Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Hobbit Filming at 48fps

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the why-stop-there dept.

Lord of the Rings 423

An anonymous reader writes "Peter Jackson has announced via his Facebook page that The Hobbit is being shot at 48 frames per second, ameliorating the '3D headaches' that many viewers have complained of in the last few boom-years for the format. Film has been shot and projected at 24fps since the 1920s, with the exception of Douglas Trumbull's 60fps 'ShowScan' format, used for the Universal Back To The Future ride, amongst others. Jackson himself predicts that the widespread adoption of 48fps workflow could not only improve the 3D but also the general cinematic experience, though it may earn itself some backward-looking critics. But until digital principal photography completely usurps celluloid, this may be good news for Kodak, who now have even more reason to lament the death of Stanley Kubrick."

cancel ×

423 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wrong problem anyone? (2, Informative)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798730)

Wait what? I'm not getting headaches because of the frame rate... People get headaches at 60FPS on their computers... if anything, this will result in a film that looks unnaturally smooth to a movie going audience... essentially adding a distraction for the 2D viewers while not fixing anything for 3D viewers...

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35798778)

"unnaturally smooth"? They need to get out more then...

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (0)

YesDinosaursDidExist (1268920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799026)

No. He's right. Watch a standard DVD up-converted on an HD TV...it looks really unnaturally smooth. I could barley get thru Under Siege.....just because of the "smoothness."

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35799050)

That makes you old, not right.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (3, Funny)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799106)

Real life is "unnaturally smooth". The frame rate on reality is approximately 1.85486e43 fps (give or take due to uncertainties in the value of Planck time).

And really -- upconversion is your standard? Really?

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

YesDinosaursDidExist (1268920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799336)

No...but who owns Under Siege on Blu-Ray? Really? Really?

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799202)

This is the same effect which made tv soaps look horrible.
Not to mention the plot lines and the acting but I digress.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799288)

Exactly. Nothing will make a film look amateurish quicker than having a higher-than-normal frame rate. Why would you want your summer blockbuster to look like it was shot with some consumer handicam? Of course, films that actually are amateurish also usually suffer from poor lighting and terrible audio on top of that.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799384)

Great point, M. backward-looking critic.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (4, Insightful)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799392)

I have to say that I think this criticism and line of reasoning are utter crap.

I heard all the same thing before the switch to digital. Everyone bemoned the "video" look, and lamented the passing of the "film" look. Then again with the switch to HD. "you see everyone's pores! the makeup is obvious!"

Complete bollocks.

It will take directors and artists a while to get use to the new tools, their paremeters, and their behavior, but they'll be making things look just as good and probably a whole lot better in a short period of time, once they gain experience. Just like they did with digital filming and projection, and just like they did with HD on TV.

This "crappy flickering smeary motion stuff looks better" nonsense just really needs to stop. You sound like the nay-sayers bemoaning the arrival of sound to moving pictures a hundred years ago. In other words, in ten or so years, you'll look back on these statements with shame and embarassment. And rightly so.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35799212)

Up-converted? No, we're talking about producing at 48fps. Don't even try to compare the two.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799076)

At 48 fps, everyone looks like Keith Stone.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (5, Funny)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798782)

... if anything, this will result in a film that looks unnaturally smooth to a movie going audience... essentially adding a distraction for the 2D viewers while not fixing anything for 3D viewers...

That's why I never go outside. And when I stay inside, I insist on strobe lighting.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799008)

You joke, but with all the hiccups of our visual system (why it should be the part of our minds resistant to cognitive biases, etc., considering how crazily widespread they are in other parts?)... it can be actually beneficial to strobe [wikipedia.org] the image in some circumstances.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799132)

Read that wikipedia link again, the strobing backlight corrects for an artifact of LCD technology, not our visual system.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799262)

How, exactly, do you delineate what is an artifact of what in the case of devices used only with our visual system?

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799386)

The pixel remains lit (saying "the pixel remains lit" is a simplification, I know, but irrelevant to the discussion) after it's supposed to. The output does not match the signal, therefore the artifact is on the LCD panel.

What sort of blurry reality do you live in that you can't make that kind of distinction?

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799160)

... if anything, this will result in a film that looks unnaturally smooth to a movie going audience... essentially adding a distraction for the 2D viewers while not fixing anything for 3D viewers...

That's why I never go outside. And when I stay inside, I insist on strobe lighting.

Out into the big room, with the green carpet, and blue ceiling? Never!

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799310)

I like the green carpet and blue ceiling. It's the crazy big light bulb that I dislike.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35798794)

My understanding would be that each eye is still processing 24fps.

I guess today's 3d films are still being shot at 24fps, meaning 12fps per eye? Really? That seems dumb.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798950)

Good cinema stereoscopy uses polarization - no decrease in framerate. Generally, 48 (or 60, with Cameron) is a development I welcome with open hands... but it shouldn't do much for "3D" / stereoscopy. Framerate is not a problem of the method (heck, it has the same problems with static photos) which exploits just a small portion of the spatial hints we use; and those used are often not merely incomplete - but incorrect.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35799018)

Ah, yes, that makes sense.

In that case, I remember reading that increased frame rates make movies look worse for some reason (outlined in sibling threads...) Hell, I'll try it out anyways though.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799224)

That "worse" part is probably just "cultural conditioning" of sorts - while movies are practically always at 24p (and are furthermore basically the only 24p video source; typically with good cameraman & lighting), there's a lot high fps sources which aren't anywhere that good... most usual TV transmissions or horrible, horrible torture of home videos. Essentially, high framerate is typically associated with "cheap video" look.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35798800)

"Unnaturally smooth." I love it. 24fps is unnaturally jerky. We're just used to it.

If Jackson was really being forward looking, he'd shoot at 30 or 60fps for people watching on computers.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

rduke15 (721841) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798990)

30/60 is only good in the US and a few rare other 60Hz countries. It doesn't convert well to 25/50 which the rest of the world uses (either you pay fortunes to have every single frame re-calculated to get 24 brand-new frames per second, or you just drop every 6th frame and get a terribly jerky 25fps result).

And requires the horrible 3:2 pulldown (or whatever it is called), to be projected in any movie theater at 24 fps.

No, 30/60 is not "forward looking" at all. Quite the opposite: it's backward looking at the history of US TV.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35799096)

Not to mention that 60FPS is overkill - the human eye can't see any faster than 50FPS. Making 60FPS a complete waste of data.

48FPS is an unfortunate choice because it isn't a smooth 50FPS, meaning that it'll have weird pulldown issues on all TVs, but at least it's not throwing away frames the human eye is flat-out unable to see.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (4, Informative)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799206)

Not to mention that 60FPS is overkill - the human eye can't see any faster than 50FPS. Making 60FPS a complete waste of data.

48FPS is an unfortunate choice because it isn't a smooth 50FPS, meaning that it'll have weird pulldown issues on all TVs, but at least it's not throwing away frames the human eye is flat-out unable to see.

50 fps is noticeably jerky - you're just used to it. The idea that the human eye can't even see something faster than 50 fps is preposterous. Take a look here for some solid debunking of this silly myth: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm [100fps.com]

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799196)

There's no reason to do these conversions any longer. They are a relic from the time when video frame rates were tied to the CRT refresh rate. But today, a movie could be at 27.6348 fps, or 10 x pi fps, or any other arbitrary number. Each frame should be sent to the screen at whatever rate the source video is. The LCD or plasma display would update the frame as it gets data.

Now help me out with projectors since I don't know much about them -- but would would 3:2 pulldown apply there? The frame rate of a projector is the speed at which the film is pulled through. So if you were given a film at 30fps you just pull that film through 25% faster than film at 24fps. Projector back lights turn off while it advances the film, so the back light would also need to flicker 25% faster. But there are already markers on the film to tell the projector to do this so it stays in sync. So I suspect that part would happen automatically.

Or do they make projectors so that they only pull the film through at a fixed rate? That seems dumb.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799286)

"Unnaturally smooth." I love it. 24fps is unnaturally jerky. We're just used to it.

If Jackson was really being forward looking, he'd shoot at 30 or 60fps for people watching on computers.

Unfortunately he'll need good 24p compatibility with theaters, which pretty much rules that out. Ideally he'd shoot at 120 fps and do 5:1 for 24p cinemas and 2:1 reduction for 60 fps. It'd also be a decent 55554 pattern for 25 fps and 23232 for 50 fps for European TV broadcasts.

The downside is that this requires *much* more light sensitive cameras as they now have 1/120th of a second to catch an image instead of 1/48th or 1/24th. Not that it can't be done - still cameras capture lots in less than 1/120th of a second, but the whole system has to scale up for it. In any case, I'm happy to see 48 fps. It's a huge upgrade from 24 fps and I imagine a 4:5 pullup to 60 fps would look very good too.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

jonescb (1888008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798880)

Headaches from viewing 3D videos are caused by flickering on the screen. Just like with computer monitors, upping the refresh rate results in less flicker. I don't know of any cases where headaches are caused by the image that pops out of the screen.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798994)

Really? You aren't aware that there are problems with focal depth and motion-parallax using our current 3D technology in theatres? Also - flicker on a computer monitor is different - on a CRT monitor you are depending on the persistance of phosphers to maintain the illusion of an image, while what is really occuring is that a single point is being lit at any time. Film is different - the entire image is being displayed at once on a screen, and the light flickers in order so that the frame is lit when it is at the proper location in front of the screen, and not when the frame is say, halfway between two images. Digital projectors and LCDs are different still - there is no reason for any portion of the screen to not be displaying SOME image. Obviously certain LCD projecting technologies can create a sort of flicker, but ultimately if you are not scanning or scrolling an image, there is very little "flicker."

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799068)

There seems to be a lot of stuff with 3d movies that would cause headaches. Bad directorial decisions to use depth of field, arbitrary depths that don't match our learned perception of depth, dual images separated by a one size fits all viewpoint offset that doesn't closely match the viewer's eyes, even poorly fitting glasses. until there's some kind of true holographic display, or something that can match your biometrics and produce an image just for you, it's probably always going to be problematic.

Such technology actually exists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35799276)

It has been done [wikipedia.org] . I really recommend it for all the fans of 3D.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

Runefox (905204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799266)

Headaches from viewing 3D videos are caused by flickering on the screen.

Not entirely. It's also a result of your eyes focusing in ways that they don't naturally focus, sort of how you're supposed to focus in a strange way to view a magic eye puzzle.

Just like with computer monitors, upping the refresh rate results in less flicker

Except refresh rate != Frame rate. While I'm not exactly up on industry projectors, I'm fairly sure that 3D projectors are much faster in terms of refresh rate, particularly since 24Hz would be far too slow and flickering would be severe (far worse so than an old CRT set on the default 60Hz). In contrast, the recommended refresh rate for TV's to display 3D content is 200Hz+, though 120Hz is usable. I realize that there are differences between projectors and LCD's, I can't imagine that 3D films are projected at 2x24Hz.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

dstyle5 (702493) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798922)

While watching Avatar in Imax 3D there were several times, especially during the live action scenes with a lot of camera movement within the scene, where I noticed strobing. I didn't give me a headache but it was definitely noticeable. On the weekend at a friends we were checking out his new big screen TV, which he demoed with Avatar and many of my friends commented how they liked the 2D experience better than 3D in the theater. I think increasing the frame rate has a good chance of improving the 3D experience for many people.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35799214)

I felt sick after watching Avatar on Imax 3d, and I have watched many other 3d films on normal cinemas with no problems. I'm not sure why.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799220)

What do you mean by "strobing" in this case?

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35799426)

When I went to see the OTHER Avatar movie in 3D (the one with the martial arts inspiration), I saw a preview in 3D for an animated movie. The next week I saw the same preview for the same animated film, but this time in 2D. What really struck me between the 3D and 2D versions was how much more detailed and beautiful the 2D images seemed. While the central subjects of the images were fine in the 3D image, the background just faded into a jumbled mess. I'm not sure what caused this problem. It may be that with the effectively 12fps video (12fps per eye) they have render the images with more motion blur, causing a loss of detail. If that's the case, doubling the frame rate could help. However, if the real problem is the odd contortions the 3D projection systems make my eyes attempt, the frame rate increase won't help.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35799164)

That's because a) 60fps is not all that fast, and b) 60fps is likely an average, with lows of 20fps or less. And yes, this definitely is a big factor in headaches from 3d games, especially when slewing the mouse around or otherwise changing the view quickly.

Re:Wrong problem anyone? (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799298)

Um, er, uh . . . so reality is projected at 24FPS? I don't know about you, but my reality is projected at 3.1x10^43FPS.

Look, all you need to do with sight and sound is be sure to exceed the human perceptual threshold. Persistence of vision (the concept, not the software) makes 24FPS fine, but when you do 3D with LCD glasses that ends up being 12FPS/eye. The brain still manages to 'see' continuous motion, but possibly still perceives on some level that something is wrong.

Then again, it may be the disagreement between visual and vestibular senses which causes the headaches. I'd say more research is needed.

The real headache (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799334)

The extra charge for 3D is the real headache. I'm now seeing far less movies.

Good, his movies are too long (4, Funny)

jmcbain (1233044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798760)

I'm glad he's shooting at a faster rate. The last movies were over 3 hours. Now I can watch them in about one and half hours.

Re:Good, his movies are too long (4, Funny)

GiMP (10923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798804)

Twice as many frames means that if you view it at the standard 24 frames per second, the movie will be twice as long!

Re:Good, his movies are too long (2)

funkatron (912521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798862)

Depends what speed the resulting film is projected at. You might end up with a slow motion epic.

Although, that would be impossible since Baywatch the movie hasn't been made yet

Re:Good, his movies are too long (1)

marqs (774373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799360)

But unfortunately 300 was...

Re:Good, his movies are too long (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798910)

And miss all the walking?!?!?

Wow (1)

Lucas123 (935744) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798798)

That's two times the number of frames per second as they used in Steamboat Willie. How far we've come!

Re:Wow (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798852)

That's two times the number of frames per second as they used in Steamboat Willie. How far we've come!

I was thinking that if we went to 600 fps, it would pull down nicely without need for frame-rate or audio tricks to cinematic 24fps and also PAL and NTSC for TV and video release. Then every director would use almost as much film as Kubrick.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35798928)

PAL and NTSC are dead. TV moved to 1080i and 720p several years ago. The only issue today is different framerates in the 50Hz vs 60Hz mains-cycle, anthe many shitty blu-ray players that can't handle both.

Re:Wow (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799044)

wouldn't it be easier to do it digitally and have a 24, 25, and 30 fps stream all saved simultaneously?

I suppose you could end up with issues in editing with scenes being off by as much as 40ms, and I don't know how bad that would be.

Also rendering would take three times as long as with only one stream, but still be 1/5th the effort of 600 fps.

Obviously you're kidding, but I don't see why it's not possible to do it that way (unless the 40ms is a big problem).

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35799318)

Assuming you mean that film should be used in this process, there are a couple of difficulties:

  • Can you actually get enough light into the camera to expose a frame in 1/600th of a second? (I honestly don't know what the answer is here)
  • The amount of film required for a scene would increase massively.
  • Filming is a mechanical process; the film has to be moved into place, stopped exposed and moved on. Filming at 600fps would massively increase the acceleration the film has to deal with in this process leading to more breakages

Those are just the ones off the top of my head, there's probably a whole load more.

Re:Wow (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799156)

Funny you mention that, because Steamboat Willie is animated "on twos", which is to say every the film consists of pairs of identical frames. Since the film runs at 24fps, the cartoon is effectively 12fps.

The majority of hand animation has been done "on twos", with the occasional fast-moving object getting full 24fps treatment. Older and/or cheaper productions, and those meant for higher frame rates like PAL or NTSC, can be drawn on threes, fours, etc—so the frame rate of the content ends up being far lower than the frame rate of the medium.

It won't help (5, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798808)

Fake3D is still fake3D.

i will still get headaches while watching and I will still not see a single special 3D effect. the movie will appear dim or over saturated trying to correct the color balance caused by wearing sunglasses indoors against a dark room.

There are some things you just can't fix as they are broken by design. Fake3D is one of them. Please Hollywood give it up, and just dump the money into hologram research.

Re:It won't help (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798892)

You keep saying fake3d, because everyone listen to a whiny pendant.

If you want to be a pendant, at least be good about it.
All movies are 3d. Height, width, and Time..bitch.

Re:It won't help (2)

Literaphile (927079) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798956)

You keep saying fake3d, because everyone listen to a whiny pendant.

If you want to be a pendant, at least be good about it. All movies are 3d. Height, width, and Time..bitch.

You keep calling the parent a pendant. Do you see him hanging from a necklace? It would have to be pretty big to hold all that weight...

Re:It won't help (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799128)

lol! you are some kind of genius, pedantic or comic, i can't decide.

Re:It won't help (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798980)

I also prefer that jewelry suspended from a chain be high quality and decidedly non-whiny.

Re:It won't help (2)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799002)

No i am just getting tired of people going ooh ahh it is so awesome when in reality it means that 45 million americans will never see one of those effects.

We aren't all the same, eyes are slightly different widths, focusing works slightly differently, etc, etc.

they can't fix current 3D tech no matter how hard they try because your looking at a 2D surface and trying to resolve a physical depth for something that isn't there. So the focal point won't shift right and people won't like it.

To me Avatar and Tron legacy in 3D looked like a dim, wrong color tinted version of the 2D movies I watched later. I saw nothing spectacular or out of the ordinary.

Re:It won't help (4, Insightful)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799200)

Oh, I see, you can't enjoy it, so nobody else should either.

Re:It won't help (3, Insightful)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799208)

Avatar in 3d was awesome. If you personally cannot enjoy this - tough luck for you. If you were totally colour blind, you'd probably bitch and moan about people preferring colour movies to black-and-white ones.

Re:It won't help (3, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799314)

No i am just getting tired of people going ooh ahh it is so awesome when in reality it means that 45 million americans will never see one of those effects.

255 million can.

Re:It won't help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35799370)

You keep saying fake3d, because everyone listen to a whiny Pendejo

FTFY

Re:It won't help (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799082)

You do realize that it really depends a great deal on how the 3D is accomplished, right? Apart from the cost and logistics of it, a system where you're eyes are seeing different images simultaneously would be indistinguishable from the real thing. You're eyes don't have any way of knowing whether they're seeing the same object or two similar images.

Re:It won't help (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799250)

Then stay home and stop whining.

Re:It won't help (1)

KalvinB (205500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799260)

Feel free to watch the film in 2D then. Those of us (possibly two, even three maybe) who like the 3D experience will pay the extra to do so.

I've yet to see a 3D film released exclusively in 3D.

3D? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35798818)

So, I guess this means he's officially going to be filming it in 3D, huh? That's a shame, I was actually looking forward to seeing The Hobbit.

Not the problem (4, Insightful)

proslack (797189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798858)

It isn't the frame rate that's going to be the problem with The Hobbit, it's Peter Jackson's altering Tolkien's story and characters.

Won't it get boring. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35798870)

If he shoots the whole film in slow motion, "The Hobbit is being shot at 48 frames per second", won't it get kind of boring:-)

Re:Won't it get boring. (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799230)

If he shoots the ... film ..., "The Hobbit ...", won't it get kind of boring:-)

Yes, yes it will.

Boom-years (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798876)

Boom-years? My understanding was that this tech isn't really catching on. In fact, my impression was that most movie-goers (me included) don't see the value in 'realD', and that directors (Christopher Nolan and others) are starting to move away from it as well. The only good 3D movie I've seen so far has been Avatar. The bulk of the new movies out there seem to use 3D as a cheap side-show.

Re:Boom-years (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798988)

The reason it's so "popular" is because studios can get away with doubling their ticket prices to a 3D movie. It has nothing to do with giving the public what they want. It has everything to do with giving the studios and exhibitors what *they* want (i.e., more money).

When they started showing car commercials at the beginning of movies, the public certainly wasn't demanding more of that. But the studios and exhibitors loved them because it gave them a new revenue stream. So guess what you see at the beginning of every movie now.

Re:Boom-years (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799124)

I guess I was trying to get at home 3D, not so much at theater 3D. If people aren't seeing the point of buying a 3D tv and directors aren't shooting as many blockbusters in 3D, then 3D probably won't catch on in the long run. I certainly wouldn't call the last few years a 'boom' for the 3D movie industry. The 3D bluray disks and 3D home theater components are out there, but people aren't buying them.

Re:Boom-years (2)

adamchou (993073) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799382)

If they're charging double the ticket price for a 3D movie and people are actually purchasing the tickets, then I'm pretty sure that is giving the public what they want.

Jackson? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35798878)

So we can see how bad Jackson is at making movies? Why he chose to change the most important and fundamental themes of Tolkien escapes me. Just stupid on top of stupid. I don't think he is a very good reader. He sure can't direct his way out of a paper bag.

are they really that desparate? (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798898)

3d make the whole movie experience unbearable. Any more, most people I know won't go to the movie if it is not shown in 2D.

Okay seriously what the fuck. (1)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798932)

WHY IS IT NOT 60FPS. Seriously even 40 would be better than 48, cause then it'd be easier to sync at 60! I don't think ANYONE cares about the fact it's 2x the framerate of an archaic format! (& you're hearing this from a FILM collector! I literally have a closet filled with 16mm reels!)

Re:Okay seriously what the fuck. (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799086)

Bigger audience? ;p 48 will play at 50 quite nicely.

Cameron wanted 48FPS for Avatar (5, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798938)

James Cameron wanted to do Avatar at 48FPS. Avatar II, or whatever, will be. He's been pushing 48FPS for a while. [latimes.com]

It's about time; 24FPS is way too slow. A big problem with 24FPS is that pans over detailed backgrounds have strobing effects unless the pan is very slow. Sometimes blur is inserted to mask this, either in camera or in post. Cameron likes richly detailed backgrounds ("Titanic", etc.), and this limitation has annoyed him.

Cameron will use higher frame rates well. He's used 3D well. Other directors, probably not so much.

Videophile. . . (4, Funny)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798958)

24 fps is really just, warmer, you know. You can really see the difference, and the 24fps just looks better, to my eyes anyhow. BTW, I am so glad I bought the Monster Video cables - my DVD bits have so much less signal degradation with them.

Re:Videophile. . . (1)

Hultis (1969080) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799100)

If only I had mod points... That really made my day!

Re:Videophile. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35799268)

Motion blur looks good and vinyl sounds good. You can take the piss out of audiophiles all you like, let's also take piss out of some similar crocks of shit; namely HD broadcast (compression is ugly no?) and 3D cinema.

Or do you not feel these to be equally worthy of derision?

Re:Videophile. . . (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799332)

24fps is often terrible for fast motion. But I would think the thing you like about 24fps (the motion blur), can be done with 48fps (where the blur is carried out over 2 frames instead of 1 as before, to allow for the same amount of blurring time overall), so you have the nice smooth 48fps frame rate and the 'strange/unreal/cool' motion blur effect. Everyone's happy.

1080p48? Hell yeah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35798960)

I have too few fingers to count the number of people who work in broadcast who absolutely loathe that film is only 24fps, giving such a choppy picture, etc.
( While others believe that is part of the charm of film, and some filmmakers who use video cameras lock the framerate to 24fps even if the thing can do 60fps just fine. )

They've been hoping for 50fps for film for ages. Looks like this is 2fps short, but I'm sure they'll still be jumping for joy.

Of course the naysayers will just complain that this is a move by the imaginary property industry to 'force' people to buy new players, TVs, thwart piracy, gives them headaches, cite research that human vision wasn't made for 48fps, hate the silly glasses and yadda yadda yawn.

imax & imax dome (4, Interesting)

bradgoodman (964302) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798962)

On particularly large screens - the relatively "slow" frame-rates used today are quite troublesome. For example, say your shooting video out of a front of a plane on an imax dome screen. When the plane banks - even if it does relatively slowly - since the screen is so large, you see a lot of "jumpiness" - as there may be several *feet* in real-world on-screen distance between an object's position in one frame vs. another. I've been complaining about this for years. It would be nice to see higher frame rates in formats like this.

Re:imax & imax dome (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799042)

I'm glad it's not just me that notices that too. I see jumpiness on quite a few films I watch but didn't quite do the whole 2+2 thing. I tended to blame quality/compression (yes itunes movies, your bitrate is terrible), though bitrate is a function of framerate right? So yeah, I'm all for higher framerates if it means I don't sit there going "grrr smoother panning please".

Re:imax & imax dome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35799270)

I fully concur with this. It's why I'm so glad that my (HD)TV has framerate upscaling for playing (blueray) movies that are recorded at 24 fps. If I don't use the framerate upscaling, slowly panning movements look really jumpy but when I enable the framerate upscaling on the TV, everything becomes smooth.

Unfortunately I don't have this option when going to the cinema. Which is one of the reasons that I prefer to watch movies at home on my TV instead of going to the cinema to watch them on the big screen.

I hope that eventually the movie industry will finally step into the 21sth century and start recording movies at a decent framerate like 60 FPS or something like that. The technical limitations from early 20th century that made the movie industry compromise on a 24 fps framerate have all been overcome. Technology has evolved for over 100 years since those good old days. I really don't see any reason to stick to those old fashioned limitations and I welcome this doubling of the framerate although I consider it still on the low side.

This is fantastic (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#35798970)

Movies now seem to always be in a struggle between proper motion blur (exposing a frame for as close as possible to the full 1/24 second duration) and HD sharpness (by reducing exposure time). Sharpness has been winning out a lot lately -- the amount of temporal information is just crap in so many movies today. A higher frame rate will do wonders to produce both fluid AND sharp video.

I only wonder how long it will take for theaters to upgrade their equipment. I understand it's quite expensive.

Re:This is fantastic (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799292)

I only wonder how long it will take for theaters to upgrade their equipment. I understand it's quite expensive.

Theatres have mostly made the digital switch by now. Doubling frame rate in a digital setup should not cost much, if anything.

I, for one, want all movies this way (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799006)

I hope this takes off. I have always wanted higher FPS in movies, even regular 2D films it just isn't enough. An object will not look like it is in fluid motion unless there is overlap between where it was in the first frame, and where it was in the next frame. At 24fps you can lose this.

The problem is especially visible in action scenes and scenes with high parallax. For example, I have watched scenes that pan horizontally across a wide field. The trees and grass in the foreground look like stop motion because a tall blade of grass is on the left in one frame and in the middle of the next frame. There is nothing to indicate that it moved. They compensate for this by keeping the foreground out of focus so the eye is not drawn to it.

The most recent Iron Man movie suffers from this in the scenes where Black Widow flips over an opponent in sub-second time and there are only a few discrete frames. In one frame she is in front of the opponent and the next she is upside-down above them - there was no motion, she just appeared there. (Some of this could be blamed on over-the-top CG effects that exceeded the budget - it isn't worth the time and money animate/render all those frames.) They compensate for this by constantly changing the camera angle, or by switching in and out of bullet-time.

I bet if people saw 48fps 2D video it would be like seeing HD for the first time. People would probably go "whoa!" and not even realize what was so special about it.

P.S. Another example of this is when an animated feature switches from hand-drawn animation to CG, or overlaps the two. The CG elements are perfectly fluid while the hand-drawn elements are often only a few FPS.)

So for a normal 2d 24fps experience... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35799028)

They aren't just going to drop every other frame but have written a program to combine 2 frames so we get correct motion blur instead of jerko-vision?

Not that I care particularly about the hobbit after the boring, overlong action sequences in the last 2 LOTR films.

Hobbit in 3D? (1)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799030)

what is jackson thinking? is he going to have a shark swim at the screen?

oh, wait - maybe a large flying dragon fly at the screen....

Re:Hobbit in 3D? (2)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799178)

3d is hollywood's latest gimmick, plus they've support from electronics manufacturers who are trying to push 3d tv's since most people have at least 720 HDTVs these days and their sales are finally starting to drop off to what they should be.

Blogspam. (1)

Singularity42 (1658297) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799114)

Was the link to a blog done for financial reasons? Why not link to the original source? Money? Ego?

Finally (2)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799138)

I'm glad that film-makers are finally beginning to realize the video world doesn't start and end at 24fps. That particular limit is pretty arbitrary and terrible for fast/smooth motion where higher frame rates are needed. Real life (TM) is actually infinite FPS of course, so things will only be more realistic, not less.

Maybe we can all switch to a standard like 60fps, 120fps or or even better 240fps, and our monitors can adjust too. We'd cure flicker or blurry motion (CRT/LCD respectively), general motion smoothness, and even sometimes input lag, all in one sweep. Finally we'd all have a universal framerate which everything can adhere to.

3d fail. 48 fps WIN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35799152)

I'll be glad to watch a smoother, higher quality picture in 2D, thank you very much.

Wait... (5, Insightful)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799188)

The hobbit is being filmed in 3d? Ugh...

3d is a gimmic and it is helping to further ruin cinamatography. There are very few exceptions.

How About No 3D (1)

DreamArcher (1690064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35799352)

Just say no to 3D. Do viewers really want 3D or are movie companies pushing it to make bank. I think we all know.

Framerate is not the issue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35799380)

The problem with 3D is not the frame rate, it's that your eyes are focusing on a screen in the distance while converging on objects that appear to be near you. Hence the headache.
Framerate does improve the "realism" of the image, but not the headaches.
Also no one would shoot 3D on film. The reason 3D is popular for big movies is because it's now affordable to shoot it digitally.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>