I got giddy when I saw 48 fps. Resolution is nice, but I'm one of those people who constantly notices flicker at 24 fps.
It shouldn't be difficult to convert a movie shot on this film to digital, so here's what I'd do: Let Chris Nolan (or whoever's interested) shoot a movie on it, then convert it to digital. Next, do some A/B testing. Select a smallish number of theatres in major markets who would be showing his film on multiple screens and install the needed projectors in one of them. Advertise the choice in those theatres only, and see what happens. If the director likes it, they'll probably talk about it in the press, so that's free advertising right there. If the experience really is that much better, you should see higher viewership for the MaxiVision screenings. After that, it's an easy sell to the studio execs. In all, they spend a trivial amount of money to do some A/B testing and get usable results.
Granted, the studios are conservative and often myopic or flat-out wrong (3d), but even they shouldn't have too much trouble seeing whether it's a good (cheap) investment or not.
Per the article, the purported advantage is that it offers an experience that a) can't be had at home, and b) people actually want (unlike 3d). In so doing, the creator argues that it has the potential to reverse, or at least mitigate the trend of declining viewership. If that's true, then it could be financially worthwhile even if ticket prices don't go up.
This is true if people do actually want it, and are willing to pay for it (whether they're going to a 48fps showing over a 24fps one, or they are paying for a showing when they wouldn't otherwise have done so).
Personally, I like 3D, but I'm aware that not everyone feels this way.
I'd say 3d, when properly used, is a useful tool in moviemaking. That said, it should not be a format and studio reliance upon it will lead to them, in the best case, producing movies that are suited to it, which are few. This technology, on the other hand, is at least purported to be one which can be used for all films and increase quality across the board.
That's a legitimate concern, hence my suggestion of A/B testing. There's a very real chance the average moviegoer won't care, in which case the cost is minimal.
If the experience is no better than what I get at home, then I will not pay for a premium ticket...
Going to the theater should give you an experience that is either not possible or too expensive to get at home. So the only way they will survive is if they get you this experience without paying a premium for it (the _normal_ experience would be HD@home)
but I'm one of those people who constantly notices flicker at 24 fps.
I'm sorry, but I find that hard to believe - unless you're a cyborg or something. It is known there is a strobing "effect" with 24fps while projection is in 3D though, if that's what you've meant? OTOH, ideal fps for a human eye was shown/concurred long time ago to be at 72-75fps range, and approximate resolution of a 35mm 4-perf to be at 8K-9K range - so that's kind of a mark where we can see things move forward to eventually.
The commenter was probably talking about moving images, not still ones. That is, the strobing effect is due to inadequate temporal resolution, not optical resolution.
>>but I'm one of those people who constantly notices flicker at 24 fps.
I'm sorry, but I find that hard to believe
Personally, while I can't see it in movie projection equipment, but 10 years ago when CRTs and stegosaurus roamed the land, I could identify a monitor set to 30Hz refresh at the briefest glance, and could not stand to sit in front of one -- I got headaches from it quickly.
That said, I cannot sense the flicker in TVs (presumably their phosphor holds the image longer than a monitor), nor in movie projection.
I consciously try not to notice the 24fps rate, but as I play some 3D computer games I am unfortunately somewhat sensitized to the subject. It's easy enough to see; go to a conventional-film film (I don't think you'll get this effect with digital which is always on), and while something bright is on the screen just wave your arm rapidly in front of you. You'll see visible jerking in the image of your arm, it'll jump all over the place. It shouldn't be that visible to you, you should see the same continuous (and possibly blurry) motion you would see in a darkish room lit by conventional lighting. The film looks the same way and if the film isn't generous with its motion blur it is sometimes quite visible during action scenes or even just moderately fast pans. 24fps needs to die.
No, you get it with digital as well. They tried it at 30 and people complained that it didn't look "like film", so they put it back to 24. Everything I watch flickers now, to a greater or lesser extent. TV is usually fine but if you're watching a movie or something on a larger screen, pay attention to the corners with your peripheral vision. You don't notice it where you're focusing, but everything around it flickers.
Actually, I saw True Grit in theaters just yesterday, and I noticed a flicker I'm pretty sure was caused by the framerate when there were scenes that contrasted something very bright and very dark.
Unlike the other person, though, I actually prefer the lower frame rate because I associate it with film. If it's a higher frame rate, it just doesn't look like a movie to me.
I was thinking the opposite, actually (though I don't notice the flicker at 24Hz).
My TV has one of those modes called "motion-smooth" or something like that, and what it purports to do is smooth the transitions between frames. It does this surprisingly well - too well, I would say. The end result is that movies end up looking like cheap soap operas, and I can't get over it.
Granted, the 48fps is not the same as 60fps, and maybe the difference is enough for me to subconsciously forget it. But if it wasn't the change would probably be enough for me to forgo MaxiVision films.
I think refresh rate is one of those things that our minds compensate for in the background, and the slightest changes one way or the other are instantly noticeable.
I wonder how much of this can be done with computer power. Upscaling, frame interpolation (25 to 48 fps), it is all possible. There will be a threshold of what people cannot see/experience. But I think computer power will keep costs lower than highres, high framerate camera's/studio's.
I feel bad for those guys. Of course their film system is better than the existing digital system, but it is more or less doomed to failure.
The problem is that digital came to be not because of the quality or anything that has to do with the movie goer but because it is much cheaper and much more convenient for studios. Now studios do not have to worry about printing film and deciding how much film to print.
They do not have to get into situations where a bunch of theatres showing a high budget movie stay empty and a hot selling small movie keeps selling out tickets, but they cannot open new theaters for the small movie because they did not know it would be so hot and did not print enough film copies for it.
Now they can open as many theaters as they want for the hot movies, thus immediately satisfy demand without rushing to print new copies, waiting for the new copies, etc.
So yes, digital is here to stay. Not because it looks better (it mostly doesn't), but because it is more convenient for studios and theaters.
And if 3D does not work, the movie theaters will probably crank up the resolution again but they will keep it digital.
If your in a secondary market, digital theaters look much better than the film versions. A lot of people like vinyl over digital, but vinyl doesn't last, much like film.
I was brought up in Scotland in the UK where we would have to wait until a film had been around the US and the South of England before we got to see it. It would often be scratched, would jump, would break and sometimes would have had whole scenes butchered in a hasty repair job.
Digital film has made this a thing of the past (and Piracy has made simultaneous World-wide releases a necessity).
This is exactly true. When I go to a digital projection theater, the main picture quality difference is that the "copy" is always pristine.
Similarly with digital TV vs analog - the digital artifacts are different from the analog quality issues, but you completely avoid the static and "snow" that was common with analog broadcasts (especially over-the-air broadcasts).
Current HD digital cameras are mostly big, heavy, overheating apparatus. I think they are close to the limit of what they can do with current technology. I doubt doubling the framerate is commercially viable.
But I don't know too much about RED cameras, which supposedly are very very good.
It turns out that the encoding of the current Digital Cinema files is so bad that Blu-ray ends up being better. Many indie houses are making Blu-Rays instead and sending them to the cinemas.
That said there's no reason why they could do it right and have high quality digital 48fps. In fact we could do it right now with x264 and other tools, but I guess we don't have enough layers of DRM for that to happen.
Let's take a closer look at part of this argument: 24fps compared to 48fps and resolution. The article, to be honest, feels like it was copied out of a marketing document. If you look at the chart where they reference the RED system and use an interesting chart to 'prove' their system has higher resolution, you'll notice a few flaws.
1. They're using the double frame rate to argue that the resolution is 4x larger then the 24fps framerate, which simply isn't true. It may provide a better picture quality, but that is certainly subjective and depends on the film and how it was shot.
2. They're at 4K right now, moving to a 5K film system. RED is at a 5K 24fps system, heading towards 5K 120fps and up to 28K resolution. They can't compare their future plans with RED's current offerings without some logical problems. He does mention RED's future plans, but suggests that studios should use his finishing format with the new RED system (instead of other options that are equally viable).
Ebert's heart is in the right place, but there are a number of reasons why his heart just isn't in the same place as the motion picture industry.
He outlines a few, and others have been mentioned in other comments here, but what I see as being most harmful for advanced film technology is green screening. So many of the most recent summer blockbuster movies are just shot against a green screen and essentially animated in post. Shoot a few actors delivering their dialog and a few crushing blows against the backdrop and animate the entire picture in CGI. It's a horrific way to make a movie, but it seems to please audiences enough.
These movies may not gross big numbers at the box office, but they turn a profit because they're cheap to make. Shooting the live action bits in digital make the entire process easier as well.
Cinematography is, unfortunately, a dying art. Capturing gorgeous images on the best recording medium available and projecting them through the best glass with the purest light possible just isn't important to the big production companies. Instead, "churn and burn" is the name of the game. it's akin to the old pulp comics of years past, where good storytelling and artwork gave way to shock value to generate sales. If movies aren't there yet, they're close.
With all due respect, this has no grounds in reality. As comment there pointed out Trumbull did a 70mm showscan format http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan that was superior to anything in existence then, but it didn't lift off. IMAX also has 70mm (and now digital) and 70mm never took off in mainstream productions.
3D, for now, is here to stay. And it's not a war on resolution now, but frame rate. Many filmmakers would be more than happy to shoot/show at 2-perf, but 48fps than 4-perf at 24 fps, since 3D strobing, while panning, is reduced like that. 2K IS enough, for now - as majority of productions show. Convergence of film res and HDTV res at 2K~1080p is what drives 2K now, as is the available equipment (IMAX specific productions are an exception). Occasional shots are shot in 5K (like in Batman Dark Knight), but that's rare.
Eventually, resolution will take off to greater heights, but now it's step locked with 1080p - and that's the way things are.
The movie theater is fighting a battle with home and currently 3D is their answer. Is it the best answer? Most films who use 3D these days add it on later and it is done pretty poorly. I find it an interesting proposal, something should be done to continue making going to the cinema an experience.
Earlier Ebert rants against 3D sound just like the studios when sound was being proposed. Lots of rationalizations.
Young moviegoers learn to like 3D. Never mind what the scientists say. They adapt. Similar to playing 3D video games - weird at first, then you get it.
Ebert felt ill watching 3D movies. Probably can't play immersive video games either. No surprise he predicts the demise of 3D movies.
48FPS? Never mind theatres - when netflix can sell it, it may happen.
34 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 77.7 ms ] threadIt shouldn't be difficult to convert a movie shot on this film to digital, so here's what I'd do: Let Chris Nolan (or whoever's interested) shoot a movie on it, then convert it to digital. Next, do some A/B testing. Select a smallish number of theatres in major markets who would be showing his film on multiple screens and install the needed projectors in one of them. Advertise the choice in those theatres only, and see what happens. If the director likes it, they'll probably talk about it in the press, so that's free advertising right there. If the experience really is that much better, you should see higher viewership for the MaxiVision screenings. After that, it's an easy sell to the studio execs. In all, they spend a trivial amount of money to do some A/B testing and get usable results.
Granted, the studios are conservative and often myopic or flat-out wrong (3d), but even they shouldn't have too much trouble seeing whether it's a good (cheap) investment or not.
If not, then it's not in the interests of the distributors/chains to pay to upgrade.
Personally, I like 3D, but I'm aware that not everyone feels this way.
I see flicker quite a bit, and I'd love it if movies had high frame rates.
I'm just sceptical that this can be sold to the general public.
Going to the theater should give you an experience that is either not possible or too expensive to get at home. So the only way they will survive is if they get you this experience without paying a premium for it (the _normal_ experience would be HD@home)
I'm sorry, but I find that hard to believe - unless you're a cyborg or something. It is known there is a strobing "effect" with 24fps while projection is in 3D though, if that's what you've meant? OTOH, ideal fps for a human eye was shown/concurred long time ago to be at 72-75fps range, and approximate resolution of a 35mm 4-perf to be at 8K-9K range - so that's kind of a mark where we can see things move forward to eventually.
I'm sorry, but I find that hard to believe
Personally, while I can't see it in movie projection equipment, but 10 years ago when CRTs and stegosaurus roamed the land, I could identify a monitor set to 30Hz refresh at the briefest glance, and could not stand to sit in front of one -- I got headaches from it quickly.
That said, I cannot sense the flicker in TVs (presumably their phosphor holds the image longer than a monitor), nor in movie projection.
Unlike the other person, though, I actually prefer the lower frame rate because I associate it with film. If it's a higher frame rate, it just doesn't look like a movie to me.
It also says that "The Hobbit" is being filmed with a Red camera.
My TV has one of those modes called "motion-smooth" or something like that, and what it purports to do is smooth the transitions between frames. It does this surprisingly well - too well, I would say. The end result is that movies end up looking like cheap soap operas, and I can't get over it.
Granted, the 48fps is not the same as 60fps, and maybe the difference is enough for me to subconsciously forget it. But if it wasn't the change would probably be enough for me to forgo MaxiVision films.
I think refresh rate is one of those things that our minds compensate for in the background, and the slightest changes one way or the other are instantly noticeable.
The problem is that digital came to be not because of the quality or anything that has to do with the movie goer but because it is much cheaper and much more convenient for studios. Now studios do not have to worry about printing film and deciding how much film to print.
They do not have to get into situations where a bunch of theatres showing a high budget movie stay empty and a hot selling small movie keeps selling out tickets, but they cannot open new theaters for the small movie because they did not know it would be so hot and did not print enough film copies for it.
Now they can open as many theaters as they want for the hot movies, thus immediately satisfy demand without rushing to print new copies, waiting for the new copies, etc.
So yes, digital is here to stay. Not because it looks better (it mostly doesn't), but because it is more convenient for studios and theaters.
And if 3D does not work, the movie theaters will probably crank up the resolution again but they will keep it digital.
I was brought up in Scotland in the UK where we would have to wait until a film had been around the US and the South of England before we got to see it. It would often be scratched, would jump, would break and sometimes would have had whole scenes butchered in a hasty repair job.
Digital film has made this a thing of the past (and Piracy has made simultaneous World-wide releases a necessity).
This is exactly true. When I go to a digital projection theater, the main picture quality difference is that the "copy" is always pristine.
Similarly with digital TV vs analog - the digital artifacts are different from the analog quality issues, but you completely avoid the static and "snow" that was common with analog broadcasts (especially over-the-air broadcasts).
kb
The
That said there's no reason why they could do it right and have high quality digital 48fps. In fact we could do it right now with x264 and other tools, but I guess we don't have enough layers of DRM for that to happen.
1. They're using the double frame rate to argue that the resolution is 4x larger then the 24fps framerate, which simply isn't true. It may provide a better picture quality, but that is certainly subjective and depends on the film and how it was shot.
2. They're at 4K right now, moving to a 5K film system. RED is at a 5K 24fps system, heading towards 5K 120fps and up to 28K resolution. They can't compare their future plans with RED's current offerings without some logical problems. He does mention RED's future plans, but suggests that studios should use his finishing format with the new RED system (instead of other options that are equally viable).
He outlines a few, and others have been mentioned in other comments here, but what I see as being most harmful for advanced film technology is green screening. So many of the most recent summer blockbuster movies are just shot against a green screen and essentially animated in post. Shoot a few actors delivering their dialog and a few crushing blows against the backdrop and animate the entire picture in CGI. It's a horrific way to make a movie, but it seems to please audiences enough.
These movies may not gross big numbers at the box office, but they turn a profit because they're cheap to make. Shooting the live action bits in digital make the entire process easier as well.
Cinematography is, unfortunately, a dying art. Capturing gorgeous images on the best recording medium available and projecting them through the best glass with the purest light possible just isn't important to the big production companies. Instead, "churn and burn" is the name of the game. it's akin to the old pulp comics of years past, where good storytelling and artwork gave way to shock value to generate sales. If movies aren't there yet, they're close.
3D, for now, is here to stay. And it's not a war on resolution now, but frame rate. Many filmmakers would be more than happy to shoot/show at 2-perf, but 48fps than 4-perf at 24 fps, since 3D strobing, while panning, is reduced like that. 2K IS enough, for now - as majority of productions show. Convergence of film res and HDTV res at 2K~1080p is what drives 2K now, as is the available equipment (IMAX specific productions are an exception). Occasional shots are shot in 5K (like in Batman Dark Knight), but that's rare.
Eventually, resolution will take off to greater heights, but now it's step locked with 1080p - and that's the way things are.
Young moviegoers learn to like 3D. Never mind what the scientists say. They adapt. Similar to playing 3D video games - weird at first, then you get it.
Ebert felt ill watching 3D movies. Probably can't play immersive video games either. No surprise he predicts the demise of 3D movies.
48FPS? Never mind theatres - when netflix can sell it, it may happen.