The Hobbit - starts filming March 21

What is odd is that they chose to show unfinished, ungraded material to promote 48fps. Everyone knows that ungraded digital looks like crap, so I'm not sure what other reaction they expected.

We know the finished films will look like LOTR from the trailer, but showing unfinished work at a convention where people are used to seeing 24fps was probably not the best idea.

Perhaps they should have just shown the finished trailer at 48fps.
 
modelcitizen said:
i know but you asked why not print every frame for 24...right?
perhaps i misunderstood th "why the hell not?".
Click to expand...


As odd as it sounds, it's because you get get jumps that would look odd and/or out of place.

If something starts exploding at a hair past frame 1, then on an every other front you'd not see it until the 3rd frame (the 2nd frame of 24fps). The start point could look out of place in the resulting motion. If you take the full 48fps shot and process it (for lack of a better word) to 24fps, it will tween/blend the frames better than just skipping every other frame.

Things like motion blur, cuts, screens, etc will all be predicated on the 48fps second cut and will look out of what if you just skip frames.
 
They need to release a trailer or some footage or something in 48fps and let us make up our own minds. Youtube is limited to 30fps, but Quicktime isn't.
 
Modelcitizen - he said "every other frame". "Every other" is a phrase meaning you skip one then choose the next.
 
News from Cinema Con! Hobbit Footage Review & MASSIVE SPOILERS: Full Coverage & Analysis! | Hobbit Movie News and Rumors | TheOneRing.net

LOTS OF SPOILERS, so be forewarned. But they're pretty great. It also seems that this 48fps footage WAS NOT finished. Most of the green screen was still unedited. The journalist also made a great point: Not all theaters are equipped to handle the 48fps digital film. I know there's at least one digital projector in most theaters nowadays, but I'm sure PJ will have to down grade the film to accommodate theaters.

There will most likely be three types of movie views you'll be able to choose from, or so it sounds like; the down graded film, this new ultra high frame rate, and 3D.
 
Nwerke said:
Modelcitizen - he said "every other frame". "Every other" is a phrase meaning you skip one then choose the next.
Click to expand...

i know...i was just confused about the question. syntax error.
further off topic i tried to explain why footage from the early 1900's appeared sped up to a few ex girlfriends. maddening.
 
Last edited:
cboath said:
As odd as it sounds, it's because you get get jumps that would look odd and/or out of place.

If something starts exploding at a hair past frame 1, then on an every other front you'd not see it until the 3rd frame (the 2nd frame of 24fps). The start point could look out of place in the resulting motion. If you take the full 48fps shot and process it (for lack of a better word) to 24fps, it will tween/blend the frames better than just skipping every other frame.

Things like motion blur, cuts, screens, etc will all be predicated on the 48fps second cut and will look out of what if you just skip frames.
Click to expand...

You'd only be skipping the same moment of time that the 24 camera would anyway.

If you have a 24 camera next to a 48 camera, and start at the exact same time, frame 2 of the 24 will be taken at the same time as frame 3 of the 48. They both have the same image. So removing frame 2 of the 48 should result in the same two successive images.

Now, maybe the shutter speed is different, so maybe frame 2 of the 24 has more motion blur than frame 3 of the 48. But they're still capturing the same moment of time.
 
I was talking about this to a guy at work this morning. He actually asked me "If it's filmed at 48fps instead of 24fps, does that mean the movie is twice as long?":facepalm
 
Laspector said:
I was talking about this to a guy at work this morning. He actually asked me "If it's filmed at 48fps instead of 24fps, does that mean the movie is twice as long?":facepalm
Click to expand...


Wow. Hopefully he was actually referring to the film reel being twice as long.
 
Treadwell said:
Now, maybe the shutter speed is different, so maybe frame 2 of the 24 has more motion blur than frame 3 of the 48. But they're still capturing the same moment of time.
Click to expand...

That is the reason that a straight 48 to 24 frame cut might not work.

Film shot at 24fps usually does so with a standard 180 degree shutter, which provides a shutter speed of 1/48 of a second. This, as you observe, introduces a good amount of blur to the image. While this would be bad for a still photograph it is essential in a motion picture to create a convincingly smooth illusion of movement.

If you use a faster shutter the image will be sharper (as anyone who has played with a camera will know), but in motion the image will strobe. When shooting Saving Private Ryan they used both a 45 degree or 90 degree shutter (resulting in a shutter speed of 1/192 and 1/96 of a second respectively) for shots during the battle scenes; which is why they had the jarringly staccato motion characteristics. Less motion blur creates less smooth motion.

If the 48 fps footage was shot with a standard 180 degree shutter it would have a shutter speed of 1/96 and would have significantly less motion blur. This would be fine projected at 48 fps with regard to strobing but when converted to 24 frames by the removing every other frame method, have the same motion characteristics as Saving Private Ryan's battle scenes.

While the jerky verite style works well in a gritty war film it would look out of place in a grand fantasy, and perhaps more importantly, would not gel visually with the Lord of the Rings movies.

The Hobbit is being shot at 48fps with a 270 degree shutter, which gives a shutter speed of 1/64 of a second. This is still a shorter exposure than standard 24fps footage, so there will be less motion blur but is still long enough to introduce some motion blur. It is equivalent to shooting 24fps with a 135 degree shutter.

Whether this is enough to allow for a simple conversion or further playing about in post is required I can't say. What I can say is no-one looked at the trailer, which was released at 24fps, and complained that it looked awful; at least from a photographic perspective.

If I find the 48 fps version distracting to the point it is unwatchable I'll be able to go to see it at a 24fps screen. Much as those who hate 3D can choose to see the 2D version at present.
 
This thread is more than 11 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

bwayne64
Titanic Filming Model
Replies
0
Views
434
bwayne64
bwayne64
edge10
Happy Birthday to Bill Shatner - March 22nd
Replies
3
Views
477
ScourgiousJinx
ScourgiousJinx
Sluis Van Shipyards
Coach filming location question
Replies
2
Views
599
Sluis Van Shipyards
Sluis Van Shipyards
Too Much Garlic
Bring the horror back to the Terminator franchise
2 3
Replies
53
Views
1,473
batguy
B
Captain Dunsel
The Fall Guy: The Motion Picture
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2,101
bwayne64
bwayne64
Back
Top