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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » High Frame Rate (HFR) digital cinema (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: High Frame Rate (HFR) digital cinema Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-03-2011 12:08 AM                     I'm surprised nobody has started a discussion on this, as it was all the rage at Showeast. I'm going to go ahead and start the rant. For those who don't know, this is exactly what it sounds like. Instead of 24 frames per second, the studios (and particularly the projector manufacturers who stand to profit from the software upgrade) are looking at 48 or 60 frames per second instead of the normal 24. Christie had a demo running in their booth with RealD and it looked embarrassingly awful. To be fair, the source material was crap. Barco also did a demo which looked good...but it proved exactly what I predicted and what makes logical sense. It looked like a cheap tv soap opera. Over the last 100 years the magic of movies has been that flickering image at 24 frames per second. Video has for years and years been TRYING to get that "film look". No matter what video did, video still looked like video, and by that I mean it had that "soap opera" look. This is because video (in the US) runs at 30 FPS. The motion is too fluid. In the video post production industry, some companies made filters to add dust specs and image movement to simulate that "film look", but lets face it, it still looked like video until 24P cameras became available. THEN it had that "film look". It had that magic. Does anyone have those 120Hz televisions? Have you played a DVD/blu-ray and noticed how bad it looks with the 120Hz mode on? It looks like a tv soap opera. Turn that high refresh rate crap off and watch as it is transformed back into a real movie. Peter Jackson and James Cameron are so far the only two directors demanding this shit. Hey guy, this is a HUGE STEP BACKWARDS! High frame rates should be restricted to amusement park rides and such things. It has no place in the cinema environment. Go see a demo and you will agree. The magic is gone.  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 11-03-2011 12:22 AM                        They did a demo at Cinecon earlier this year. While I didn't get to see it, everything I heard was extremely positive. And my understanding is the series 2 projectors are capable of 48fps or 60fps out of the box. While a higher frame rate may not matter for the average movie, I think it would be a huge improvement for fast paced action movies. With the up close style of directing that has been the standard of action movies for the last 10 years or so, it makes sense to use more frames per second for smoother action. If directors are not willing to pull the camera back so the action isn't so confusing to the eye, then give them a better tool. Since I haven't actually seen a demonstration yet, I won't comment further.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-03-2011 01:17 AM                        Demos tend to get positive reactions because people want to see something shiny and new. I am not much of a fan of the 60fps look. Yes, I agree that temporal resolution is higher, but is it worth it? I'm sure Steve Guttag would argue "yes". Personally, I feel if they were to increase the frame rate, they should only do it to 30fps. It is still slower than video (60 individual moments in time per second, take your frames and fields and shove them up your ass) and still has that magic while offering a slightly higher temporal resolution. Probably not enough to justify the cost, though (if any). The thing is that 24 frames per second (and 30) rely on the brain to help fill in the gaps. I personally think this helps the brain get into more of a "fantasy" state. When you see something at 60fps like soap operas and TV news, the movement seems too real. It's very odd. Yes, lighting and sound go a long way to helping to get that movie look and feel, but don't underestimate frame rate. And indeed those high frame rate modes on newer TVs do make movies look extraordinarily weird and unappealing. The fancy movie lighting, make-up, set decoration and sound are all still there, but it is still very distracting. One might argue "that's because the algorithms adding the frames suck and it would not look odd at all if it were shot that way blah blah blah". I agree it would probably look less odd, but it would still look odd in a movie-type environment.  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 11-03-2011 01:40 AM                        quote: Joe Redifer 24 frames per second (and 30) rely on the brain to help fill in the gaps. I personally think this helps the brain get into more of a "fantasy" state. This is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. There have been many movies in the last 10 years or so that have suffered because the camera was too close to the action. Two specific examples that comes to mind are The Bourne Supremacy and Any Given Sunday. While I thought both movies were very good, the action scenes were very confusing to watch. The reason is because the picture of fast paced action changes much faster than 24 frames per second. This leaves the mind to fill very large gaps in the action. For me, this actually takes me out of the picture. I find my attention wavering and I start focusing on something other than the main action. And yes Joe, I think the difference between something shot at 24fps and something shot at 60fps would be dramatic when both are shown at 120 Hz. The reason is because 24 fps is still only showing 24 distinct images per second - it's just that each image is shown 5 times.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-03-2011 02:34 AM                     quote: Justin Hamaker There have been many movies in the last 10 years or so that have suffered because the camera was too close to the action. Two specific examples that comes to mind are The Bourne Supremacy and Any Given Sunday. This is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. Those movies were confusing to watch because the director sucked and was trying to create tension by intentionally blurring the action by getting too close and using a paint-shaker instead of a Steadicam. The whole POINT was to blur the action. If they had been shot at a higher frame rate, the shots would have been even tighter. The side-by-side demo Barco had was of a helicopter. The propeller blades had a staggered look because the frequency just happened to collide with the frame rate. The ENTIRE thing was of that chopper with the blades occupying the majority of the frame. It also was not a fair comparison, as for one side to be HFR, that meant the other side was a fake because the projector cannot split-screen between two different frame rates. That introduced more motion artifacts to the 24 FPS side and also failed to take into account the fact that the HFR side would be darker. The only fair way to do such a demo is 2 dedicated projectors (but that would have been a big setup). Wait until you see it Justin. It sounds great in theory, but it isn't. It really isn't.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-03-2011 03:02 AM                        quote: Justin Hamaker The reason is because 24 fps is still only showing 24 distinct images per second - it's just that each image is shown 5 times. Wrong again! When the "enhancement" mode is turned off (they are called different things on different TVs) then yes, a single frame is shown 5 times. That's perfectly fine and there is nothing wrong with that. I'll take that over NTSC's 3:2 pulldown ANY DAY. But what I am talking about is when the TV fills in the missing frames to effectively make it 60 frames or 120 frames per second with new data it extrapolates from existing frames. 120Hz TVs are ALWAYS in 120Hz. They are not multisync, they cannot run at any other speed. It's just a matter of if you want that extra crap on or not and on some TVs it is really hard to turn it all the way off. The two movies you cite do indeed suck because the camera was "too close". A higher frame rate wouldn't have made much of a difference. The camera would still be too close and the editing would still suck.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 11-03-2011 03:19 AM                     30FPS ... wonder what kind of crowd reaction was to Michael Todd's films that were shot and presented at this speed? True, Todd wanted that faster frame speed to smooth out the "flicker rate" from 48 pulses to 60 pulses so we wouldn't see them... Guess, digital is totally different - changed that entire spectrum all together. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-03-2011 05:38 AM                     Joe is right...I do prefer higher frame rates. I'm not sure 60fps need be the immediate goal. 30fps and 48fps make more sense, at this time, than 60fps. 48fps is the most attractive because it is inherently compatible with 24fps (a mere doubling/halving). 30fps requires more difficult trickery to get it to a 50Hz based system or compatible with 24Hz based systems. Douglass Trumble did the research that noted that 60fps is the tipping point where higher frame rates were not perceivable. As Monte points out with Todd-Ao...film at 30fps looks notably better than film at 24fps. We've even done some NFL-Films screenings where they shot 35mm at 30fps and it looked MUCH better than the 24fps stuff Look at Oklahoma! in 70mm Todd-Ao...it does NOT look like it was shot for a Soap Opera! There is no "film-look" to having strobing images because a pan went too fast for a slow moving 24fps camera...it is just showing a weakness to the system. I don't buy into that HFR gives one the Soap Opera loook, inherently either. I think low resolution with high frame rate does. Those that think 2K resolution is enough for theatres are just frikin' blind There is a LOT of detail that is lost at 2K but everyone thinks it looks fine because it is sharp...well it IS sharp but with 1/4 of the detail that 35mm has. Combine HFR with high resolution (4K and beyond) and the image will look more and more transparent. Which, in my mind, is the goal...make the screen disappear. Those that think because their eye can't resolve more detail because they can resolve a pixel from the seated position are wrong too...there is more to the increased resolution than being able to resolve each pixel...the sense of depth to each image increases with resolution. Have you ever noticed that the 2K DCinema images look hyper-flat....that the image has no sense of depth to it? I think some have a bias towards 24fps because that is what they grew up with. The next generation of folks, if they grow up with HFR will look at our 24fps stuff as primitive and unrealistic. -Steve  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 11-03-2011 07:41 AM                     Well, we DID have a lot of discussions on this before, right before and after Camerons demos on Cinemacon this spring, along with PJ starting to shoot 'The Hobbit' at 48fps. Personally, I'm completely okay with 24fps for 2D, although more and more action and VFX driven features challenge 24fps capabilities very hard. I haven't seen HR 3D so far, but I guess that the 3D parallax perception would certainly benefit from it. As long as the creative people have their choice of 24 or 48 or 60, I'm okay with it. 24fps has an established style with it, that a lot of people like. Doesn't need to stay forever, I admit. What should be possible is to mix 'effective' 24 and 48 fps framerates within one movie. Even if DCI and probably even SMPTE does not allow for DCPs with varying frame rates, one could think of 'double image' 24fps in 48fps (created in post) for general shots, recreating 24fps style, and then simple changes to 'real' 48fps for action shots. The whole DCP would be regarded as a standard 48fps feature, but it could still contain 24fps style where the director wants it. However, this all is not only a simple question of 24 vs 48, but also one of exposure time and motion blur, which needs special attention to avoid strobing, but at least most of that should be fixable in post with todays tools. What strikes me most is the fact that a large part of the existing installations will not be able to be upgraded to HR 3D due to interface limitations - at least not economically. All series II and Sonys should be fine, though. I found it a bit 'desparate' that Cameron claimed, existing systems could be upgraded to HR 3D very easy and with little cost, while at the same time even with the direct support from Barco and Doremi he wasn't able to show his demos using tuned up standard equipment. Whatever - we will see more differentiation in Digital Cinema very soon - 2k/4k, various 3D systems, very soon Laser light sources, and screens with and without HR 3D. Some people will judge this from the background of the feared endless upgrade spiral that they associate with digital cinema, others will probably like the fact that we have marketing and differentiation means back like in the best days of film with Cinemascope, THX, Dolby Digital, DTS, IMAX, etc. In April, I found very little chances and needs for Camerons approach. Now I am definitly aiming for either a Sony or a seriesII + IMB solution that ensures HR 3D for our screen. My personal preference though, at least for 2D, is definitly 24fps. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 11-03-2011 10:55 AM                     quote: Justin Hamaker There have been many movies in the last 10 years or so that have suffered because the camera was too close to the action. That's right, but remember that many DPs and/or directors deliberately created the choppiness by shooting with a small shutter opening. This will result in less motion blur between frames and strobing (think of traditional stop motion animation that tends to strobe with fast movement because there is no motion blur at all!). I'd be happy with 30 fps, some years ago I saw a 65/70mm demonstration film by Dr. Richard Vetter shot and projected at 30fps, and it was maybe the best film presentation I ever saw. 1950s Todd-AO @30fps is also pleasing to look at.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 11-04-2011 04:45 AM                     I guess hardly anyone will go for 30 or 60fps for now, it's far to complicated to get this compatible with 24fps. Even if you'd already ignore 35mm for distribution, the largest part of worldwide digital installations currently will only do either 24 or 48fps. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged William F Green Film Handler Posts: 84 From: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Registered: Jun 2005 posted 11-04-2011 10:47 AM                     Oh my god - are we now locked into this crazy never-ending constant (pointless) upgrade path?  |  IP: Logged Doug Willming Film Handler Posts: 45 From: San Antonio, TX, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 11-04-2011 11:35 AM                        Yes William, exactly. I empathize with you guys as you are going through the same thing all of us in animation production went through years ago. I owned an Oxberry Master Series animation stand with a dual 35/16mm camera; purchased it through a broker in NYC. It was years old when I bought it but was a 1-ton workhorse that needed little maintenance. Once purchased, it would last for years and years without any electronic "updates", much like a 35mm. film projector (I did add a computerized motion-control system to it later). Animation production was much more specialized then, and I spent many, many hours in a darkroom working out elaborate "slit-scan" effects that you weren't sure what you were going to wind up with until the film came back days later. As computer animation became more "affordable" (you could buy an SGI for under $40K and the software package for only $30K!!!!), we invested in a system of computers which, on one hand made life easier because you could see what you were getting as you went along, plus you didn't have to spend hours in a darkroom with hot lights or wait for film to come back from the lab, but once you went down the path of computer animation, you were faced with needing to upgrade every couple of years to stay current with the capabilities of your competitors, some of whom had much deeper pockets than us and who may have purchased a newer system that could do twice as much as yours at half the cost, while you were still paying the loan on your now depreciated hardware and software. So you went from owning a solid piece of machinery that needed little additional investment to an electronic system that required constant maintenance, software upgrades, and virtually complete replacement after only 3-4 years. I felt the same as probably many of you do with your 35mm. projectors when the scrap guys came to pick up the Oxberry because it had no resale value and no viable use - watching a piece of (profitable) history go sadly to the scrapheap. Although computer animation did and does have it's advantages and of course is no longer as hugely expensive (on the other hand, just about everyone can do it now, so it is no longer so specialized), it was a constant battle for our company to keep reinvesting to stay afloat. Hopefully you guys will not be the slaves to digital cinema that I always felt I was to computer animation.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-04-2011 08:33 PM                     It takes more than something being shot at 24fps to imitate the "film look". Lots of video cameras and DSLR cameras can shoot video at 24fps rates and the footage still really looks like video. I watched a rented Blu-ray of Captain America last night. Without previously knowing the technical details of the movie, I quickly figured out it was shot with video cameras (Panavision Genesis to be exact). The video look was really coming through obviously in the low light scenes, but that's pretty typical of anything shot using the Panavision Genesis. If 24fps was the primary factor I should not have been able to tell the difference. Likewise, many TV series episodes have been shot on film at 30fps. They don't look like soap operas or the 6 o'clock news. Film has a certain character of contrast and color gamma that video has just not been able to fully imitate. Perhaps when/if the color depth levels in video cameras go significantly higher than 8, 10 or 12 bit per channel depth they might be able to mimic the film look better, perhaps even in the camera. Right now that is not the case. Any movie shot in "digital" needs very serious color processing in post production to imitate the film look. Not many movies do a convincing job of it. I think the movie industry is getting way the hell ahead of itself by pushing high frame rate digital cinema. I assume they're going to be doing it using video cameras. When they're cutting the maximum exposure time in half or less by jumping from 24fps to 48 or 60 then they're going to be asking a hell of a lot more from the CCDs or CMOS chips in the camera and everything else in the chain before it gets to the TV set. Are they going to up the bit rate by 200% or 250% to correspond with those much higher frame rates? I have my doubts. The added burden from double or higher the frame rate will make it even more difficult to mimic the film look with digital footage. The low light stuff could end up looking like 7-Eleven security camera footage.  |  IP: Logged David M. Leugers Film Handler Posts: 43 From: Fairfield, Ohio, united States of America Registered: Jan 2005 posted 11-04-2011 09:12 PM                     I remember at least 30 years ago an article in American Cinematographer magazine detailed an Andy Williams TV special that was shot on 16mm film at 30fps. As I recall the look seemed to me sort of a hybrid, the look of film with the smoothness of video. Around the same time, special effects guru Donald Trumbull developed his Showscan with 65mm shot at 60fps. It was not a big hit. I was very interested in this at the time and was disappointed by comments from viewers that it looked like extremely high definition video that tended to overwhelm the senses. I just recently saw a photo of one of the 3D video rigs they are shooting with... reminded me of a giant 3-strip Technicolor camera set-up. Now with 60fps, seems like 1 step forward and 2 steps back...  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.