48fps questions.

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12 December 2012   #1
48fps questions.

Hi guys - I'm trying to get to the nub of the 48fps situation. Forgive me if my questions seem daft.

Is that 'fake look' actually captured and locked into the film when shot at 48fps?
If so, when a 48fps film solved down to 24fps, is that 'fake look' still apparent and locked in?

Or do we simply perceive this effect on viewing 48fps - is it us?

I ask because I saw The Hobbit at 24fps and it looked just fine - how I'd expect a film to normally look. I was expecting to see some of the 'video look' but it seemed fine.

The guys here are saying that props and scenery guys need to 'up their game'. Why?
__________________
Posted by Proxy
 
Old 12 December 2012   #2
Hey man,

The "fake" look from 48fps comes from the reduced motion blur. The frame exposure is less than 24fps, and thus the subjects don't move as much over the course of the exposure. The frames come out looking sharper.

Apparently 24fps is around what the human eye is most comfortable with. If you've done any basic photography, you'll get a good feel for these types of things.

This thread has some nice info on the subject. A few users posted links that detail the process.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthr...01&page=1&pp=15

-AJ
__________________

Last edited by AJ1 : 12 December 2012 at 01:54 PM.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #3
AJ is right. More frames means less blur between each frame, which gives sharper motion and slow motion.
__________________
I like to learn.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #4
Originally Posted by grrinc: Is that 'fake look' actually captured and locked into the film when shot at 48fps?
If so, when a 48fps film solved down to 24fps, is that 'fake look' still apparent and locked in?


If they used a good shutter speed when filming, going from 48 FPS down to 24 FPS should restore the "Cinematic Feel" that is lost @ 48 FPS.

So no, the 24 FPS version should not feel "cheap". It should feel like regular 24 FPS Cinema.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #5
I'm sure it's mostly habit. Not long from now, we'll look at the old 24fps thinking, ouch, my eyes hurt.
__________________
The Pirate
Duplicator Series
 
Old 12 December 2012   #6
The weirdness happens when you view it at 48fps. Take out every other frame to get it back to 24fps and everything looks normal again. It's just a matter of viewing things you're not used to seeing.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #7
We are used to seeing that look. Just not on feature films.
__________________
Over one hundred polygons
 
Old 12 December 2012   #8
Are these threads going to be started at double the rate as well?

Continuous smooth misunderstanding and disinformation.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #9
Originally Posted by hypercube: Are these threads going to be started at double the rate as well?


People need a break from the "What should I do with my life?/I just saw a movie and want to make my own VFX that look just like that!" threads once in a while.
__________________
www.artbot.com

 
Old 12 December 2012   #10
Have i missed something or have you guys missed something?

48 frames in 3D stereoscope means that it has 48 frames together in second.
You got only 24 frames for one eye - which means that together 2x 24frames = 48 frames.
So the image will be not any smoother than before when you compare it to 2D movie.

In "normal" 3D movie you got only 12 frames per eye which means 12 frames x 2 = 24 frames, this motion will be showed separately - from these 24 frames: every other frame will be showed for one eye only and because eye can not separate those images it will show those frames in same time (the left and right image - we can not change shutter speed of eyes) and that will generate "fake motion"/stop-go/robotic motion - i guess that it might be also the cause of headache but i have never get headache in 3D movies.

And the 2D movie has 24 frames and we see all those frames with both eyes (in same time) that makes 48 frames together.

Sorry i didn't read all messages from this topic, so somebody have maybe already told this.

And all this limitations are because of technical limitations. Sure these days we have much less limitations but we have get used to 24 frames per second motion.

Last edited by jumamu : 12 December 2012 at 07:13 PM.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #11
No, both left and right eye images are being shown simultaneously, which is still only one frame.

Now if you're talking about active 3D displays like most 3D television sets, then yes, youre kinda right about having different frames for each eye, but in theaters, 3D, with the exception of 48fps hobbit, are still 24fps just like any other movie. Even though each eye is getting a different picture, your brain is still putting them together into one image/frame, 24 times a second, its just a 3 dimensional image instead of a 2 dimensional one.

I think what the OP is asking about, and I don't quite understand this either is how reducing a film shot in 48fps can possibly look the same as traditional 24fps. Because if you're removing a great deal of motion blur captured in the frame by shooting 48fps, that motion blur does not magically reappear by simply removing every other frame to make it 24fps.

Instead of simply removing every other frame to make the film 24fps, are we sure they're not filming it 24fps simultaneously? Is there a way to film both 3D AND multiple frame rates through the same lenses at the same time? Could it be as simple as just splitting the output of the camera to two different hard drives/servers and telling one to record at 48fps and the other to record at 24?
__________________
"Have you ever just stared at it.......Marveled at its bee yooty?"

Last edited by zzacmann : 12 December 2012 at 07:54 PM.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #12
in a digital projecting movie theater the "normal" movie is already projected with 48 fps. so each frame is shown 2 times. with stereo you will see 24 fps for each eye with shutter glasses or still 48fps (with frames shown doubled) for polarisation. now with HFR the projector will run with 96 fps and showing each eye 48fps, you dont see half of what was recoreded, you will see each single frame.

and recording 24fps and 48fps at the same time wont bring any difference to the feeling of the movie because the less motion blur and sharper image happens at the camera sensor wich is read out more often at higher frame rates.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #13
Hmm... Ok. Thanks for reply and for correction.
I just thought that i explained same thing but in different way (and i did not explain my self clear enough, my mistake - sorry).
I have to admit that my language talents are quite bad - i am not a good writer.
Originally Posted by zzacmann: Could it be as simple as just splitting the output of the camera to two different hard drives/servers and telling one to record at 48fps and the other to record at 24?

That would be interesting to know. I have no idea from that - is it possible or not, but it sounds possible.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #14
Originally Posted by pingking: in a digital projecting movie theater the "normal" movie is already projected with 48 fps. so each frame is shown 2 times..

Yup... But i just think that it is unnecessary to mention that it will be show two times... because the second image is exactly the same picture, so i think it is 1 frame. And i guess that it do not have same image twice (it would be really stupid to have same information in double) - it will only refresh the image two times.

'Am I right?
 
Old 12 December 2012   #15
Originally Posted by zzacmann: I think what the OP is asking about, and I don't quite understand this either is how reducing a film shot in 48fps can possibly look the same as traditional 24fps. Because if you're removing a great deal of motion blur captured in the frame by shooting 48fps, that motion blur does not magically reappear by simply removing every other frame to make it 24fps.


Thanks zzacmann. Yes this is one of the questions I am asking. Thanks for wording it better.

Plus I'd still like to know why the prop making guys and the set making guys ( and the lighting guys ) need to 'up their game' - as some people have suggested here. Why would a set or prop look more fake just because an extra frame ( picture? ) has captured it?
__________________
Posted by Proxy
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.