Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: High frame rate 3D

This is topic High frame rate 3D - Cameron on Cinema Con in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000781

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-05-2011, 02:39 PM:

James cameron seems to have demonstrated 48 and 60 fps 3D on Cinema con. Does anyone know what projection system/hardware/modification/flashing rate was used there to project his demo?

- Carsten

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-05-2011, 04:35 PM:

I was there for the presentation. It used four Christie 2230's, double-stacked two for each eye. Servers were Doremi V1's running at 24, 48, and 60fps.

Interesting presentation. Cameron feels that the industry should be moving towards a higher frame rate, at least 48fps, before we get into 4k and beyond in static resolution. He demonstrated how even a 4k image falls apart during camera pans and tracks due to judder. Since current digital projectors can handle triple-flash already, all it would take would be some new software to get these machines to show higher-framerate stuff. The cost to theaters to upgrade to higher framerates should be minimal - the hardware can already handle it.

The clips he showed were shot and shown at 24p, 48p, and 60p with a 180 degree shutter setting. He also showed these higher-framerate clips converted back down to 24p. He mentioned he will make these clips available on-line so more people can see and evaluate for themselves.

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 04-05-2011, 08:13 PM:

quote: Paul M
It used four Christie 2230's, double-stacked two for each eye. Servers were Doremi V1's running at 24, 48, and 60fps.

?!?!

That sounds like a ludicrous setup. To me, Cameron is the full-time April Fool joke. You can see judder now with 2K setups, so I''d rather a theatre just pay to upgrade to 4K, rather than wait until they can afford a dual, double stacked system just to show the one Cameron film that will take advantage of it.

Posted by Pietro Clarici (Member # 4937) on 04-06-2011, 05:39 AM:

quote: Paul Mayer
(...) The cost to theaters to upgrade to higher framerates should be minimal - the hardware can already handle it.

Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I see a few problems with that:

- Due to HD-SDI bandwidth limitations, Series 1 projectors (and Series 2 without IMBs) cannot show 48FPS material at 4:4:4 12-bit. They can run in 4:2:2 8-bit, but it's less than ideal. In this case, a serious hardware upgrade would be needed: the bottleneck here are input capabilities.

- Current Series 2 machines with IMBs should be fine in 48FPS 2D. But when it comes to 48FPS *3D*, this means that new JPEG2000 decoder boards will be needed to support a 96FPS native stream, possibly at a much higher bitrate. And, even if we had such capabilities, there would be the issue of frame duplication: can we project 48FPS per eye as-is? Because in order to do double-flash or triple-flash, DMDs should be capable to work at 192 or 288FPS, which is considerably higher than today's 144.

The only solutions left *today* for 48FPS 3D are stacked DLPs, and possibly Sony SXRDs with the split-lens assembly, assuming that their respective IMBs are up to the task (and they're probably not).

Cameron is a great showman, but all of this sounds like a little more than a "software upgrade" to me.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-06-2011, 06:08 AM:

quote: Paul Mayer
I was there for the presentation. It used four Christie 2230's, double-stacked two for each eye. Servers were Doremi V1's running at 24, 48, and 60fps.

Hi Paul,

do you know wether he used a single server or a synchronized pair?

I, too, think that the current breed of series 1 and series II DLPs can't cope with doubled input rates at triple flash. SDI bottleneck, triple-flash bottleneck, possible J2k decoder bottleneck. Might be easy with a Sony or a dual-projector setup.

Maybe that's something for LieMax to take up. Upgrade their digital systems to dual-4k 48fps 3D might give them back some of the original fame, while all others continue to show 24fps the classic way.

- Carsten

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-06-2011, 07:48 AM:

quote: David E. Nedrow

That sounds like a ludicrous setup. To me, Cameron is the full-time April Fool joke. You can see judder now with 2K setups, so I''d rather a theatre just pay to upgrade to 4K, rather than wait until they can afford a dual, double stacked system just to show the one Cameron film that will take advantage of it.

Well it was cinemacon and I suspect a really huge screen. I doubt one would need more than one machine to do this on a typical screen.
Personally I think this is a step in the right direction, I doubt most people would even notice the jump from 2k to 4k unless it was in the front few rows or in a large format cinema. Higher frame rates will create an effect thats more like looking out a window than looking at a screen. In 3d perhaps just like real life! Ultimately it gives filmmakers another look to choose from and audiences another reason to experience a film out of the home.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-06-2011, 10:11 AM:

Since when is Cinema about 'reality'? People go there to escape reality. 24fps is part of that experience. I hate high framerate for cinema, tv soap look.
Yet I admit it might be a different experience when viewed in 3D.

- Carsten

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-06-2011, 10:48 AM:

It wasn't an April fool's joke. The dual projection was necessary to illuminate that screen with a PROPER amount of light, which was apparently something else Cameron was preaching.

Posted by Anders Nordentoft-Madsen (Member # 3334) on 04-06-2011, 10:49 AM:

quote:
- Current Series 2 machines with IMBs should be fine in 48FPS 2D. But when it comes to 48FPS *3D*, this means that new JPEG2000 decoder boards will be needed to support a 96FPS native stream, possibly at a much higher bitrate. And, even if we had such capabilities, there would be the issue of frame duplication: can we project 48FPS per eye as-is? Because in order to do double-flash or triple-flash, DMDs should be capable to work at 192 or 288FPS, which is considerably higher than today's 144.

As I understand it, there would be no need to double or triple-flash at 60 fps, so actually the DMD should only be able to do 120 fps...

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 04-06-2011, 01:59 PM:

quote: Carsten Kurz
Since when is Cinema about 'reality'? People go there to escape reality. 24fps is part of that experience. I hate high framerate for cinema, tv soap look.

Isn't that a little like the people who had a hard time transitioning from vinyl to CD because they liked the pops and warble that are inherent to playback from a turntable? Or people liking tube amps because of the "warmer" sound?

Associating playback artifacts with the experience is a sentimental attachment that is shared by an ever-decreasing pool of people.

If the source material is created at a higher frame rate, and then displayed at that same frame rate, there should be no detrimental effects of doing so. On the flip side, I would think that a lot of the problems with horizontal panning would go away, and audiences would quickly become accustomed to its advantages.

I don't think it makes sense to take something created at 24fps and project it at 48fps or 96fps, etc. The frame interpolation that would attempt to smooth out the artifacts of the 24fps source material would end up creating that "soap opera" effect.

Is that what you're referring to?

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-06-2011, 03:45 PM:

For this particular setup at the Caesars Palace Colosseum, we were on a 70' silver MDI screen with a throw of 118'. The 3D was via RealD's XLW (XL Widescreen) optics. So yeah, like Brad said, four machines were needed to get proper light levels.

For regular 2D on a more typical-size screen, one machine will more than likely do. The fact that the machine can triple-flash just means that it can do these kinds of future frame rates already.

As for the servers, I wasn't in the booth during the actual presentation (high stakes presentation for the Christie guys - no need to have extra bodies milling about), so I don't know if they were running dual synched servers. I do know there were four Doremi V1's in the rack though.

The look of the pans and tracks at 60fps reminded me of the Showscan look back in the day (I helped run a 6-week long demonstration of Showscan in the old Omnimax at Caesars, ironically on the same ground where the Colosseum is now). It definitely has a look of video, but of course at a much higher and bigger level of picture quality and size.

Cameron also demonstrated some slo-mo at these 48 and 60 frame rates. The cameras used were Sony F-950 (I think), Red Epic, and Phantom Flex.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-06-2011, 03:51 PM:

So, we like IMAX and 5-perf 70mm because of high resolution but wait! We don't want the resolution so high that it looks live or ”real.” I don't buy it.

As for the soap opera look, that's just bad lighting.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-06-2011, 04:27 PM:

No it isn't. I can immediately discern the difference between 24fps and 60fps. The latter looks more like camcorder movement. I really don't care about judder in the pans. Pans don't last long especially if you are doing them fast enough to cause noticeable judder. I wouldn't want to increase the framerate just for pans. That's just stupid. High framerates are fantastic for videogames but look very odd in a dramatic narrative.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-06-2011, 05:26 PM:

Exactly. I always have the impression I'm looking at the making-of part of a DVD ;-)

However, 3D at high framerates may be a different thing. I would understand that even triple-flashing can not smooth out low-frequency L/R parallax shifts. Might be a different experience than just 48fps in 2D.

I guess I would prefer variable framerates. 48fps only for fast action, and 24 for all the pure narrative stuff. Spiderman action scenes e.g. could benefit from higher framerates. These jumps always seem to max out at 24fps ;-)
But maybe then exactly those scenes may loose their impression with a more analytical framerate. Must be fun doing testing on these issues.

@Scott: As a matter of fact, I don't see any artifacts on 24fps movies - probably like most people. I do notice a distracting impression at higher framerates, though. Again, I am not paying for cinema tickets to look out of the window. I can do that anytime for free at home. I pay for a movie experience, not for reality.

- Carsten

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-06-2011, 07:00 PM:

Do you have a lot of movie stars standing outside your window waiting to see you open the curtains so they can act for you? Again, what's the point of a high-quality picture if you're insisting on some arbitrary (24fps?) standard to put a cap on how crystal-clear it is?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-06-2011, 07:43 PM:

A lot of it has to do with suspension of disbelief. It's almost as if my mind goes into a different mode when viewing 24fps than it does when viewing higher frame rates. With 24fps, I am more likely to suspend disbelief than I am at higher framerates. If it's the news or a reality show, then whatever.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-06-2011, 08:24 PM:

I think that you will find that the 24fps thing is one of imprinting since that is what you have grown up with. You associate that look with professional "movies."

The debate on resolution versus frame rate is an absurd one...they each address completely different things.

What the morons that think 4K is only for big screens or for the front rows mis is that your brain receives depth cues from the image, even in 2D. If you ever pay attention to a 2K digital image in a theatre many depth cues are wiped out because there are no pixels to represent them. As such, the image is hyper-flat but also appears to be hyper-sharp. With 4K you should start to get the film-look back. I'm wondering if some will think 4K is less sharp than 2K because it will more faithfully represent what was seen through the lens.

Frame rate improves (lessens) motion artifacts. 24fps is definitely too slow. Anyone that has shown 30fps Todd Ao knows that it does improve the fluidity of the motion WITHOUT giving it that plasticy "Video" look. Furthermore, ShowScan at 60fps (again in 70mm) also did not have a video look to it. What changed (for me) was that the grain disappeared and the depth was deepened. It was the closest I've seen to 3D...without the need for stupid glasses.

-Steve

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-06-2011, 10:51 PM:

I don't buy the whole 24fps looks like film thing. There is a LOT more to creating the "film look" than merely making the camera shoot 24fps.

I can shoot 1080p/24 footage with my EOS 5D Mark II. I'm sorry, but the footage still looks a lot like video to me. I guess if I did a whole bunch of color grading work then it might look more like film.

Another hole to shoot through the 24fps makes stuff look like film: TV shows.

I don't watch a lot of broadcast network TV anymore since so much of it is that "unscripted reality TV" bullshit. Anyway, a lot of TV series ranging from Seinfeld to Kojak were shot on film, photographed at 30fps and broadcast at 30fps. I have ALWAYS been able to tell the difference between TV shows shot on film from those shot on video. I absolutely HATED the ones shot on video because in my earliest childhood memories I associated the video look with daytime soap operas and the news. The cool TV shows were shot on film. And the Bugs Bunny and Wile E. Coyote cartoons I loved so much were recorded onto film frame by frame.

Film has a certain color gamma to it totally unlike video. The physical CMY film strip is based on a subtractive color model -something totally alien to video's additive RGB color model. Shining light through that strip makes the projected color on that film strip a lot more brilliant than it would otherwise be if reproduced on a "reflective" print piece, but it's still not the same as the gamma from a purely additive color model. Video cameras have only so many steps from white to black in each RGB color channel, and I think that lends itself to the pasty, harsh look video can have. Sony is marketing some new 4K camera that can apparently record in 16:8:8 bit depth. I guess someone will need to contact Lawrence Livermore Laboratories to borrow time on the computer powerful enough to handle that bit stream in uncompressed form.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-07-2011, 02:16 AM:

I don't know who you are responding to, Bobby, I hope it wasn't me because if you are...re-read my post...I never said that 24fps = the film look. I did say that the 24fps was part of the professional "movie look" and made no reference to the grain, color...etc that you just went on about. 24fps does have a look of its own because it does introduce motion artifacts. Just about the only place you get 24fps, historically, is with professional movies.

-Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-07-2011, 02:57 PM:

Paul,

It would obvuiously take a double stack to pull it off but I bet the other pair were there for back up or they were running the normal frame rate 3-Dee that he was comparing it to. The Christie techs typically have a full back up at any major event screening they do.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-07-2011, 03:12 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I don't know who you are responding to, Bobby, I hope it wasn't me because if you are...re-read my post...I never said that 24fps = the film look.

It was just a general rant, sorry if sounded like I was getting on to you specifically. There is a whole lot of "24fps equals the film look" garbage being posted in various movie related forums in response to Cameron's request for movies to run at higher frame rates.

Some people are trying to suggest that film will look like video if run at 30fps, 48fps or 60fps when the truth is film actually still looks like film (at least it does to me) even at high frame rates. The 24fps induced judder may be gone, but the very characteristic color gamma of film remains.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 04-07-2011, 04:04 PM:

quote: Anders Nordentoft-Madsen
As I understand it, there would be no need to double or triple-flash at 60 fps, so actually the DMD should only be able to do 120 fps...

That makes sense. The triple flash is made because the present framerate is very low. They will need to maintain a high flash-rate, about the existing 144fps, but if the framerate increases, so does the flash-rate as a consequence, reducing the need of reflasing the same frame.

Cool, haven't thought of that!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-07-2011, 04:27 PM:

Bobby,

Film is dead. It's no longer part of the argument.

--Joe

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-07-2011, 05:17 PM:

quote: Greg Anderson
Do you have a lot of movie stars standing outside your window waiting to see you open the curtains so they can act for you?

@Greg: Even if they'd act for me there, it wouldn't be a movie experience. Just some actors acting outside.

quote: Greg Anderson

Again, what's the point of a high-quality picture if you're insisting on some arbitrary (24fps?) standard to put a cap on how crystal-clear it is?

You mean, 100 years of cinema including IMAX and 70mm were only good for inferior-quality picture?

You can serach the forum or the whole internet for any references to 24fps delivering inferior image quality if you like ;-) You may find some Cameron quotes, though.

quote: Paul Mayer
For this particular setup at the Caesars Palace Colosseum, we were on a 70' silver MDI screen with a throw of 118'. The 3D was via RealD's XLW (XL Widescreen) optics.

Paul, did you get a closer view of the RealD XLW system? Is it any special compared to a standard XL?

- Carsten

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-07-2011, 06:05 PM:

As far as I know, XLW just has bigger glass than XL, so it can be used for really big screens or for short and wide throws.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-08-2011, 01:59 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Film is dead. It's no longer part of the argument.

Then video should stop trying to look like film. It should retain its native video look (the image quality would actually be better). And certain people should not use the term "film" as a verb when describing their actions of shooting footage with a video camera.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 04-08-2011, 09:30 PM:

Yeah Bobby!
I hate when the word film is used even if no film was used!
Or record when only compact disc or digital files exist!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-08-2011, 11:35 PM:

Record as a verb is fine (because you are making a recording). Film as a verb is not.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-09-2011, 12:01 AM:

Just please never use "lens" as a verb to mean "shoot a movie."

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 04-10-2011, 09:59 AM:

There has been work done which suggests that the human visual system is more relaxed when watching images that the brain "knows" are not realistic (such as images projected from film; and at speeds such as 24fps).

The thinking is that as frame rates are increased, and particularly if images are projected via digital video (no grain, no slight jump and weave) the brain actually becomes less comfortable because the images become more and more "real".

The visual system as it has evolved is attuned to be on the alert for potential threats - thousands of years ago it would have been a predator waiting in the grass; today it may be an oncoming vehicle.

Sitting in the dark in a cinema (but for the reflected light from the screen) could be looked upon as a "threatening" environment on a primitive level, with the viewer needing "reassurance" - i.e. relaxation of the visual system.

This relaxation is further believed to be aided by the shutter interruptions inherent to film projection, as the brain has less image "processing" to do.

An important paper on the response of the visual system to projected film and video images, entitled The Film Look: Can it Really be Defined?, was published in Image Technology (Journal of the BKSTS) in the January / February 2005 and April 2005 issues respectively, and is well worth obtaining.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 04-10-2011, 11:34 AM:

At the end of Douglas Trumbulls attempt to launch Showscan for feature films he said 60 fps became too invasive for a feature film.
I don't know but looking at his website he seems to be interested in multiple frame rates for different effects which can change during a feature using his Showscan Digital system.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 04-10-2011, 12:04 PM:

A very interesting topic.

I think movies induce a dream-like state, at least if they are any good.

We have all noticed how people yawn coming out of a movie. I don't think it's about the late hour, it's about coming out of an immersive process.

I had a book named Movies as Dreams or some similar title that are narratives to each persons first movie memory. I loaned the book out and can't find another.

What this all has to with frame rate is yet to be determined but it will evolve. Maybe our brains can easily adapt, maybe not.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-10-2011, 04:58 PM:

quote: Victor Liorentas
he said 60 fps became too invasive

Funny that you mention that. When I first saw Showscan at the MGM Grand Theater|(I know, I am that old!) I walked out behind Siskel and Ebert... Siskel was saying to Ebert that seeing Star Wars in Show Scan would put a person on mental overload. Seems as though Trumbell must have finally agreed. I still think it went no where because of the sheer volume of 70mm film a 2 hour feature would have required. Just imagine the booth.... pair of 70mm projectors and a 5 tier platter for each machine. A 20 minute reel would have filled each deck!

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-10-2011, 05:54 PM:

Not quite. A 22" reel at 30fps is comfortable for 70mm with mag stripes...doubling the length would not double the size or even come close (that 2Pi r thing).