Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

48 FPS vs. 30 FPS for smooth motion


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 of 9 OFFLINE   Dick

Dick

    Producer



  • 4,204 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 1999
  • Real Name:Rick

Posted January 20 2013 - 05:53 AM

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?

#2 of 9 OFFLINE   schan1269

schan1269

    HTF Expert



  • 14,207 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 04 2012
  • Real Name:Sam
  • LocationChicago-ish/NW Indiana

Posted January 20 2013 - 06:12 AM

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.

#3 of 9 OFFLINE   Billy Batson

Billy Batson

    Screenwriter



  • 1,462 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2008
  • Real Name:Alan
  • LocationLondon

Posted January 20 2013 - 07:11 AM

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!

#4 of 9 OFFLINE   Mark-P

Mark-P

    Screenwriter



  • 2,352 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted January 20 2013 - 08:11 AM

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!

#5 of 9 OFFLINE   Lord Dalek

Lord Dalek

    Screenwriter



  • 2,154 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 04 2005

Posted January 20 2013 - 08:15 AM

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



#6 of 9 OFFLINE   GregK

GregK

    Supporting Actor



  • 963 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 22 2000

Posted January 20 2013 - 08:43 AM

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.

#7 of 9 OFFLINE   schan1269

schan1269

    HTF Expert



  • 14,207 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 04 2012
  • Real Name:Sam
  • LocationChicago-ish/NW Indiana

Posted January 20 2013 - 08:55 AM

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.

#8 of 9 OFFLINE   GregK

GregK

    Supporting Actor



  • 963 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 22 2000

Posted January 20 2013 - 09:05 AM

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.

#9 of 9 OFFLINE   revgen

revgen

    Second Unit



  • 336 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 06 2010
  • Real Name:Dan

Posted January 20 2013 - 12:14 PM

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users