48 FPS vs. 30 FPS for smooth motion (1 Viewer)

Dick · Jan 20, 2013

TODD-AO used a 30-fps film speed, which from what I gather pretty much eliminated motion & panning issues. So why do we need the 48-fps speed that Peter Jackson has embraced for THE HOBBIT? The general consensus that I have read is that 48 fps makes film look like video, which is not a desirable effect. Sorry, I'm, not a tech geek, but it appears that there is some sort of threshold beyond which the clarity gained actually becomes a deficit. Any knowledgeable people out there care to comment?

schan1269 · Jan 20, 2013

Historically...24fps was chosen... 1. To reduce film costs...yet 2. Keep a modicum of "motion control" Period. 48fps is not new either. It has been tried, and failed to catch on, numerous times. The last time by Douglas Trumbull...before PJ got the idea for the Hobbit.

Alan Tully · Jan 20, 2013

I understand only Oklahoma! & Around The World In 80 Days were shot in 30fps, & they were also shot in 35mm anamorphic at the same time, & that's probably the versions I've seen & that were used for the DVD (I'd think). I wonder what shape the 30fps 65mm negatives are in? As I understand it, Blu-ray can support 30fps. I'd love a Blu of Around The World In 80 Days in 30fps taken from the Todd-AO originals...but I bet there's a problem!

Mark-P · Jan 20, 2013

Billy Batson said:
I understand only Oklahoma! & Around The World In 80 Days were shot in 30fps, & they were also shot in 35mm anamorphic at the same time, & that's probably the versions I've seen & that were used for the DVD (I'd think). I wonder what shape the 30fps 65mm negatives are in? As I understand it, Blu-ray can support 30fps. I'd love a Blu of Around The World In 80 Days in 30fps taken from the Todd-AO originals...but I bet there's a problem!

According to Widescreen Museum, Around the World in 80 Days was shot twice, but not in 35mm, rather with two 65mm cameras, one being 30fps and the other being 24fps. After the roadshow engagements, the general release was Cinemascope reduction prints from the 24fps version. I have to wonder which version was used on the DVD? Hopefully, if they ever get around to releasing a Blu-ray, it will be from the 30fps version!

Lord Dalek · Jan 20, 2013

Unless I'm mistakened, anything at 30FPS is going to be interlaced when released on video.

GregK · Jan 20, 2013

The current maximum specs for bluray is 1080p/24 and 1080i (60 or 50 field). Bluray specs do allow for 30p and 60p, but the max resolution is 720p. Part of the newly established task force set up by the BDA include, along with new compression codecs and increased resolutions like 2160 and 4K, looking into incorporating increased frame rates as well. Different studies over the years have shown we can perceive temporal increases up to around 70 frames per second. This is why Douglas Trumbull's 70mm Showscan format opted for 60 frames per second. It's been reported Jim Cameron is looking at using 48, 60 or possibly 72 frames per second for his Avatar sequels. My guess is Todd-AO stopped at 30fps due to film costs and (while do-able in the 50s) some technical reasons as well. For me the jump from 24fps to 30fps was still quite noticeable.

schan1269 · Jan 20, 2013

GregK said:
The current maximum specs for bluray is 1080p/24 and 1080i (60 or 50 field). Bluray specs do allow for 30p and 60p, but the max resolution is 720p. Part of the newly established task force set up by the BDA include, along with new compression codecs and increased resolutions like 2160 and 4K, looking into incorporating increased frame rates as well. Different studies over the years have shown we can perceive temporal increases up to around 70 frames per second. This is why Douglas Trumbull's 70mm Showscan format opted for 60 frames per second. It's been reported Jim Cameron is looking at using 48, 60 or possibly 72 frames per second for his Avatar sequels. My guess is Todd-AO stopped at 30fps due to film costs and (while do-able in the 50s) some technical reasons as well. For me the jump from 24fps to 30fps was still quite noticeable.

You'd think TV shows could have been done 1080P/60... It is possible, just doesn't happen.

GregK · Jan 20, 2013

schan1269 said:
You'd think TV shows could have been done 1080P/60... It is possible, just doesn't happen.

I'm sure there is some content, as ABC produce some of their shows as 720p/60, so there may be 1080p/60 masters somewhere. The rub with 1080p/60 content is the ATSC broadcast specs max out at 1080i and 720p/60.

revgen · Jan 20, 2013

Lord Dalek said:
Unless I'm mistakened, anything at 30FPS is going to be interlaced when released on video.

Yes, but It can be "fake-interlaced" using certain encoding software. It's encoded progressively but the video stream tells the blu-ray player that it's interlaced for compatibility purposes. Also 48fps can be used on Blu-Ray too, providing that it's encoded at 1280x720p @ 60fps, and using RFF flags to fill out the missing 12fps.

Home Theater

Entertainment & Streaming Content

Physical Media

Home Theater Equipment and Hardware

Other Diversions

Bargains and Classifieds

Home Theater Forum

Archives

Search

Home Theater

Entertainment & Streaming Content

Physical Media

Home Theater Equipment and Hardware

Other Diversions

Bargains and Classifieds

Home Theater Forum

48 FPS vs. 30 FPS for smooth motion (1 Viewer)

More options

Dick

schan1269

HTF Expert

Alan Tully

Mark-P

Lord Dalek

GregK

Screenwriter

schan1269

HTF Expert

GregK

Screenwriter

revgen

Screenwriter

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more

Latest posts

Latest Articles

Members online

Forum statistics