Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: High frame rate 3D

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » High frame rate 3D - Cameron on Cinema Con (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: High frame rate 3D - Cameron on Cinema Con

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 04-05-2011 02:39 PM

James cameron seems to have demonstrated 48 and 60 fps 3D on Cinema con. Does anyone know what projection system/hardware/modification/flashing rate was used there to project his demo?

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 04-05-2011 04:35 PM

I was there for the presentation. It used four Christie 2230's, double-stacked two for each eye. Servers were Doremi V1's running at 24, 48, and 60fps.

Interesting presentation. Cameron feels that the industry should be moving towards a higher frame rate, at least 48fps, before we get into 4k and beyond in static resolution. He demonstrated how even a 4k image falls apart during camera pans and tracks due to judder. Since current digital projectors can handle triple-flash already, all it would take would be some new software to get these machines to show higher-framerate stuff. The cost to theaters to upgrade to higher framerates should be minimal - the hardware can already handle it.

The clips he showed were shot and shown at 24p, 48p, and 60p with a 180 degree shutter setting. He also showed these higher-framerate clips converted back down to 24p. He mentioned he will make these clips available on-line so more people can see and evaluate for themselves.

| IP: Logged

David E. Nedrow
Master Film Handler

Posts: 368
From: Columbus, OH, USA
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 04-05-2011 08:13 PM

quote: Paul M
It used four Christie 2230's, double-stacked two for each eye. Servers were Doremi V1's running at 24, 48, and 60fps.

?!?!

That sounds like a ludicrous setup. To me, Cameron is the full-time April Fool joke. You can see judder now with 2K setups, so I''d rather a theatre just pay to upgrade to 4K, rather than wait until they can afford a dual, double stacked system just to show the one Cameron film that will take advantage of it.

| IP: Logged

Pietro Clarici
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 136
From: Foligno (PG) Italy
Registered: Sep 2008

posted 04-06-2011 05:39 AM

quote: Paul Mayer
(...) The cost to theaters to upgrade to higher framerates should be minimal - the hardware can already handle it.

Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I see a few problems with that:

- Due to HD-SDI bandwidth limitations, Series 1 projectors (and Series 2 without IMBs) cannot show 48FPS material at 4:4:4 12-bit. They can run in 4:2:2 8-bit, but it's less than ideal. In this case, a serious hardware upgrade would be needed: the bottleneck here are input capabilities.

- Current Series 2 machines with IMBs should be fine in 48FPS 2D. But when it comes to 48FPS *3D*, this means that new JPEG2000 decoder boards will be needed to support a 96FPS native stream, possibly at a much higher bitrate. And, even if we had such capabilities, there would be the issue of frame duplication: can we project 48FPS per eye as-is? Because in order to do double-flash or triple-flash, DMDs should be capable to work at 192 or 288FPS, which is considerably higher than today's 144.

The only solutions left *today* for 48FPS 3D are stacked DLPs, and possibly Sony SXRDs with the split-lens assembly, assuming that their respective IMBs are up to the task (and they're probably not).

Cameron is a great showman, but all of this sounds like a little more than a "software upgrade" to me.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 04-06-2011 06:08 AM

quote: Paul Mayer
I was there for the presentation. It used four Christie 2230's, double-stacked two for each eye. Servers were Doremi V1's running at 24, 48, and 60fps.

Hi Paul,

do you know wether he used a single server or a synchronized pair?

I, too, think that the current breed of series 1 and series II DLPs can't cope with doubled input rates at triple flash. SDI bottleneck, triple-flash bottleneck, possible J2k decoder bottleneck. Might be easy with a Sony or a dual-projector setup.

Maybe that's something for LieMax to take up. Upgrade their digital systems to dual-4k 48fps 3D might give them back some of the original fame, while all others continue to show 24fps the classic way.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 04-06-2011 07:48 AM

quote: David E. Nedrow

That sounds like a ludicrous setup. To me, Cameron is the full-time April Fool joke. You can see judder now with 2K setups, so I''d rather a theatre just pay to upgrade to 4K, rather than wait until they can afford a dual, double stacked system just to show the one Cameron film that will take advantage of it.

Well it was cinemacon and I suspect a really huge screen. I doubt one would need more than one machine to do this on a typical screen.
Personally I think this is a step in the right direction, I doubt most people would even notice the jump from 2k to 4k unless it was in the front few rows or in a large format cinema. Higher frame rates will create an effect thats more like looking out a window than looking at a screen. In 3d perhaps just like real life! Ultimately it gives filmmakers another look to choose from and audiences another reason to experience a film out of the home.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 04-06-2011 10:11 AM

Since when is Cinema about 'reality'? People go there to escape reality. 24fps is part of that experience. I hate high framerate for cinema, tv soap look.
Yet I admit it might be a different experience when viewed in 3D.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 04-06-2011 10:48 AM

It wasn't an April fool's joke. The dual projection was necessary to illuminate that screen with a PROPER amount of light, which was apparently something else Cameron was preaching.

| IP: Logged

Anders Nordentoft-Madsen
Film Handler

Posts: 57
From: Valby, Denmark
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 04-06-2011 10:49 AM

quote:
- Current Series 2 machines with IMBs should be fine in 48FPS 2D. But when it comes to 48FPS *3D*, this means that new JPEG2000 decoder boards will be needed to support a 96FPS native stream, possibly at a much higher bitrate. And, even if we had such capabilities, there would be the issue of frame duplication: can we project 48FPS per eye as-is? Because in order to do double-flash or triple-flash, DMDs should be capable to work at 192 or 288FPS, which is considerably higher than today's 144.

As I understand it, there would be no need to double or triple-flash at 60 fps, so actually the DMD should only be able to do 120 fps...

| IP: Logged

Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 04-06-2011 01:59 PM

quote: Carsten Kurz
Since when is Cinema about 'reality'? People go there to escape reality. 24fps is part of that experience. I hate high framerate for cinema, tv soap look.

Isn't that a little like the people who had a hard time transitioning from vinyl to CD because they liked the pops and warble that are inherent to playback from a turntable? Or people liking tube amps because of the "warmer" sound?

Associating playback artifacts with the experience is a sentimental attachment that is shared by an ever-decreasing pool of people.

If the source material is created at a higher frame rate, and then displayed at that same frame rate, there should be no detrimental effects of doing so. On the flip side, I would think that a lot of the problems with horizontal panning would go away, and audiences would quickly become accustomed to its advantages.

I don't think it makes sense to take something created at 24fps and project it at 48fps or 96fps, etc. The frame interpolation that would attempt to smooth out the artifacts of the 24fps source material would end up creating that "soap opera" effect.

Is that what you're referring to?

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 04-06-2011 03:45 PM

For this particular setup at the Caesars Palace Colosseum, we were on a 70' silver MDI screen with a throw of 118'. The 3D was via RealD's XLW (XL Widescreen) optics. So yeah, like Brad said, four machines were needed to get proper light levels.

For regular 2D on a more typical-size screen, one machine will more than likely do. The fact that the machine can triple-flash just means that it can do these kinds of future frame rates already.

As for the servers, I wasn't in the booth during the actual presentation (high stakes presentation for the Christie guys - no need to have extra bodies milling about), so I don't know if they were running dual synched servers. I do know there were four Doremi V1's in the rack though.

The look of the pans and tracks at 60fps reminded me of the Showscan look back in the day (I helped run a 6-week long demonstration of Showscan in the old Omnimax at Caesars, ironically on the same ground where the Colosseum is now). It definitely has a look of video, but of course at a much higher and bigger level of picture quality and size.

Cameron also demonstrated some slo-mo at these 48 and 60 frame rates. The cameras used were Sony F-950 (I think), Red Epic, and Phantom Flex.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-06-2011 03:51 PM

So, we like IMAX and 5-perf 70mm because of high resolution but wait! We don't want the resolution so high that it looks live or ”real.” I don't buy it.

As for the soap opera look, that's just bad lighting.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 04-06-2011 04:27 PM

No it isn't. I can immediately discern the difference between 24fps and 60fps. The latter looks more like camcorder movement. I really don't care about judder in the pans. Pans don't last long especially if you are doing them fast enough to cause noticeable judder. I wouldn't want to increase the framerate just for pans. That's just stupid. High framerates are fantastic for videogames but look very odd in a dramatic narrative.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 04-06-2011 05:26 PM

Exactly. I always have the impression I'm looking at the making-of part of a DVD ;-)

However, 3D at high framerates may be a different thing. I would understand that even triple-flashing can not smooth out low-frequency L/R parallax shifts. Might be a different experience than just 48fps in 2D.

I guess I would prefer variable framerates. 48fps only for fast action, and 24 for all the pure narrative stuff. Spiderman action scenes e.g. could benefit from higher framerates. These jumps always seem to max out at 24fps ;-)
But maybe then exactly those scenes may loose their impression with a more analytical framerate. Must be fun doing testing on these issues.

@Scott: As a matter of fact, I don't see any artifacts on 24fps movies - probably like most people. I do notice a distracting impression at higher framerates, though. Again, I am not paying for cinema tickets to look out of the window. I can do that anytime for free at home. I pay for a movie experience, not for reality.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-06-2011 07:00 PM

Do you have a lot of movie stars standing outside your window waiting to see you open the curtains so they can act for you? Again, what's the point of a high-quality picture if you're insisting on some arbitrary (24fps?) standard to put a cap on how crystal-clear it is?

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.