Peter Jackson filming at 48 fps

[Gerry]

Peter Jackson fires the first shot in his quest to change the movie industry.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/ent?guid=2...c2-c025a9b605d9

[Darkwing]

That will make the 3D significantly better as 3D requires 48fps to play and so with most of these converted films, it's like up-converting a DVD. Usually passable, but noticeably weaker. Filming in 48fps should reduce this and make the 3D motions much better and less buggy on the eyes and brain

[Gerry]

Says in that article that it almost completely eliminates strobing when panning and zooming. That would be huge.

[largento]

We found some interesting stuff back in this thread on the topic.

[Gerry]

Thanks for the link, Mark. I knew it all sounded familiar.

[Rodney]

My gut feel on the whole FPS thing is that eventually technology should make this whole issue with frame rates go away.

Not so much that framerates don't matter (we can only perceive so much information and that still seems to be somewhere between 16 and 24 fps).

The additional frames are mostly useful in post processing and editing because it becomes all the more easy to find a element in one frame that works well and use that instead of an element in another frame.

 

So, in effect by having more frames you don't just get more fluid motion you get at ubiquity and redundancy out the yinyang.

More than anything this pushes the technology not toward getting *out of* film but getting more *into* film.

By filming at 48fps there is simply more information to work with.

 

As for playback, I would guess the additional frames are important but more from the angle of how the computer/projector can access and play that information back. Even if the projector can only push 24fps it still might be able to cache the remaining 24frames and use that. In this way it's mostly a matter of applying a digital mask to say, "Use the first 24frames" or "Use every other frame" or "Ignore the first 24 frames", etc. This in effect takes the Alpha Channel into full dimensional space.

 

My question would be... why stop at 48fps. Why not 480fps? Why not 2400fps? (or why not 1 Trillion frames pers second!)

I suspect this is mostly a matter of what the current cameras are capable of processing and is primarily limited by that.

 

Where I think this is pushing is toward Scale-Space, which interestingly enough is said to have been 'invented' by the late Pixar Scientist Andrew_Witkin. For those interested in programming the future the subject is well worth looking into.

[robcat2075]

But I like the strobing.

[Darkwing]

My gut feel on the whole FPS thing is that eventually technology should make this whole issue with frame rates go away.

Not so much that framerates don't matter (we can only perceive so much information and that still seems to be somewhere between 16 and 24 fps).

The additional frames are mostly useful in post processing and editing because it becomes all the more easy to find a element in one frame that works well and use that instead of an element in another frame.

 

So, in effect by having more frames you don't just get more fluid motion you get at ubiquity and redundancy out the yinyang.

More than anything this pushes the technology not toward getting *out of* film but getting more *into* film.

By filming at 48fps there is simply more information to work with.

 

As for playback, I would guess the additional frames are important but more from the angle of how the computer/projector can access and play that information back. Even if the projector can only push 24fps it still might be able to cache the remaining 24frames and use that. In this way it's mostly a matter of applying a digital mask to say, "Use the first 24frames" or "Use every other frame" or "Ignore the first 24 frames", etc. This in effect takes the Alpha Channel into full dimensional space.

 

My question would be... why stop at 48fps. Why not 480fps? Why not 2400fps? (or why not 1 Trillion frames pers second!)

I suspect this is mostly a matter of what the current cameras are capable of processing and is primarily limited by that.

 

Where I think this is pushing is toward Scale-Space, which interestingly enough is said to have been 'invented' by the late Pixar Scientist Andrew_Witkin. For those interested in programming the future the subject is well worth looking into.

 

 

The 48fps actually becomes very useful at the 3D level as a 3D digital projector requires for the film to be played at 48fps. The reason for this is due to the 3D element itself. The short version is that the Z-Screen or XL-Screen essentially divides the image into two eyes if you will and it flashes each one 24 times (so 48 between the two eyes). The 3D glasses using radial polarity or something like that, combines the image. That of course is the incredibly crude and short version, it comes down to stuff like it being 144hz and all that jazz. So if they shoot in 48fps from the get go, the 3D will be a lot smoother and fluidic as it'll have the full 24 frames per each eye recorded and not "upconverted" if you will.