The Hobbit Filming at 48fps
An anonymous reader writes "Peter Jackson has announced via his Facebook page that The Hobbit is being shot at 48 frames per second, ameliorating the '3D headaches' that many viewers have complained of in the last few boom-years for the format. Film has been shot and projected at 24fps since the 1920s, with the exception of Douglas Trumbull's 60fps 'ShowScan' format, used for the Universal Back To The Future ride, amongst others. Jackson himself predicts that the widespread adoption of 48fps workflow could not only improve the 3D but also the general cinematic experience, though it may earn itself some backward-looking critics. But until digital principal photography completely usurps celluloid, this may be good news for Kodak, who now have even more reason to lament the death of Stanley Kubrick."
... if anything, this will result in a film that looks unnaturally smooth to a movie going audience... essentially adding a distraction for the 2D viewers while not fixing anything for 3D viewers...
That's why I never go outside. And when I stay inside, I insist on strobe lighting.
I am not a crackpot.
Fake3D is still fake3D.
i will still get headaches while watching and I will still not see a single special 3D effect. the movie will appear dim or over saturated trying to correct the color balance caused by wearing sunglasses indoors against a dark room.
There are some things you just can't fix as they are broken by design. Fake3D is one of them. Please Hollywood give it up, and just dump the money into hologram research.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
James Cameron wanted to do Avatar at 48FPS. Avatar II, or whatever, will be. He's been pushing 48FPS for a while.
It's about time; 24FPS is way too slow. A big problem with 24FPS is that pans over detailed backgrounds have strobing effects unless the pan is very slow. Sometimes blur is inserted to mask this, either in camera or in post. Cameron likes richly detailed backgrounds ("Titanic", etc.), and this limitation has annoyed him.
Cameron will use higher frame rates well. He's used 3D well. Other directors, probably not so much.
The hobbit is being filmed in 3d? Ugh...
3d is a gimmic and it is helping to further ruin cinamatography. There are very few exceptions.
You know, I wonder when we'll ultimately just drop the concept of "frames" and switch to temporal-tagged packets of image changes, without requiring a full image to have been acquired simultaneously. Aka, your CCD doesn't accumulate photon counts, but photon rates. The readout from the CCD returns the delta between the current rate of activation and the previous activation rate. For a CCD polled thousands of times per second, for most pixels, that would be near zero, and that pixel is declared "unchanged" and ignored. The pixels which have a statistically significant changes are returned to the camera as ID/rate pairs, and are all bundled together with a time tag, processed, and compressed. Then it's a trivial matter to assemble them into whatever frame rate you want, it makes it much easier to do high quality slow motion, etc. Our insistence on accumulating all data into (proportionally slow) "frames" during the recording process is throwing away data.
Of course, this would require some significant hardware and video format changes, plus different approaches to compression, as the data you're reading is loosely packed instead of densely packed. Good compression approaches would take into account the strong regional correlations between pixels reporting changes in light intensity.
..my sister, who got the Donnie Darko numbers tattooed on her arm so she looks like shes making fun of Holocaust victims