John_Cline wrote on 4/11/2011, 11:39 PM
Good article by Peter Jackson. Death to 24fps!!!
Geoff_Wood wrote on 4/12/2011, 2:46 AM
Jeepers, they didn't mention that when I was at Park Road Post the other month. Well-kept secret !

Chienworks wrote on 4/12/2011, 4:16 AM
I dunno. Since human visual perception tends to run about 25 images per second, i'm not sure why anything above 30 matters. I certainly don't notice any difference past that speed.
farss wrote on 4/12/2011, 5:19 AM
"Since human visual perception tends to run about 25 images per second"

It's more like 400fps if you want to capture motion to the limit of human perception.

PeterDuke wrote on 4/12/2011, 5:27 AM
I can assure you that the difference between full HD 25p and 50p on a fast pan or other motion is quite obvious to my old eyes on a 50 inch TV.
NickHope wrote on 4/12/2011, 8:41 AM
I hope to god that Cameron goes for whatever Jackson is shooting, or vice versa, and we don't end up with dual formats (again).
rs170a wrote on 4/12/2011, 9:10 AM

The Hobbit is:
* being shot on 30 RED EPIC cameras;
* using Zeiss Ultra Primes, Master Primes and Optimo zoom lenses;
* shooting at 47.96 frames per second;
* using 3ality Digital rigs.

Laurence wrote on 4/12/2011, 9:10 AM
What frame rate will it be at when it goes to bluray?
robwood wrote on 4/12/2011, 9:41 AM
for Blu-ray it'll be 24... there is no 48fps in the BD spec.

progressive frame rate for BD at 1920x1080 is 24.
progressive frame rate for BD at 1280x720 is 24, 50, 60.
SuperG wrote on 4/12/2011, 5:55 PM
What a fun trip over at the RED web site.

They use "Mysterium-X" sensors.. Oooh. ...They're probably made with UnObtainium, and processed with CantAffordium... What a bunch of gear sluts... :)
PeterDuke wrote on 4/12/2011, 5:58 PM
Time for an update to the Blu-ray disc specs. "Ordinary" cameras are now available with full HD at 50p/60p.
Former user wrote on 4/13/2011, 11:46 PM
The point of the 48fps is, I think, the uber-sharp images and sensation you'll have while watching a movie in the theatre. BluRay is still going to 24fps, but we're talking about selling popcorn. Perhaps that means Peter Jackson et al see more of a market in 48fps and the sense of visual fidelity, over the "depth" of 3D. And as he mentions in the article about the cost of film stock, well, they don't pay for film stock anymore (except for prints). So we're talking digital projection etc to wow the popcorn buying audiences.

As one who can't stomach 3D in its current form (literally - it makes me's hoping someone figures out practical holography soon), 48fps is much more appealing (and I love turning on the Smoothmotion feature on my Bravia to get that video/real look...faux as it may be).
Laurence wrote on 4/14/2011, 5:56 AM
To me the point is that it will exist for a couple of weeks during it's theater run as 48fps, and forever after on Bluray and DVD as plain old 24fps (except with more judder because of half the amount of motion blur). With 3d glasses on a 3D TV setup at home, you're still going to get a headache. I guess they expect to make enough money on it's theater run to justify the extra cost. 60p seems like it would make more sense overall.
NickHope wrote on 4/14/2011, 6:41 AM
I would have preferred them to go all the way to 60p, but mainly because that would fit better with footage in my existing archive.

With the pace at which online delivery is developing, who's to say the likes of YouTube or premium paid online delivery services won't support 48p by the time The Hobbit and Avatar 2 are web-ready? YouTube already support 4k @ 30p. In my mind Blu-ray is rapidly going to get marginalised over the next few years.
rs170a wrote on 4/14/2011, 7:19 AM
The original link mentioned Doug Trumbull and his Showscan 60 fps project.
I vaguely remember reading an article about it when it was first discussed for theme park use and preliminary testing found that it made the viewing audience sick because it was too realistic due to the higher than usual frame rate.

Chienworks wrote on 4/14/2011, 7:31 AM
"It's more like 400fps if you want to capture motion to the limit of human perception.

The eye/brain combo may be able to detect an event that occurs in 1/400th of a second, but it can't keep that up as a continuous stream. Over the long haul the human visual system can only handle about 25 updates per second.

If you really could keep up 400fps you'd see all the light bulbs and lamps around you fading in and out at whatever AC frequency your country uses. When watching a film you'd see the screen go black for a 48th of a second, then the next picture appear. But you don't. You might occasionally see a little flicker here and there, but for the most part you see continuous light and continuous image.

Frame rates and AC frequencies were chosen as low as they are because, over more than tiny instants of time, they do exceed the human perception rate.
PeterDuke wrote on 4/14/2011, 7:42 AM
"Over the long haul the human visual system can only handle about 25 updates per second."

We are not only concerned with flicker (don't overlook thermal inertia of lamp bulbs or persistence of fluoro tubes by the way) but also movement judder. Have you actually compared 25p with 50p videos that have significant motion on a large screen?
kairosmatt wrote on 4/14/2011, 8:31 AM
In a few years there will be a new argument:

What is better 48 or 60 fps?

All the 48 folks will say "I don't want to go to movies to see reality! 60 fps is like looking through glass at my backyard!"

Then the 60 folks will say "48 fps gives me headaches! Too much judder and studder and fudder! Its so antiquated!"

Maybe some of the old time interlaced folks will pop up from time to time: "Its all about 120 fields. You only need a tenth of a frame if you've got temporal resolution!"