistic vibe (though for the latter, I don't know how well it would actually work). I personally can't see it working at all for films with any sort of sets or effects though.

Another tool is a good way of putting it.   Think about how many different *aspect ratios* existed in the 60's.   If memory serves, there were 4 or 5 different options.   Nowadays, we typically only have two....the two most popular won out.   Although the others are still technically available.

With aspect ratios though, it's more about the director shaping the focus of the viewer. The two most common these days (though there is a bit of variation within each) are Widescreen (1.78:1), and Scope (2.35:1). Generally, but not always, Scope is used for things on a grander scale, while Widescreen is used when the director wants you to focus more on specifics.

Different aspect ratios are much less likely to ruin the viewer's immersion than different frame rates.

[slycordinator]

FYI The scope aspect ratio is 2.39:1; 2.35:1 actually stopped being used in the early or mid 1970s. A lot of people call modern ones 2.35 for "historical reasons."

[orcus116]

One key thing with 24 vs 48;

For fiction, the extra motion blur of 24fps causes the brain to make a subtle distinction between the film and real life. Most viewers will be completely unaware of this on a conscious level, but subconsciously, it helps immersion, because the viewer is less likely to find small details that might otherwise take them out of the film to be jarring.

At a faster frame rate, like 30, 48, or 60, the brain doesn't make the distinction, or at least not to the same degree. This is why you often hear people complaining about the more realistic presentation looking 'fake'. Because fake elements, like sets, are being processed by the brain as supposedly real, and it knows that they aren't.

This is why something like a sporting event looks good at a high frame rate, but a film often won't.

I like this explanation.  I personally have been confounded by the paradox that something looking "more real" somehow ends up looking "more fake" and this explanation works for me.

Yes it is kind of odd though the "more fake" is meaning that it looks like a behind the scenes, characters on the set kind of environment instead of a seamless, immersive environment. Perhaps we are just used to entertainment in a certain way but hyperrealism of 48fps and the like for a narrative is so jarring that it's always going to be more detrimental to the overall product than good. We've reached a point where it's not simply something that people could get used to, it's just plain not going to work.

[Fluffy Lothario]

TL's statement does make a lot of sense. I'm gonna wait to see the movie to judge though.

[Orbert]

Oh, definitely.  I expect, or at least hope, that it'll be one of those situations where I'm aware of it at first, but after ten or fifteen minutes, I'm so engrossed by the movie itself that I forget about it.  Ultimately, that may be what happens.  Peter Jackson, and others, choose a few select movies that they know are gonna kick ass, and offer them in 48 fps as well as 24.  People watch the movies in 48 to see what the fuss is all about, and enjoy the movies anyway.  People slowly become acclimated to 48 fps, the world changes just a bit, and life goes on.

I don't blame filmmakers for wanting to continue to push.  Sound was considered a novelty.  Color was considered a novelty.  This is kinda big, but nowhere near the scale of those two, which eventually became the norm.  People can get used to anything.  Wait... many or perhaps most people can get used to anything.  I never thought mp3's would become as ubiquitous as they are, for example.

[theGonz]

Can't wait!

[BlobVanDam]

I don't blame filmmakers for wanting to continue to push.  Sound was considered a novelty.  Color was considered a novelty.  This is kinda big, but nowhere near the scale of those two, which eventually became the norm.  People can get used to anything.

I agree with you, especially that it's nowhere near as big a change as the other two. This isn't a huge addition like those two, it's only a change to something existing. And much like those other two changes, this is designed to bring film closer to real life (as is 3D, but let's not go there), so I'm all for it in principle. 
There is no magical or scientific reasoning why 24fps is better, it's just what we subconsciously (or consciously) associate with being a film. In 80 years people will probably look back on the opposition to 48fps exactly the same as the opposition to sound and be equally baffled why anyone would be against these improvements.

[unklejman]

I agree with you, especially that it's nowhere near as big a change as the other two. This isn't a huge addition like those two, it's only a change to something existing. And much like those other two changes, this is designed to bring film closer to real life (as is 3D, but let's not go there), so I'm all for it in principle. 
There is no magical or scientific reasoning why 24fps is better, it's just what we subconsciously (or consciously) associate with being a film. In 80 years people will probably look back on the opposition to 48fps exactly the same as the opposition to sound and be equally baffled why anyone would be against these improvements.

The only thing is, higher frame rates are not a new technology, they have been around for years. The only reason it's come up now is for 3D.

I feel like there is a reason beyond association for why 24fps is more cinematic. I remember being 12 years old sitting in front of my TV with my VHS copy of Jurassic Park in the VCR stepping frame by frame trying to figure out what is different about the motion that seems more fantastical than my camcorder.  It appeared that every 3rd or so frame was doubled (really, interlaced fields were being mixed). Even though I didn't know what it was at the time, that's when I discovered telecine pull down. I later went on to find out that film was 24fps, and spent years trying to figure out how to get my camcorder footage to have that same quality. Eventually they finally made affordable camcorders shoot 24p and I was happy.

I feel like the skipped frames cut out a lot of awkward fidgety movements, especially with actors that gives the motion a certain feel that, yes is unrealistic, but that is why I like it. That combined with the motion blur just gives in a bigger than life quality in my opinion.


Oh and one other thing. If the industry wants to get more butts in seats, maybe they should start filming good stories again.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Part 7!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CtQGtwxTAc

[TL]

The thing is, it's not that 24 is the exact perfect sweetspot. It's a framerate that happens to be low enough to assist immersion without being too low and looking choppy. Something shot at 23 or 25 would probably look more or less identical to something shot at 24. 24 is specifically mentioned in these discussions because it's the standard. The key is a framerate that's low enough to be immersive, but high enough that it isn't choppy.

Yes, 24 wasn't originally chosen for its aesthetic. It was originally selected largely for technical reasons. However, the did accidentally stumble upon a really good standard.