Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: High Frame Rate (HFR) digital cinema

This is topic High Frame Rate (HFR) digital cinema 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=000934

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-03-2011, 12:08 AM:

I'm surprised nobody has started a discussion on this, as it was all the rage at Showeast. I'm going to go ahead and start the rant.

For those who don't know, this is exactly what it sounds like. Instead of 24 frames per second, the studios (and particularly the projector manufacturers who stand to profit from the software upgrade) are looking at 48 or 60 frames per second instead of the normal 24.

Christie had a demo running in their booth with RealD and it looked embarrassingly awful. To be fair, the source material was crap. Barco also did a demo which looked good...but it proved exactly what I predicted and what makes logical sense.

It looked like a cheap tv soap opera.

Over the last 100 years the magic of movies has been that flickering image at 24 frames per second. Video has for years and years been TRYING to get that "film look". No matter what video did, video still looked like video, and by that I mean it had that "soap opera" look. This is because video (in the US) runs at 30 FPS. The motion is too fluid.

In the video post production industry, some companies made filters to add dust specs and image movement to simulate that "film look", but lets face it, it still looked like video until 24P cameras became available. THEN it had that "film look". It had that magic.

Does anyone have those 120Hz televisions? Have you played a DVD/blu-ray and noticed how bad it looks with the 120Hz mode on? It looks like a tv soap opera. Turn that high refresh rate crap off and watch as it is transformed back into a real movie.

Peter Jackson and James Cameron are so far the only two directors demanding this shit. Hey guy, this is a HUGE STEP BACKWARDS! High frame rates should be restricted to amusement park rides and such things. It has no place in the cinema environment.

Go see a demo and you will agree. The magic is gone.

[thumbsdown]

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-03-2011, 12:22 AM:

They did a demo at Cinecon earlier this year. While I didn't get to see it, everything I heard was extremely positive. And my understanding is the series 2 projectors are capable of 48fps or 60fps out of the box.

While a higher frame rate may not matter for the average movie, I think it would be a huge improvement for fast paced action movies. With the up close style of directing that has been the standard of action movies for the last 10 years or so, it makes sense to use more frames per second for smoother action. If directors are not willing to pull the camera back so the action isn't so confusing to the eye, then give them a better tool.

Since I haven't actually seen a demonstration yet, I won't comment further.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-03-2011, 01:17 AM:

Demos tend to get positive reactions because people want to see something shiny and new. I am not much of a fan of the 60fps look. Yes, I agree that temporal resolution is higher, but is it worth it? I'm sure Steve Guttag would argue "yes". Personally, I feel if they were to increase the frame rate, they should only do it to 30fps. It is still slower than video (60 individual moments in time per second, take your frames and fields and shove them up your ass) and still has that magic while offering a slightly higher temporal resolution. Probably not enough to justify the cost, though (if any).

The thing is that 24 frames per second (and 30) rely on the brain to help fill in the gaps. I personally think this helps the brain get into more of a "fantasy" state. When you see something at 60fps like soap operas and TV news, the movement seems too real. It's very odd. Yes, lighting and sound go a long way to helping to get that movie look and feel, but don't underestimate frame rate.

And indeed those high frame rate modes on newer TVs do make movies look extraordinarily weird and unappealing. The fancy movie lighting, make-up, set decoration and sound are all still there, but it is still very distracting. One might argue "that's because the algorithms adding the frames suck and it would not look odd at all if it were shot that way blah blah blah". I agree it would probably look less odd, but it would still look odd in a movie-type environment.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-03-2011, 01:40 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
24 frames per second (and 30) rely on the brain to help fill in the gaps. I personally think this helps the brain get into more of a "fantasy" state.

This is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. There have been many movies in the last 10 years or so that have suffered because the camera was too close to the action. Two specific examples that comes to mind are The Bourne Supremacy and Any Given Sunday. While I thought both movies were very good, the action scenes were very confusing to watch. The reason is because the picture of fast paced action changes much faster than 24 frames per second. This leaves the mind to fill very large gaps in the action. For me, this actually takes me out of the picture. I find my attention wavering and I start focusing on something other than the main action.

And yes Joe, I think the difference between something shot at 24fps and something shot at 60fps would be dramatic when both are shown at 120 Hz. The reason is because 24 fps is still only showing 24 distinct images per second - it's just that each image is shown 5 times.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-03-2011, 02:34 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
There have been many movies in the last 10 years or so that have suffered because the camera was too close to the action. Two specific examples that comes to mind are The Bourne Supremacy and Any Given Sunday.

This is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. Those movies were confusing to watch because the director sucked and was trying to create tension by intentionally blurring the action by getting too close and using a paint-shaker instead of a Steadicam. The whole POINT was to blur the action. If they had been shot at a higher frame rate, the shots would have been even tighter.

The side-by-side demo Barco had was of a helicopter. The propeller blades had a staggered look because the frequency just happened to collide with the frame rate. The ENTIRE thing was of that chopper with the blades occupying the majority of the frame. It also was not a fair comparison, as for one side to be HFR, that meant the other side was a fake because the projector cannot split-screen between two different frame rates. That introduced more motion artifacts to the 24 FPS side and also failed to take into account the fact that the HFR side would be darker. The only fair way to do such a demo is 2 dedicated projectors (but that would have been a big setup).

Wait until you see it Justin. It sounds great in theory, but it isn't. It really isn't.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-03-2011, 03:02 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
The reason is because 24 fps is still only showing 24 distinct images per second - it's just that each image is shown 5 times.

Wrong again! When the "enhancement" mode is turned off (they are called different things on different TVs) then yes, a single frame is shown 5 times. That's perfectly fine and there is nothing wrong with that. I'll take that over NTSC's 3:2 pulldown ANY DAY. But what I am talking about is when the TV fills in the missing frames to effectively make it 60 frames or 120 frames per second with new data it extrapolates from existing frames. 120Hz TVs are ALWAYS in 120Hz. They are not multisync, they cannot run at any other speed. It's just a matter of if you want that extra crap on or not and on some TVs it is really hard to turn it all the way off.

The two movies you cite do indeed suck because the camera was "too close". A higher frame rate wouldn't have made much of a difference. The camera would still be too close and the editing would still suck.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-03-2011, 03:19 AM:

30FPS ... wonder what kind of crowd reaction was to Michael Todd's films that were shot and presented at this speed?

True, Todd wanted that faster frame speed to smooth out the "flicker rate" from 48 pulses to 60 pulses so we wouldn't see them...

Guess, digital is totally different - changed that entire spectrum all together.

-Monte

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-03-2011, 05:38 AM:

Joe is right...I do prefer higher frame rates. I'm not sure 60fps need be the immediate goal. 30fps and 48fps make more sense, at this time, than 60fps. 48fps is the most attractive because it is inherently compatible with 24fps (a mere doubling/halving). 30fps requires more difficult trickery to get it to a 50Hz based system or compatible with 24Hz based systems. Douglass Trumble did the research that noted that 60fps is the tipping point where higher frame rates were not perceivable.

As Monte points out with Todd-Ao...film at 30fps looks notably better than film at 24fps. We've even done some NFL-Films screenings where they shot 35mm at 30fps and it looked MUCH better than the 24fps stuff Look at Oklahoma! in 70mm Todd-Ao...it does NOT look like it was shot for a Soap Opera! There is no "film-look" to having strobing images because a pan went too fast for a slow moving 24fps camera...it is just showing a weakness to the system.

I don't buy into that HFR gives one the Soap Opera loook, inherently either. I think low resolution with high frame rate does. Those that think 2K resolution is enough for theatres are just frikin' blind There is a LOT of detail that is lost at 2K but everyone thinks it looks fine because it is sharp...well it IS sharp but with 1/4 of the detail that 35mm has. Combine HFR with high resolution (4K and beyond) and the image will look more and more transparent. Which, in my mind, is the goal...make the screen disappear.

Those that think because their eye can't resolve more detail because they can resolve a pixel from the seated position are wrong too...there is more to the increased resolution than being able to resolve each pixel...the sense of depth to each image increases with resolution. Have you ever noticed that the 2K DCinema images look hyper-flat....that the image has no sense of depth to it?

I think some have a bias towards 24fps because that is what they grew up with. The next generation of folks, if they grow up with HFR will look at our 24fps stuff as primitive and unrealistic.

-Steve

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-03-2011, 07:41 AM:

Well, we DID have a lot of discussions on this before, right before and after Camerons demos on Cinemacon this spring, along with PJ starting to shoot 'The Hobbit' at 48fps.

Personally, I'm completely okay with 24fps for 2D, although more and more action and VFX driven features challenge 24fps capabilities very hard. I haven't seen HR 3D so far, but I guess that the 3D parallax perception would certainly benefit from it.

As long as the creative people have their choice of 24 or 48 or 60, I'm okay with it. 24fps has an established style with it, that a lot of people like. Doesn't need to stay forever, I admit. What should be possible is to mix 'effective' 24 and 48 fps framerates within one movie. Even if DCI and probably even SMPTE does not allow for DCPs with varying frame rates, one could think of 'double image' 24fps in 48fps (created in post) for general shots, recreating 24fps style, and then simple changes to 'real' 48fps for action shots. The whole DCP would be regarded as a standard 48fps feature, but it could still contain 24fps style where the director wants it.

However, this all is not only a simple question of 24 vs 48, but also one of exposure time and motion blur, which needs special attention to avoid strobing, but at least most of that should be fixable in post with todays tools.

What strikes me most is the fact that a large part of the existing installations will not be able to be upgraded to HR 3D due to interface limitations - at least not economically. All series II and Sonys should be fine, though.

I found it a bit 'desparate' that Cameron claimed, existing systems could be upgraded to HR 3D very easy and with little cost, while at the same time even with the direct support from Barco and Doremi he wasn't able to show his demos using tuned up standard equipment.

Whatever - we will see more differentiation in Digital Cinema very soon - 2k/4k, various 3D systems, very soon Laser light sources, and screens with and without HR 3D.
Some people will judge this from the background of the feared endless upgrade spiral that they associate with digital cinema, others will probably like the fact that we have marketing and differentiation means back like in the best days of film with Cinemascope, THX, Dolby Digital, DTS, IMAX, etc.

In April, I found very little chances and needs for Camerons approach.
Now I am definitly aiming for either a Sony or a seriesII + IMB solution that ensures HR 3D for our screen. My personal preference though, at least for 2D, is definitly 24fps.

- Carsten

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 11-03-2011, 10:55 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
There have been many movies in the last 10 years or so that have suffered because the camera was too close to the action.

That's right, but remember that many DPs and/or directors deliberately created the choppiness by shooting with a small shutter opening. This will result in less motion blur between frames and strobing (think of traditional stop motion animation that tends to strobe with fast movement because there is no motion blur at all!).

I'd be happy with 30 fps, some years ago I saw a 65/70mm demonstration film by Dr. Richard Vetter shot and projected at 30fps, and it was maybe the best film presentation I ever saw. 1950s Todd-AO @30fps is also pleasing to look at.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-04-2011, 04:45 AM:

I guess hardly anyone will go for 30 or 60fps for now, it's far to complicated to get this compatible with 24fps. Even if you'd already ignore 35mm for distribution, the largest part of worldwide digital installations currently will only do either 24 or 48fps.

- Carsten

Posted by William F Green (Member # 3192) on 11-04-2011, 10:47 AM:

Oh my god - are we now locked into this crazy never-ending constant (pointless) upgrade path?

Posted by Doug Willming (Member # 728) on 11-04-2011, 11:35 AM:

Yes William, exactly. I empathize with you guys as you are going through the same thing all of us in animation production went through years ago. I owned an Oxberry Master Series animation stand with a dual 35/16mm camera; purchased it through a broker in NYC. It was years old when I bought it but was a 1-ton workhorse that needed little maintenance. Once purchased, it would last for years and years without any electronic "updates", much like a 35mm. film projector (I did add a computerized motion-control system to it later). Animation production was much more specialized then, and I spent many, many hours in a darkroom working out elaborate "slit-scan" effects that you weren't sure what you were going to wind up with until the film came back days later. As computer animation became more "affordable" (you could buy an SGI for under $40K and the software package for only $30K!!!!), we invested in a system of computers which, on one hand made life easier because you could see what you were getting as you went along, plus you didn't have to spend hours in a darkroom with hot lights or wait for film to come back from the lab, but once you went down the path of computer animation, you were faced with needing to upgrade every couple of years to stay current with the capabilities of your competitors, some of whom had much deeper pockets than us and who may have purchased a newer system that could do twice as much as yours at half the cost, while you were still paying the loan on your now depreciated hardware and software. So you went from owning a solid piece of machinery that needed little additional investment to an electronic system that required constant maintenance, software upgrades, and virtually complete replacement after only 3-4 years.

I felt the same as probably many of you do with your 35mm. projectors when the scrap guys came to pick up the Oxberry because it had no resale value and no viable use - watching a piece of (profitable) history go sadly to the scrapheap.

Although computer animation did and does have it's advantages and of course is no longer as hugely expensive (on the other hand, just about everyone can do it now, so it is no longer so specialized), it was a constant battle for our company to keep reinvesting to stay afloat. Hopefully you guys will not be the slaves to digital cinema that I always felt I was to computer animation.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-04-2011, 08:33 PM:

It takes more than something being shot at 24fps to imitate the "film look". Lots of video cameras and DSLR cameras can shoot video at 24fps rates and the footage still really looks like video.

I watched a rented Blu-ray of Captain America last night. Without previously knowing the technical details of the movie, I quickly figured out it was shot with video cameras (Panavision Genesis to be exact). The video look was really coming through obviously in the low light scenes, but that's pretty typical of anything shot using the Panavision Genesis. If 24fps was the primary factor I should not have been able to tell the difference.

Likewise, many TV series episodes have been shot on film at 30fps. They don't look like soap operas or the 6 o'clock news. Film has a certain character of contrast and color gamma that video has just not been able to fully imitate. Perhaps when/if the color depth levels in video cameras go significantly higher than 8, 10 or 12 bit per channel depth they might be able to mimic the film look better, perhaps even in the camera. Right now that is not the case. Any movie shot in "digital" needs very serious color processing in post production to imitate the film look. Not many movies do a convincing job of it.

I think the movie industry is getting way the hell ahead of itself by pushing high frame rate digital cinema. I assume they're going to be doing it using video cameras. When they're cutting the maximum exposure time in half or less by jumping from 24fps to 48 or 60 then they're going to be asking a hell of a lot more from the CCDs or CMOS chips in the camera and everything else in the chain before it gets to the TV set. Are they going to up the bit rate by 200% or 250% to correspond with those much higher frame rates? I have my doubts. The added burden from double or higher the frame rate will make it even more difficult to mimic the film look with digital footage. The low light stuff could end up looking like 7-Eleven security camera footage.

Posted by David M. Leugers (Member # 2968) on 11-04-2011, 09:12 PM:

I remember at least 30 years ago an article in American Cinematographer magazine detailed an Andy Williams TV special that was shot on 16mm film at 30fps. As I recall the look seemed to me sort of a hybrid, the look of film with the smoothness of video. Around the same time, special effects guru Donald Trumbull developed his Showscan with 65mm shot at 60fps. It was not a big hit. I was very interested in this at the time and was disappointed by comments from viewers that it looked like extremely high definition video that tended to overwhelm the senses. I just recently saw a photo of one of the 3D video rigs they are shooting with... reminded me of a giant 3-strip Technicolor camera set-up. Now with 60fps, seems like 1 step forward and 2 steps back...

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-05-2011, 12:08 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
When they're cutting the maximum exposure time in half or less by jumping from 24fps to 48 or 60

There is no exposure “time” in video cameras. Exposure is constant. If the camera is turned on and the lens is open, than the imager is being exposed. The only thing that changes with increased frame rate is the speed at which the rows or columns of photosites are clocked into the transfer register. This has nothing to do with exposure time especially since the individual charge wells only take one to two microseconds to refresh. In some imager design (CMOS mostly) individual rows of pixels can be timed to become light receptive at certain specific intervals, the so called “rolling shutter” system, but this can happen as fast or as slow as you have the processing for without any image degradation or variation in light or f-stop, and the actual refresh rate of the charge well remains the same.

quote: Bobby Henderson
then they're going to be asking a hell of a lot more from the CCDs or CMOS chips in the camera

What more is being asked? There is nothing that is particularly electrically stressful about an increase in frame rate. Nearly all video cameras employ a Peltier element or some other form of thermo-electric cooling on the imager substrate (DSLRs do not, which is why you only get 10 or 12 minutes of video shooting out of them before they overheat. Don’t get me started.). If you are an ENG photographer shooting a low-light crime scene at +12db I suppose that in a manner of speaking you are “asking a lot more” from the imager, but that is a practice that rarely if ever happens in movie/episodic TV production.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Are they going to up the bit rate by 200% or 250% to correspond with those much higher frame rates?

A 12-bit image is a 12-bit image, period, regardless of how many times you are able to produce one. How slow do you think the throughput is on these cameras? The Vision Phantom puts out a 14 bit 1920x1080 image at 1,000 frames per second. Is that enough?

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-05-2011, 08:04 AM:

Current Cameras like RED One, Epic, Scarlet, Phantom, etc. can go to hundreds or even thousands of frames per second without a problem.Sure they wouldn't mind being pushed to just 48 instead of 24...

That said - I just returned from holiday from a friend with the latest Panasonic 52" Plasma. The manual was far to complex for him so he left everything on factory defaults. When we were first watching TV from a satellite feed, I immediately recognized the effect of the frame interpolation. It had some interesting, strange quality touch, but at the same time was slightly annoying, at least with the crime movie we were watching. Looked it up in the setup menu, disabled it, fine.

A few days later, we were watching 'Departed' from BluRay. Right into the first dolly shots of Jack Nicholson, I immediately noticed there was something wrong again. I asked my friend wether he had switched frame interpolation back on, but he said he wouldn't even know what I'm talking about. Went into the menu and saw it changed, it had an EXTRA frame interpolation setting for 24p that is only active when 24p content is shown. Disabled it, fine. Back to good old 24p, and it looked like a movie again.

Now, until I have seen High Frame Rate both natively shot AND interpolated side by side, I ask myself wether the soap opera look, or at least the annoying part of it, really comes from high temporal resolution itself, or the interpolation (artifacts). It could be that native 48fps shots look better (more 'normal') than interpolated 48fps.

Besides that, most current TVs and projectors interpolate to much more than double rate. Usually, if at all configurable, 96, 120, or even up to 200 fps. Maybe that is just too much. Maybe 48fps native is a good 'compromise'.

And, again I haven't seen it myself, maybe it makes a huge difference between 2D and 3D. I can really see 3D benefitting from it, but I am not interested in HR for 2D at all. Not missing anything there.

- Carsten

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 11-05-2011, 09:03 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Have you ever noticed that the 2K DCinema images look hyper-flat....that the image has no sense of depth to it?

Always!

This coupled with the lack of deep blacks and the fact that many cinemas will happily cheat customers like myself and throw into the mix the screening of domestic formats like DVD and Blu-ray without telling the audience has changed my cinema routines completely. I used to ‘experience’ most films in theatres before the advent of digital but now I only go to the pictures as a social activity. How can anyone with a minimum sense of what this business is about show a DVD on a big cinema screen is beyond comprehension to me. My only satisfactory digital experience so far has been with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, probably because the DI was at 4K and it shows (more of the film look is preserved), nevertheless satisfactory contrast and deep blacks were absent. I was hoping for 4K and laser projection to become a standard to return to the picture houses but now that IMAX seems to have the exclusivity for laser projection my hopes have been dashed. Maybe laser projectors will be available for the home market.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-05-2011, 09:23 AM:

It really is true that blacklevels also bother me lately. SeriesII on small and midsize screens now are so extremely bright in 2D, that the relatively low contrast range of all projectors needs to be paid attention. With 35mm, the 48cd/sqm was not only a minimal requirement, but also a 'limit' because of the more visible flicker at higher brightness.

Now with digital one should not overdo the brightness while just enjoing bright and well light testmaterial.
2D vs 3D lamp brightness adjustment, silver screen, etc., all come into play here.

I have seen 150cd/sqm during a recent installation/setup phase on a 9m screen. The testimages blew me away first, but when I noticed the black level after they switched of the test images with the dowser still open, I was shocked.

- Carsten

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 11-05-2011, 10:18 AM:

I still do believe that in the real world they should put an automatic Iris somewhere into the projector to allow reducing the light when 3D is removed, particularly when using not too much efficient 3D systems.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-05-2011, 12:37 PM:

quote: Mark Ogden
There is no exposure “time” in video cameras.

A CCD or CMOS chip does not "see" an image in an absolute instant. Latency is an issue. The way you're describing it the imaging chips work absolutely perfectly. In actual practice they do not. This is fact for both digital still cameras and video cameras. When light levels are really great the systems work fine. When the light levels are low the chips start tripping all over themselves, rendering smeary soupy looking stuff. Cranking up the gain works only so well, the trade-off is increased noise, loss of detail and even alteration of color.

quote: Mark Ogden
What more is being asked? There is nothing that is particularly electrically stressful about an increase in frame rate.

Bandwidth is an issue. Raw HD footage uncompressed is rougly 1.4 billion bits per second just at 8 bit level and standard 24 or 30 frame rates. That's too much for a standard single hard disc to eat; RAID is required for storage and playback. If the frame rate is doubled then so are the bandwidth requirements. The same thing goes for upping the color bit depth. Video cameras need to record in as high a color bit depth as possible if the footage is going to be processed to look like film. A deep color image will withstand alterations in post production a lot better than one with a basic color signal.

Cost is also increased. Most Hollywood movies still have digital intermediates, CGI, etc. rendered at only 2K. 4K costs a lot more. So will high frame rate movies. Given the choice between 4K at 24fps and high frame rate movies at 2K I'll choose 4K.

quote: Mark Ogden
If you are an ENG photographer shooting a low-light crime scene at +12db I suppose that in a manner of speaking you are “asking a lot more” from the imager, but that is a practice that rarely if ever happens in movie/episodic TV production.

I've seen plenty of video-sourced Hollywood movies with scenes in low light settings where the imagery looked very sub-par and not at all like film.

quote: Mark Ogden
The Vision Phantom puts out a 14 bit 1920x1080 image at 1,000 frames per second. Is that enough?

And that's way too much for any data storage sysetm in existence to store in raw, uncompressed quality. There's only so many bits you can cram through a data pipe. Data storage systems can drink up store data only so fast. And there's room for only so much.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-09-2011, 08:36 PM:

Hmm, maybe this should go to here instead of the 48fps Hobbit thread. Let's see which one survives:

Christie whitepaper on HFR:

http://www.christiedigital.co.uk:80/SupportDocs/Anonymous/Christie-High-Frame-Rate-Technology-Overview.pdf

- Carsten

Posted by Jussi Siponen (Member # 5572) on 11-15-2011, 04:56 PM:

Time to poke the HFR hornet's nest some more [Razz]

Brad obviously doesn't care for the taste of this particular cool-aid, but others seem to be drinking:

quote:
... Douglas Trumbull, aka Doug Trumbull, is a legendary special effects creator/producer/filmmaker who's worked for Stanley Kubrick, Terrence Malick, Ridley Scott and Steven Spielberg. He's now 69 years old but still pushing along, even trying to revolutionize cinema as we know it today, which is exactly what he explains in the interview with Bleeding Cool, while mentioning a space project he wants to make.

While Trumbull has been linked recently to Terrence Malick's Tree of Life (he did the origin of the universe sequences) and the rumored IMAX follow-up, we posted a story in April this year about Trumbull working on his very own 3D high framerate feature film. We know that The Hobbit is shooting at 48FPS and James Cameron demo'd both 48 and 60FPS, but Trumbull says in the interview he's pushing speeds of up to 120FPS. Why not higher? "I don't see right now any visible advantage to go even higher than 120 frames, I think that's about as much as the human eye can absorb." That sounds pretty crazy, I can't even imagine.

Trumbull goes on to say exactly that, that few people have truly seen what this is like. Here's a few quotes:

"I'm shooting films right now at 120fps in 3D and I know that the result is absolutely stunning but very few people on this planet have actually seen that, yet. I have a very challenging process ahead of me to start demonstrating this and doing at least one film that I want to make.

"I have several films lined up but I've got one in particular that would lend itself to this. It's a big space adventure movie. And I've got to make the movie and show it in this process and convince people that there's a very big audience that wants to see this kind of tremendous technological, creative, visual leap forward to much higher quality."

Trumbull explains that if he can achieve something like this, it will be a huge visual step forward, which is kind of what he did with 2001: A Space Odyssey. He explains: "Combining 120 frames and high brightness and gain screens that are very wide and large with a different seating configuration is a huge epic change that will take some time to effect. But I'm working on it." To be frank, this sounds a little too insane to seem real, but maybe he's working on something, despite how long it'll take to actually see. I'm intrigued, and I truly can't imagine what 120FPS is like, I was blown away by 60 at CinemaCon. As for the space adventure, which I'm excited for no matter what, he sheds a bit of hazy light on what it might be about in a follow-up.

FirstShowing.net: Doug Trumbull Wants to Make a 120...

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-15-2011, 08:09 PM:

Well I guess it makes a huge difference with the kind of material your presenting. I can imagine that 'classical' IMAX stuff could benefit from it - nature, docs, animation, sports, etc., and probably 3D in general, for simple perceptive reasons.

I mean, all the previous experience with HighFrameRate footage was with rides, etc.

Asside from certain action shots, I can't see it for narrative scenes.

- Carsten

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 11-15-2011, 08:25 PM:

Is is possible to change the frame rate within the movie? Have action scenes at a high frame rate and quieter scenes slower?

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 11-15-2011, 08:54 PM:

I think Trumbull has the variable frame rate in mind based on his Showscan Digital promo video on his website.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-15-2011, 09:32 PM:

If yous guys look back at what was done to arrive at 60fps for Showscan there was much psychlogical testing on audiences by legitimate people before the 60 fps scheme was arrived at... based in this info that already exists then the only way to go is 60fps if the higher frame rates are actually going to happen. 48 fps doesn't quite cut it accordint to those studies... which Trumbel spent lots of time and effort doing. The reality of Showscan certainly worked in a properly installed system...

I will however have to side with Brad on this. It's another one of those pesky things that will get used once or twice and people will say they don't really see a difference so it'll get shelved. Studios also will not want to pay for the massive data storage it's going to take to store all the content shot during production.

Mark

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-15-2011, 10:37 PM:

quote: William F Green
Oh my god - are we now locked into this crazy never-ending constant (pointless) upgrade path?

Yes.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-15-2011, 11:33 PM:

quote: Douglas Trumbull, aka Doug Trumbull or "Doug" for short but his friends call him "Dougy" or even "The Dougster"
I'm shooting films right now at 120fps in 3D

Something about this sentence doesn't make sense. Oh yeah, it's the "film" part! You're not shooting any films, buttmunch. You're shooting data. Or if you want to keep that "magical romance", you can say that you're shooting "movies".

quote: Marky Mark
The reality of Showscan certainly worked in a properly installed system...

Ah, I see. That makes sense now. Showscan was just soooo damn hard to install that it only worked right in a few locations. I was not impressed with Showscan.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 11-15-2011, 11:48 PM:

In defense of Showscan.
A properly set up theater showing actual short films(not ride films)in the Showscan process was awesome!
I had the chance to watch several films at the former Showscan headquarters in Hollywood and at a permanent Niagara Falls theater.
I also watched Showscan in a Omnimax theater and ride films at the Excalibur in Vegas.Epic fail!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-16-2011, 12:06 AM:

Indeed Joe! One of the best demos that was done was in the old MGM Grand Movie Theater back in the late 80's or early 90's during Showest... back when you were just a pre schooler.

Mark

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-16-2011, 05:57 AM:

Currently there is no standard for 'real' multirate DCPs, but anything else than 1:2 relation would be too difficult to get right anyway.

It is definitly possible to have at least 24fps AND 48fps in the same feature - you just double 48fps footage frames where needed. There needs to be some tweaking in post to get the motion blur right, but that is no big deal. You can also simply shoot 'normal' footage in 24fps and double these frames into 48fps with the original blur.

24/24/24/48:48/48:48/48:48/24/24/24

That way you could have effective 24fps where you want it and real 48fps in action shots. Technically, the whole feature would be 48fps, but parts of it would look like 24fps. Wouldn't hurt any specs. If you see it that way, it would simply be another creative style option to choose for the film-maker. No one forced into 48fps in general.

I'm quite sure we will see this happen as soon as HFR takes up 'speed' ;-)

For now, it seems that most people actually pursueing HFR do it only for 3D, where the intent is slightly different, more on the technical/3D vision perception side.

I doubt that anything people have seen on showscan previously can be compared to narrative mainstream footage.

- Carsten

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-16-2011, 07:10 AM:

I seem to recall that when DT did his research on ShowScan, he found that 60fps was where there seemed to be no benefit at going higher using test audiences. They tried 72fps and it was a point of diminishing returns.

Furthermore, they also found that when watching HFR movies that the audience fatigued easily (not of the story...as Hollywood has shown any frame rate can do that) but physically, they felt worn-out.

It appears that he is changing his story to suit is needs of the day...big surprise.

-Steve

Posted by Jussi Siponen (Member # 5572) on 11-16-2011, 09:23 AM:

quote: Mark Lensenmayer
Is is possible to change the frame rate within the movie? Have action scenes at a high frame rate and quieter scenes slower?

It's at least possible to put clips with different frame rates on a single playlist.

Servers need to support reels of different frame rates within a single clip for this to be really useful -- or we're back to splicing reels(* together to build a show.

(* Well, clips really. But you know what I mean.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-16-2011, 08:16 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Furthermore, they also found that when watching HFR movies that the audience fatigued easily

Steve... I happened to follow Siskel & Ebert out of the Showscan screening at the MGM Grand and one remarked to the other that they doubted that anyone could take "Raiders Of The Lost Ark in this format as it would be way to intense". So the same would apply to 60fps Show Scan and that may be why the films were all short jobs.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 11-17-2011, 05:20 PM:

When Douglas Trumbull gave up on Showscan for feature films he said that he was not sure if Showscan was ideal for a full length feature.
He said it may be to invasive for a full length feature. So either he is changing his mind or believes it is good for 3dee or who knows.

It would be a cool experiment to make a great emotional epic like Titanic and compare it's impact at different frame rates!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-17-2011, 06:36 PM:

Invasive? That doesn't make much sense. I also don't understand the fatiguing part, either. I can play 60fps videogames for three hours straight and not get fatigued. Likewise, I don't get fatigued when watching 60fps video. What I don't like is that it is aesthetically displeasing. If camera bobbles around too much, you can get motion sickness. This can even happen in 24fps material. Its just that 60fps looks more amateur. Showscan shimmered and the higher framerate did not make the ride feel more realistic to me. In fact it didn't feel like I was moving at all, just sitting in a seat that bobbed and tilted. I've played driving videogames which felt more like actual movement than Showscan. 15/70 IMAX also feels more like real movement than Showscan.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 11-17-2011, 07:28 PM:

I never saw any shimmering in Showscans short films at the Showscan done right theaters i attended.
I saw what looked like the best film presentation of 70mm material ever!
Hands down,court adjourned and game over! [Big Grin]

The problem for me was I wanted more! Like a real feature length film!
If shimmering occurs it must be because the modified Century's or what not were self destructing from the high speed they were never designed for.
Of course with Digital HFR the theater will just shimmer to pieces until the building sinks into the ground. [Smile]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-18-2011, 04:37 PM:

Nope. They were the exact same Showscan projectors as these here except with high-powered Christie lamphouses. It was projected to a tiny screen, maybe 20 feet in width. It was bright, but that's the only good thing I could say about it. The show was about some old miner and I think we were riding in a mine cart or something like that. It was extraordinarily dumb and uninteresting. I did it (for free) JUST to see the 70mm in action and was left unimpressed. It was also dirty. But since Showscan is sooooo damn hard to install according to you guys, I guess it is rare to see it "done right". I guess it is good that film is going away since things like Showscan are above the ability of Showscan technicians to install, much less any techs here.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-18-2011, 07:02 PM:

"These here" Showscan projectors are the same ones used for the ride seat shows in Vegas and they looked decent when I went there. At least the electronic projectors had a primitave sort of regestration going on with a sensor reading the position of two perfs and the sprocket doing the correction at the end of pull down. The problem there and what obviously ruined this installation was the use of an ORC console! The best demos I saw were actually done with highly modified JJ's with a twin pin cam and gigantic sprocket on the outermittent. During the demo at the MGM grand back when Joe was a preschooler you could hear that JJ literally screaming in the back ground during the quiet parts of the screening... I think Brad was runing that 16mm projector in Jr. High about this time... This was way before "Brad Miller and Associates"... Dam I'm getting old, pass me a Bud Light please!

Mark