Jump to content

Current frame rates for shooting movies?


GregBest

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Hey, I wanted to like the 48 fps look -- I know that technically it is superior. I saw all three Hobbit movies at 48 fps because I wanted to like the approach. But I don't know how many times I have to keep giving these HFR projects another chance before I just admit that the look doesn't please me much for narrative fiction (I don't have an issue with documentaries having that "real time" look).

 

I'm looking forward to seeing some 120 fps stuff because maybe at even higher speeds, it starts to look and feel different than classic 60 fields per second motion sampling of interlaced-scan NTSC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People definitely allowed to like what they like, most definitely.

 

I sort of had the opposite effect with the Hobbit. I was hoping the effect worked.... and after about 10 minutes in to it, once I got used to it, I LOVED the look of it and thought it was one of the most amazing movies I had ever seen.

For me, it was the plot that made it a not so great movie, but the visuals - I thought - were astounding.

 

There will always be the old way, but we can continue into the new as well. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I certainly got used to the 48 fps look after a while into watching the Hobbit movies, but getting used to something, tolerating it, is not the same thing as loving it. The only time I could see some real advantage was during some of the swooping helicopter moves.

 

I think it was probably a mistake to shoot everything at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter just in order to make the 24 fps version look less stuttery (if they had shot with a 180 degree shutter, the 24 fps version would have looked like it was shot with a 90 degree shutter - which would not be the end of the world to me, not for an action movie.) I know it probably also helped compensate for the 1-stop light loss of the 3D mirror rigs.

 

But one of the characteristics of 60i video (or 50i) is that it was often shot with no shutter (i.e. 360 degrees), so you had that higher motion sampling rate for better smoothness, but there was a bit of smeariness going on due to the 1/60th (or 1/50th) shutter time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

so, how can we adjust our age-burnt-in ideas about LOOKS of things, where we admit 24 frames with flashing black in between doesn't look as good as 60 frames with no flashing black, and looking way more "real," and way less "innaccurate"?

 

We're used to "Film Look" and "video look".... why is the video look "bad" to people? It looks so, new, fresh, clear, accurate, real, live, detailed.... I don't get the downside?

 

I feel we should stop thinking "Video-ish" and call it "better", more better of everthing: representing the image in front of our cameras more accurately through the process chain to the end viewer

But I know I am the minority in that. :)

Well, more frames-per-second is not empirically 'better', it is simply 'more.' More temporal resolution to be precise. A Double Double from In-and-Out Burger is empirically 'more food' than an amuse-bouche at Le Bernardin. Cheaper too. Is it better? Judgement call. A St Bernard is empirically 'more dog' than a Jack Russell Terrier. Better dog? Again, judgement call. An 8x10 negative is empirically 'more image' than a 35mm negative. Better? Doesn't it depend on what the picture actually is? You get the idea.

 

Don't get too carried away with bigger, shiny containers. It's what is inside that counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I do a terrible job trying to explain what I am thinking to people outside my head. :)

 

When we watch actual film projected, a rotating shutter thingy blocks the light while the next frame is shifted into view. So, we have these blackouts 24 times per second along side the 24 lighted frames, blackouts are much shorter, of course....

However, we don't normally SEE blackouts with our eyes live in the world... unless we walked around blinking a LOT, really fast all the time. :) I think geeky science folk say a majority of us can see about 45fps, some more, some less depending on medical condition.

 

With digital, we are slapping up full pics without the blackouts inbetween, or they are so fast, they are not perceptable to us. The screen is always lit up, pixels don't go black while changing colors. So, we have advanced to show us visuals closer to what our eyes see. And isn't that the goal in presenting a moving set of pictures to people? A bunch of stuff to SEE and enjoy for entertainment?

 

To me, it's better to see stuff closer to how the eye can see it rather than in a way dictated by the original, and now older technology of pulled film and blackout shutters. That is what makes it better.... to me.

 

I gotta wonder if HOBBIT was a GREAT Story, would people have not been bothered by the 48fps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Here's where I have to take exception...

 

Sure, it is the goal of some movie experiences to be closer to what our eye sees, for the screen to be more like a clear window on reality. For that purpose, high resolution, high dynamic range, no grain or noise, rich colors, normal to wide-angle lenses, large screens, and probably 3D and high frame rates would all help in that regard.

 

But other movies try to resemble other graphic arts like painting and 2D still photography, and rather than strictly presenting us with a clear image that resembles human vision, they are trying to create impressions, abstractions, distortions of reality that support the psychology of the story and the characters. They use diffusion filters, smoke, super wide-angle or telephoto lenses, zooming, macro photography, shooting from camera angles that most humans would not be viewing the scene from, moving the camera in ways that humans don't move.

 

Just in terms of style, compare two WW2 movies, "The Thin Red Line" and "Saving Private Ryan" -- the first is in clean, sharp widescreen color cinematography for a National Geographic Kodachrome "you are there" sort of effect, the other shot with blue-ish desaturated, grainy look using short shutter speeds, and yet the viewing experience is equally immersive. The look is not so much like human vision, but like WW2 combat footage. Both are effective approaches but only the first is more like normal human vision, the second is more distorted, abstracted, trying to create the feeling of combat in a more impressionistic way.

 

The other issue to consider is the whole "willing suspension of disbelief" necessary to get into a watching and being emotionally involved in a fictional story. You would think that the more "realistic" the shooting / presentation format is, the easier creating that would be, but the truth is that often the opposite happens -- the more sharp, clear, window-like the image is, maybe shot with higher frame rates -- sometimes the fakeness of what is in front of the camera is more obvious: sets feel like sets, costumes feel like costumes, the people look like actors in make-up, etc. There is no "filter" that transforms all of these elements into something we can accept, instead we seem to be getting a raw, live "feed" from the set rather than getting the feeling that we are watching a movie.

 

Of course, some of this can be overcome - if everything in front of the camera is absolutely real, then it is harder for it to feel artificial. This is one reason why some of these immersive formats, like 3D IMAX, work great for nature documentaries where you want to feel like you are standing in the rain forest with some gorillas, or floating through the International Space Station. But I also saw a fictional film shot in 3D IMAX, "Wings of Courage", and I was constantly distracted by detail that seemed fake -- there was a scene in a 20's cafe and I kept noticing the cheese cubes on a tray on the table and wondering if that was real cheese, I noticed the cord running down the table lamp, but I wasn't believing that these actors were actually from the 1920's. It all looked like make-believe, like watching a stage production. When you watch a stage production in live theater, of course you know what is happening on stage is really happening, that these are real people using real props, but it's not the same experience as watching a movie of that same storyline, and the live theater version doesn't necessarily seem "more real" than the movie version might.

 

So this is the downside with a viewing process seeming too much like a live window of reality happening in real time, not a recorded reality being played back to you -- it may be more like human vision, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be more interesting to watch and more involving as a movie experience.

 

For better or worse, 24 fps 2D is a transformative process that allows for manipulation by an artist that the viewer accepts as part of the nature of the process. The more "real" the process might get, the harder it might be to get away with unnatural manipulation of time, space, etc. -- all the things that are part of the cinematic language.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, you've hit on a key point for sure: looks so real, looks like a live stage play. This is so true! Do you think different, and maybe new styles of lighting would help that? Stages are always well lit, OVER lit it seems, so we can see everything... maybe movies with HFR are over lit as well? I wonder how THE REVENANT would have looked with HFR since it was almost all natural lighting? Would it take us there and be even more real?

Those darn cheese cubes! hahahhaha

 

I'm hoping more productions start trying it to figure out the new strangeness of it. And hoping someone makes such a good STORY that is so captivating, one never takes time to notice the production behind it.

That said, I'm sticking with 24 mostly, 30, and some 60 for now because it is all my computer can handle. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

As I said, there is probably a bigger burden on realism when the process is so realistic, so if shooting outdoors on location in available light works best, then anything else should strive to be as close to that as possible in order to hold up under that sort of scrutiny.

 

However, I'm probably being too limited in my thinking -- if audiences ever get used to such a hyper-real process, I'm sure some filmmaker will push the limits on how far artifice can be pushed, how stylized things can be, in opposition to the realism of the process.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
So, we have advanced to show us visuals closer to what our eyes see. And isn't that the goal in presenting a moving set of pictures to people?

 

To me, the ultimate goal is to weave a spell on the audience, to transport them to another world, to make them laugh and cry. It's about telling stories around a campfire. Personally, I think the verisimilitude of virtual reality fails in this regard. The more information you give to the audience, the less you allow them to fill in the gaps with their imagination. As a result the audience struggles to engage emotionally with the material. You are at your most susceptible to suggestion while in a dream state. How can your brain relax when it's being constantly bombarded with stimuli?

 

What reality can do well is to create a sense of awe and terror. IMAX films do this very well. I can still remember seeing an IMAX trailer where the camera drifted over the edge of the Grand Canyon and tilted straight down, the sense of vertigo was palpable. But that was more of a special effect, not a film. It has it's place but it won't replace actual storytelling.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To me, the ultimate goal is to weave a spell on the audience, to transport them to another world, to make them laugh and cry. It's about telling stories around a campfire. Personally, I think the verisimilitude of virtual reality fails in this regard. The more information you give to the audience, the less you allow them to fill in the gaps with their imagination. As a result the audience struggles to engage emotionally with the material. You are at your most susceptible to suggestion while in a dream state. How can your brain relax when it's being constantly bombarded with stimuli?

 

What reality can do well is to create a sense of awe and terror. IMAX films do this very well. I can still remember seeing an IMAX trailer where the camera drifted over the edge of the Grand Canyon and tilted straight down, the sense of vertigo was palpable. But that was more of a special effect, not a film. It has it's place but it won't replace actual storytelling.

Absolutely yes.

It takes a real master of the medium to tell a good story AND using the modern devices of immersing us into 'reality' whatever that is. They often just end up as special effects that can often distance us from the characters and plot. And it's all happened before of course. When you remember the spectacular epic films of the last century, not many do you first think of the actors' performances in the face of all that immersive experience. Two exceptions: Lawrence and Patton.

A more recent war film, Hurt Locker, I don't think Imax or 48fps would have done it much good. S.16 was the perfect choice. And as David says, it actually helps the viewer keep in the story if we are not constantly looking at props and scenery that are too real for comfort.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

To me, the ultimate goal is to weave a spell on the audience, to transport them to another world, to make them laugh and cry.
Personally, I find all this stuff a bit overwrought. I'm usually happy if it's reasonably well-exposed and in focus.
Well, not happy. But paid.
P
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Personally, I find all this stuff a bit overwrought. I'm usually happy if it's reasonably well-exposed and in focus.

Well, not happy. But paid.

P

Well, it's something to aspire to anyway. Not saying we get there on every shoot. But that's why I wanted to make films in the first place. Can't speak for anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely agree that STORY comes first and always should as that is the only reason to make the darn movie in the first place. Yes, use whatever tools and settings to best immerse the audience into your world. Now there are newer tools than there used to be. I'm noticing many high profile directors using them with decent results: Cameron 3D, Jackson HFR, Nolan IMAX.... (not saying they are good, just high profile)....and this intrigues me.... why are they doing this? Is it only because it fits THAT particular story? I see Nolan using IMAX more and more and wanting to use it on everything because it looks so great

 

if I'm dragging this out, just cut me off, I enjoy discussing this stuff with knowledgable people. :)

 

Someone mentioned VR... I'd read where this could be the "next big amazing thing" in movie production. I think it will be a staging logistical nightmare requiring relearning everything we know about capturing as story to present to people. I doubt it will appeal to the majority to wear a full face helmet and be looking around all over - we do that already with cameras and cuts -

BUT, it is a new tool that never existed before and COULD be something as ground breaking as "moving pictures" was.

I do think we should all be open to new advances in the tech, like Cameron, Nolan, Jackson

 

All these things didn't exist for 50+ years.... we talk about the best option is having a good story and being able to immerse the audience into the story... most of this new stuff is even more immersive that ever beforer. Talking with the 20 somethings I know (I'm 50) they are very open to all the new stuff and actively seek it out and enjoy it. If they could enjoy STAR WARS 8 at 24 on a 2d screen or 3D VR setup, I bet I know which they would prefer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was probably a mistake to shoot everything at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter just in order to make the 24 fps version look less stuttery (if they had shot with a 180 degree shutter, the 24 fps version would have looked like it was shot with a 90 degree shutter - which would not be the end of the world to me, not for an action movie.)

 

Does 72 fps and a 180 degree shutter seem like the obvious choice to anyone else? 72 hz hasn't been used before, so audiences shouldn't associate it with anything, and you can synthesize a perfect 24/180 frame, because the first and second frames in a set of three consecutive 72/180 frames correspond to the first and third third periods of a 24/180 exposure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way our eyes work differs in important ways from how a camera is otherwise used. One of the most obvious differences is that our eyes (and head) rotate around all over the shop, but a camera doing the same (at the same rate) would produce a god-awful mess (the exception being experimental work of course - or pseudo-experimental work for that matter).

 

But interestingly, in VR, (of which I've done quite a lot of software development work) one does move the image around (during projection) - because the image is not attached to an otherwise independant screen (as it is in the cinema) but attached to one's head. So the image is programmatically moved around (in real time) in such a way as to cancel out the player's head movement - the result being that the image becomes independant of the player's head movement - becomes "there" (outside of our head) as distinct from "here" (inside our head).

 

The cinema image operates in a conceptually similar way - where the image is made independant of the "player" - externalised - up there on the screen. One will typically operate a camera in any way that helps to cancel out subjective rotations (eg. putting a camera on a tripod, slow pans,) - it helps to better externalise what is otherwise being created. It helps to maintain the player's (audience's) sense of freedom, as much as a sense of reality (of the image as independant of one's subjectivity).

 

What this means for frame rates I'm not sure - only that it demonstrates one shouldn't necessarily jump to conclusions based on how our eyes (and head) seem to operate.

 

Personally I find HFR is really quite objectionable, but I don't know if that's just a question of taste, or something more tangible. I operate according to the latter idea even if it is just the former.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well for the VR part, we are handing the reigns over to the view to control the pans, the object of importance... doesn't it get harder to tell a story where "John busts into the room from the left, through a door" when the viewer is looking out the window to the right watching the CGI butterflies, but hears the commotion, but missed it?

I dunno... things are getting interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well for the VR part, we are handing the reigns over to the view to control the pans, the object of importance... doesn't it get harder to tell a story where "John busts into the room from the left, through a door" when the viewer is looking out the window to the right watching the CGI butterflies, but hears the commotion, but missed it?

I dunno... things are getting interesting.

 

Well, for VR work one needs to create new techniques, rather than use those one might otherwise inherit from the cinema (or the theatre). So scripts which write "John bursts into the room from the left" will be obviously inappropriate. However I understand the issue.

 

The solution is to experiment with the technology and find what works.

 

For many years I worked with a theatre group where we did performances outdoors - in the park, on an island, in a junkyard, in the desert, etc. And the audience wasn't in any way required to sit or stand somewhere in particular, but were "managed" through various techniques, to move through quite elaborate built environments, from one place to another. To be within the unfolding drama rather than sitting outside of such.

 

Where the audience would be required to see something in particular (if they are to follow the unfolding story) then we'd just make sure their attention was captured in some way. To turn their heads. Sound is one's friend here, or some fireworks, or a naked man running through the crowd, towards the scene in question. :)

 

Perhaps a time travel option in VR would be good, so not only can you navigate VR in space but in time as well. That way if you miss something you can go back in time and see it.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

Does 72 fps and a 180 degree shutter seem like the obvious choice to anyone else? 72 hz hasn't been used before, so audiences shouldn't associate it with anything, and you can synthesize a perfect 24/180 frame, because the first and second frames in a set of three consecutive 72/180 frames correspond to the first and third third periods of a 24/180 exposure.

 

In theory as the frame rates get really high, then using a 180 degree shutter becomes less necessary because the per frame exposure time is already very short even with a 360 degree shutter. But as long as you are willing to do some frame-blending to create the 24 fps version rather than just dropping frames, then you can create enough blur per frame to overcome stuttered choppy motion. Otherwise, if you just shot 72 fps with a 180 degree shutter, then each frame has a 1/142 of a second exposure time, so dropping two frames to create the 24 fps version would look similar to shooting some shutter angle like 60 degrees at 24 fps. On the other hand, I don't think 72 fps is quite high enough to use a 360 degree shutter either, but you might be fine with a 240 degree angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

That may work though I'd wonder if there would be any unexpected motion artifact from using the blur from only two frames out of every three. But my initial thought is no, the third frame unused to create 24 fps would be the equivalent of the closed shutter time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideally, you would interpolate the "missing" frames and use three, then drop three. It should work better than adding blur to every other frame from 48 fps material, since it's just 1/3 of the information and the least important third, at that. But I don't have a 72 fps camera and interpolation software, so i haven't tested it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I do a terrible job trying to explain what I am thinking to people outside my head. :)

 

When we watch actual film projected, a rotating shutter thingy blocks the light while the next frame is shifted into view. So, we have these blackouts 24 times per second along side the 24 lighted frames, blackouts are much shorter, of course....

However, we don't normally SEE blackouts with our eyes live in the world... unless we walked around blinking a LOT, really fast all the time. :) I think geeky science folk say a majority of us can see about 45fps, some more, some less depending on medical condition.

 

With digital, we are slapping up full pics without the blackouts inbetween, or they are so fast, they are not perceptable to us. The screen is always lit up, pixels don't go black while changing colors. So, we have advanced to show us visuals closer to what our eyes see. And isn't that the goal in presenting a moving set of pictures to people? A bunch of stuff to SEE and enjoy for entertainment?

 

To me, it's better to see stuff closer to how the eye can see it rather than in a way dictated by the original, and now older technology of pulled film and blackout shutters. That is what makes it better.... to me.

 

I gotta wonder if HOBBIT was a GREAT Story, would people have not been bothered by the 48fps?

 

If digital projection elliminates the black outs, it does so for material originated on film, as much as material originated on video.

 

A more important point is that we don't see the so called "black outs" in film projection. The film projector shutter might cause Superman a headache, but it doesn't cause us mere mortals any.

 

Movement is the perception of a difference between one frame and another where they occupy the same space (at different times). We don't see the individual frames as such, but the difference between them, which we see as movement (as change). So between one black out and another, we can suggest that we don't see it because we don't see any difference between such.

 

For perception of space, a painting or photograph, we can follow the same theme - that we don't so much see individual pixels (roman tiles, paint daubs, etc) but the differences between them - we don't see white here, and black there, but their contrast. The differences might be sharp (an edge) or soft (a blank wall) or anything in between. It's the variation which is important rather than the specific value at any given point.

 

There's a certain play off that can be theorised here, between perception of space (painting/photography) and perception of time or timing (sound). Visual movement occupies a kind of in between zone (between space and time) and one might argue that a desirable frame rate is one which might be caught in a pull between opposite directions: between the frozen time of painting and photography (0 fps) and a high fidelity time (48 fps, etc). Perhaps 24 fps is like some sort of optimum sweet point.

 

This is, of course, interpretable as complete bollocks.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so how about this: when I rotate in my chair (like a pan), before my eyes focus on something at the stop, everything during my pan is blurred. I can however stop my eyes briefly on anything during my rotation and see it clearly, albiet very briefly. At 24, USUALLY (not in every case) our main option is to have that blur during a pan - because it is natural. We don't have the option of stopping our eyes and seeing that detail during that pan because each frame is blurred already (unless filmed with a low angle thus creating choppy pans at 24). If we did the same pan at 60, we COULD have enough info during that we could stop our eyes and see more of the detail, should we, the film makers decide to allow that. Doesn't that bring more creative options to the process than 24 did? I feel more frames bring more creative options.

 

Have you guys seen the TRUMBULL 120 stuff?

https://youtu.be/NkWLZy7gbLg?t=1m50s

 

 

As a side note, I recall going to those motion rides in Vegas and being awestruct by the visuals. This was long before I was into anything having to do with movies... I remember thinking, "This looked FANTASTIC!! Why aren't ALL tv shows and movies made like that? Why does this look so good?" I didn't know what a frame rate was, I just knew it looked so amazing. It wrecked me! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm noticing many high profile directors using them with decent results: Cameron 3D, Jackson HFR, Nolan IMAX.... (not saying they are good, just high profile)....and this intrigues me.... why are they doing this? Is it only because it fits THAT particular story? I see Nolan using IMAX more and more and wanting to use it on everything because it looks so great.

 

I think high-profile directors sometimes use expensive cutting-edge technology because they simply like it and their status allows them to use it. These are not choices that are available to most filmmakers. Whether or not the results are good is subjective, but you would certainly expect great filmmakers with a proven track record to continue making great films regardless of the format.

 

If Michael Mann wants to experiment with digital capture, what studio exec in their right mind would turn that film down? This is the guy who directed 'Manhunter', 'Last of the Mohicans' and 'Heat.' If Quentin Tarantino wants to shoot on a format that hasn't been in use for half a century and have custom projection lenses made so that he can show film prints, then he gets to do it. Same thing with James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Chris Nolan, the Coen brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson, Terrence Malick, Alejandro Inarritu, etc. These directors have earned the right to make the film they want, exactly the way they want to do it.

 

Basically, once you've proven yourself to be an exceptional filmmaker who can make popular and award-winning films, you can do whatever you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true. But what about it pushes them to bother wasting time with those options? Higher frame rates, IMAX, etc? Isn't it that they see a quality improvement? I doubt they are looking to make the quality worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...