Cinema: HFR movies

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Chris Shivers

  • Posts: 318
  • Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:12 am

Cinema: HFR movies

PostSat Jun 22, 2019 9:00 pm

What do yall think about movies being shot at high framerates. I heard the new Will Smith movie (not aladin) will be shot at 120fps and paramount trying to make movie theater show it at 120. I personally dont like the idea of a movie being shown at HFR, they are specifically made for slow motion. I can see if you want to do a certain effect that's fine in my book, but you're shooting HFR just to shoot it then I dont like that.
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 6812
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am
  • Location: Germany and Indonesia

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSat Jun 22, 2019 10:06 pm

When the Hobbit came to my country I even went to our state capital to see it in HFR, I was just curious.

It didn't really look like a movie. The whole time I had the impression of watching a bunch of actors on a stage behind a well cleaned window.
Resolve Studio 16.2 and Fusion Studio under MacOS Mojave 10.14.6
iMac 2017 Radeon Pro 580 8 GB VRAM and 32 GB RAM
Mac mini 16 GB RAM plus eGFX Breakway Radeon RX 580
Offline
User avatar

Robert Niessner

  • Posts: 2945
  • Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:51 am
  • Location: Graz, Austria

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSat Jun 22, 2019 11:43 pm

I've read that for the movie "Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk" Ang Lee shot in 4k 3D at 120p and that this resulted for them into a totally different feeling when watching that version.
Robert Niessner
LAUFBILDkommission
Graz / Austria
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackmagic Camera Blog (German):
http://laufbildkommission.wordpress.com

Read the blog in English via Google Translate:
http://tinyurl.com/pjf6a3m
Online
User avatar

timbutt2

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSun Jun 23, 2019 4:21 am

Gemini Man is the movie you're talking about coming out later this year shot in 3D at 120 fps. I saw dailies in the 3D 120 fps projected when I was invited to the set. I can't say too much at this time due to NDA. However, I will say I was very impressed.

One show that used HFR to great effect was the second season of Video Game High School. I don't know if you can still see the show in the format anymore, but they did it where all the real world scenes were 24 fps and all the "video game world" scenes were 48 fps. It actually helped with distinguishing a difference in the worlds.

Otherwise, The Hobbit is about it at the moment. I didn't have a problem with HFR on the movies. I think it could have gone further to 60 fps instead of 48 fps. 48 fps isn't enough of a jump. 60 fixes a lot of the issues.

As for any other movies doing HFR I think James Cameron is still doing it for the Avatar sequels. We'll have to wait and see because those movies keep having their release dates pushed back.
"I'm well trained in the art of turning **** to gold." - Tim Buttner (timbutt2)

Cameras: URSA Mini Pro G2, URSA Mini 4.6K EF & Cinema Camera 2.5K EF
Computers: iMac 5K (Late 2015) & MacBook Pro Retina 15.4in (Mid 2018)
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 319
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSun Jun 23, 2019 12:25 pm

HFR seem to work quite good with heavy FX scene, to make it more believable. Am all in for variable frame rate rather choose one for the whole movie. Imo, 48+ frame becomes a bit of a problem with dramatic emotional scenes where the actors can’t deliver 100%. It makes it almost cheesy and embarrassing. The line gets thinner the further you up the frame rate, it’s almost equal to 4K+ being unforgiving on an actors makeup. This is all subjective of course. HFR is just another tool that must be used in the right moment IMO.
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 319
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostMon Jun 24, 2019 7:22 am

Yes, I belive you are into something Naveed.

The “real” effect HFR contributes, is quite powerful. That combined with 4k and 3d. Life of Pi is a great example indeed, even though I have never heard they used HFR it in that particular movie. But using it as an example. Scenes where the tiger is moving towards you, the camera, would feel much more threatening with HFR. Everything becomes more “alive”. That is great use of HFR in my opinion. Problem is, there’s a thin line of braking the movie magic by using HFR extensively for a whole movie. That was quite obvious with the HFR Hobbit version. The soap opera effect makes a movie cheap in many ways and brake the magic when watching a fairytale. I believe most moviegoers wants to get entertained and brought out of real life, forget daily routines. The notion, this is real and that is not, is something to consider when using HFR.
Offline

grebefrux

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2018 5:56 pm
  • Real Name: Tom Chabbat

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostMon Jun 24, 2019 9:32 am

To me, it seems like a big waste of money and energy... In 3d, they should have 240 4k images per second (at least, I don't know if they're not shooting in higher resolutions...), so in RAW their rushes should weigh something like 2 to 3 GB/s... I can't begin to think what in means in term of necessary hardware to treat this kind of workflow to have an acceptable rendering time (they may have at least a 20K$ budget just for drives !). All this for just an "unreal" look ? They would already have it at 48fps, or with just a creative color grading.

People are already tired of 3D anyway, and we all have the backlash of "The Hobbit" in mind for HFR. As Australian Image said, quality in a movie is elsewhere than these over the top hi-tech gimmicks.
Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
Resolve 15.3.1
Mac Pro mid 2010, macOS 10.12.6, Quad Core Intel Xeon, Radeon RX 580, 250 & 540Gb SATA SSD drives
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 319
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostMon Jun 24, 2019 12:08 pm

grebefrux wrote:To me, it seems like a big waste of money and energy... In 3d, they should have 240 4k images per second (at least, I don't know if they're not shooting in higher resolutions...), so in RAW their rushes should weigh something like 2 to 3 GB/s... I can't begin to think what in means in term of necessary hardware to treat this kind of workflow to have an acceptable rendering time (they may have at least a 20K$ budget just for drives !). All this for just an "unreal" look ? They would already have it at 48fps, or with just a creative color grading.

People are already tired of 3D anyway, and we all have the backlash of "The Hobbit" in mind for HFR. As Australian Image said, quality in a movie is elsewhere than these over the top hi-tech gimmicks.


Let me challenge you thoughts for a minute.

From a creative perspective.. which this is all about really. Am I understanding this correctly, You can’t see ANY reason to use HFR from an artistic perspective? You basically said its all waste of time. I find it hard to believe you cant come up with one reason.

The technical aspect is an interesting topic indeed, but we need to be a tad more scientific rather than tossing random numbers or wild statements up in the air. Don’t you agree? Am all in for a technical debate.

Don’t leave the debate before entering buddy. We are all in it to gain more knowledge and become better artist.
Offline

grebefrux

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2018 5:56 pm
  • Real Name: Tom Chabbat

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostMon Jun 24, 2019 2:55 pm

Sorry but I really don't see any artistic advantage.
Again, I may be biased because, if I put television aside, the only cinematic experience I had with it was "The Hobbit". And when I compare the 48fps 3D digital Hobbit with the "old school" 24fps 2D 35mm Lord of the Rings, well, the first one looks quite ugly to me.
Even when I look at television, I can get why when watching sports 50-60fps is better to catch fast action, but it still looks ugly to me, and it is immediately off-putting to see any fiction broadcasted this way.
More isn't always better. We used for decades a quite good compromise for recording images at 24-25fps that still can powerfully transmit emotions, and I don't see any sensible reason to depart from it. You said HFR helps make FX scenes more believable, and yet 24fps FX scenes, when well made and above all with good script writing, are already believable enough to me. When I watch LOTR, even on a small screen, I have no problem getting immersed. With the Hobbit, I had this problem. Remember Back to the Future ? No CGI then, yet I still can remember how it moved me as a child, and how few blockbusters now move me this way.
And 120fps really sounds insane. I'm not even sure I'd see any differences with 60fps, even with my trained eye...
Sorry again to talk numbers, but I really wonder the point of wasting 16 times more energy than a "classic" 2K 2D 24fps movie for something that, based on my personal experience, *might* look ugly.

Again, 3D is already falling again, Avengers broke all records and yet it was shot in 2D, I don't think big studios will see in the years to come the need to pay more for these gimmicks...
Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
Resolve 15.3.1
Mac Pro mid 2010, macOS 10.12.6, Quad Core Intel Xeon, Radeon RX 580, 250 & 540Gb SATA SSD drives
Offline

grebefrux

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2018 5:56 pm
  • Real Name: Tom Chabbat

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostMon Jun 24, 2019 3:09 pm

Just saw the trailers of the two Ang Lee films... yup, HFR is still ugly to me... Wo hu cang long was much more beautiful than those TV shows.
Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
Resolve 15.3.1
Mac Pro mid 2010, macOS 10.12.6, Quad Core Intel Xeon, Radeon RX 580, 250 & 540Gb SATA SSD drives
Online
User avatar

timbutt2

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostMon Jun 24, 2019 3:55 pm

Okay, I'll weigh in a bit more here without going into any of the specifics about Gemini Man that would cause me to break my NDA. There are a few things that I've seen argued that I need to address.

1) Artistic Advantages: I pointed out above the creative choice with Video Game High School using variable frame rates. There are artistic and creative advantages to using HFR or VFR. This is subjective however, and thus arguing against it is always going to come down to preconceived notions that are not fact based. It's what feels right to the individual. But that can be said about any creative format. Stereo 3D can be very useful as an artistic format to enhance a story. There have been many great examples in the last decade since Avatar where 3D was used very well. Most people only know of The Hobbit for HFR.

2) Some technical: 48 FPS is what The Hobbit was shot at, which is double the normal 24 FPS base that has been used in cinema for a long time. This essentially cut in half the motion blur when shooting at 180° Shutter Angle. Cutting down motion blur can be very beneficial to Stereo 3D and 60 FPS cuts motion blur down by a bit more, which is very helpful. When The Hobbit used 48 FPS it wasn't quite enough to cut down all the motion blur, but they chose it as an easy compromise due to the amount of CGI Visual Effects that had to be rendered at that higher frame rate. The fact is that it was a budgetary choice that made them choose 48 FPS.

Now, I will talk briefly about Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk and Gemini Man a bit here to cover 120 FPS. It's the same 3D team serving Ang Lee in both of these movies, and the same team that has helped drive the HFR workflow. Billy Lynn was shot at 120 FPS because it was easily divisible to get 24 FPS. 60 FPS isn't as easily divisible. Billy Lynn was on a lower budget than The Hobbit, and didn't have as much VFX as The Hobbit, so they could push the frame rates. They shot on the Sony CineAlta F65 in 4K for Billy Lynn. Gemini Man however they shot ARRI Alexa Mini at 3.2K, and I think I can safely say this because it is on the IMDb. More details will be shared at a later date when my NDA doesn't prevent me from talking about what I learned about their camera system. Either way, I can tell you that they did adequately provide the right budget to handle the workflow for on set dailies on Gemini Man with a massive server room connected to the projection room via GigaBit Ethernet. I don't think that bit of info breaks my NDA. They had Petabytes of storage going as well. Again, I doubt that breaks NDA because most of this can be easily guessed. More details will be revealed later.

Now, with Gemini Man I learned that they were shooting at a 360° Shutter Angle on my set visit. The 120 FPS at 360° Shutter Angle made the footage have the same motion blur as shooting 60 FPS at 180° Shutter, but because they were shooting 120 FPS which caused less light to hit the sensor they needed the extra help from Shutter Angle. This is where it has been publicly said that 60 FPS is the most you really need to do for HFR since beyond it is almost indistinguishable to the human eye. But, because they need to deliver a 24 FPS version as well they need something that 24 FPS is easily divisible from and thus, that's why 120 FPS was settled upon. I will being publishing more on all these techs later when the movie is closer to release. It will be on MarketSaw.com a 3D Blog I've been a Collaborative Writer for several years.

So, I hope that helps get some understanding on some of the technical aspects of shooting 120 FPS. The main benefit for 3D is the motion blur being cut down. This is important with 3D because of some of the artifacts that are present in motion blur with 3D. It overall enhances the 3D image.

One additional technical note that is worth bringing up about HFR: it cuts down perceived noise. What?! Yes, if you shoot 1600 ISO and pause a single frame you'll see the noise. The noise is in the image, it may not be bad noise, but it's there. Yet, once you start playing the footage at 120 FPS you'll instantly notice you can't perceive the noise. It's there in the individual frames, but because of how fast the images are moving in front of your eyes the noise can't be seen as it blends into the image. This was demoed to me and I was very impressed. I would say try it out, but DaVinci Resolve doesn't allow 120 FPS Timelines at this time still. 60 FPS is the most you can have as a timeline I believe. Either way, it was a really cool example of how motion images trick our eyes and brains.

3) Stereoscopic 3D: I understand many people like to point out that 3D is falling again. There are a lot of political reasons inside Hollywood why 3D was bungled over the last decade. It comes to the Native VS Conversion argument. However, the Studio Executives wanted to spend less money and charge premium ticket prices... and thus chose Conversion often. Now, there's another side to this. The Conversion Companies also bid on the Studio Jobs with "Packages" that undercut what the Native Companies could offer. The Conversion Companies would let a Studio pay for a 5-Picture Deal. Native Companies required flexible budgets to work with what the production entailed, but since Conversion was all done in post then it was pretty much just a VFX bid. We all know how VFX companies are underbidding each other to get gigs and it's hurting the industry.

So with 3D the same underbidding hurt it. At the same time the 3D Conversion hurt the distribution because it came down to Real 3D versus Fake 3D for audiences. When they couldn't figure out why the 3D was worth it due to the movie being shot in 2D and then getting converted with nothing really being added except the surcharge at the box office it caused audiences to gravitate to 2D. Native movies did their best, and often audiences responded better to the native productions. However, there were frequently less native productions due to bidding war that I stated above.

Now on an artistic level I will say that I'm a big fan of well done Native 3D movies. I still want to make many of my movie ideas in Native 3D because I have specific creative choices for how to utilize Stereoscopic Images. It deserves to be seen as another tool in the filmmaker's toolbox. Not a gimmick, but a tool. Not something to tack on premium charges at the box office, but another way to enhance the audience's experience.

FINAL THOUGHTS
This has been a long post. I'm sorry for that. And, I wish I could go into more details with my knowledge about Gemini Man, but as I've stated I am under NDA. I hope I didn't break any of it here. But then again I only talked technical aspects and didn't go into very specific things that could get me in trouble. I think you will all be impressed when the movie comes out. As long as it gets a wide enough 3D HFR HDR release.
"I'm well trained in the art of turning **** to gold." - Tim Buttner (timbutt2)

Cameras: URSA Mini Pro G2, URSA Mini 4.6K EF & Cinema Camera 2.5K EF
Computers: iMac 5K (Late 2015) & MacBook Pro Retina 15.4in (Mid 2018)
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 319
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostMon Jun 24, 2019 4:26 pm

grebefrux wrote:Sorry but I really don't see any artistic advantage.
Again, I may be biased


But what is it to discuss? I want to see the benefits and solutions, you want to see problems and find all the reasons not to use a tool. I guess we differ that way.

If I convince myself, after walking my whole life, that I don’t see any benefits with a bike… not a shred. Would it be wise to tell a bunch of bikers that they wasted their time? Or would it be better trying to understand why they prefer bikes? Surly I would save a lot of time biking the same road I have been walking most of my life.
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 319
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostMon Jun 24, 2019 4:31 pm

Tim, thanks for that great post. Truly appreciated. A lot of good insight and something to learn from.
Offline

grebefrux

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2018 5:56 pm
  • Real Name: Tom Chabbat

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 3:36 pm

Oyvind Fiksdal wrote:I want to see the benefits and solutions, you want to see problems and find all the reasons not to use a tool.


Believe me, I understand quite well the benefits. But every technical solution always have disadvantages too, and their success can a lot be based on which out-weights the other. One problem with heavily hi-tech based professions like ours is that we tend most of the time to only see advantages of everything new. So here, before we spend vast amounts of money and energy in such a power hungry tech, I wonder if it's really worth it.

Like the majority of audiences, I tried 3D when it was hot in the late 2000s (both native and not), and like them I wasn't impressed, and was even upset when some movies didn't have a 2D release. We quickly realized we didn't want to pay more for darker screens, uncomfortable glasses and headaches.
Nowadays, the vast majority of cinemas near me (Paris) have exactly zero 3D screening.
Since it first appeared in the late 19th century, stereoscopic images has always been a fun novelty people quickly get tired of. I really think we should let it go.

And am I really the only one thinking Gemini and Billy Lynn look bad ? Honestly, didn't Ang Lee's 35mm masterpieces looked way better ?
Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
Resolve 15.3.1
Mac Pro mid 2010, macOS 10.12.6, Quad Core Intel Xeon, Radeon RX 580, 250 & 540Gb SATA SSD drives
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 319
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 4:16 pm

Tom, I can understand that you are sceptic when comparing VFR with 3d. I would to.
But don’t you believe they are quite different things? Think about the era where the industry landed on 24fps, it was a pure compromise between reasonable FPS and economy. Still, here we are. Loving it.
Offline

grebefrux

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2018 5:56 pm
  • Real Name: Tom Chabbat

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 4:51 pm

From what I understand, HFR are only used with 3D, so they are linked actually ;)
24fps was actually a sound compromise : it was the lowest fps where optical sound was of sufficient quality when printed on film. Had we use magnetic tracks from the start, maybe we would have 18fps standard :)

But to me, the real problem of these two technologies, HFR and 3D, are purely in creative term : of all the technologies introduced to the cinema, like sound, color, CGI, digital capture and so on, 3D and HFR are the only ones that makes absolutely no change to the actual script while raising the budget by quite a lot. The story, the way the characters interact, the fictional world they're in won't change in any way wether the film is shot and seen in 3D and/or 120fps. And I think the audience can sense it. People like beautiful images or sound design if it's closely linked to the story. If we see something is just added up on top of the story with no relation whatsoever, we'll maybe get amazed by the novelty at first, but at long we'll just feel it as a distraction from what is the core interest of a movie : the story.

This might sound weird, I don't know if anyone feels the same, but I remember the 3D movies I've seen in 2D... The effect doesn't even last in my memory !
Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
Resolve 15.3.1
Mac Pro mid 2010, macOS 10.12.6, Quad Core Intel Xeon, Radeon RX 580, 250 & 540Gb SATA SSD drives
Offline
User avatar

LazerKaboom

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 5:08 pm
  • Real Name: Simon Kern

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostThu Jan 09, 2020 5:47 pm

I'd like to chime in about the native 3D and "fake" 3D. Most 3D films fail because they are not good movies. Gemini man is sitting at a 26% critic score on rotten tomatoes. I got the chance to see it at 120 fps, 2k, 3D with a Q and A with Ang. He mentioned he's still very new to 3D and he feels he has a lot to learn and thanks for letting him experiment again. The movie Gravity was a great film, and many people thought the 3D was excellent, even though there were many errors in the conversion.

When you shoot native stereo for a VFX heavy film, that means all VFX studios now need to become experts in 3D, have 3D viewing equipment (review monitors and dailies), and be able to produce massive amount of data (a render for each eye). Most of these VFX companies can't handle this task and that's why you see way more documentaries in 3D being shot native, especially IMAX.

Post 3D conversion, or "fake" as you mentioned, allows the production teams to shoot the movies as they see fit, using any camera and lens that they want, shaking the camera as much as they want, and allowing the VFX companies to do what they do best, make amazing 2D shots, all while the 3D conversion companies can communicate what assets they need (clean plates, models, zdepths, lidar scans, etc).

Conversion companies can produce the same and even better 3D from native because they have complete control over the depth. You want it more shallow because you're using a specific lens, no problem. You want more volume in the muscles or detail in the characters, done. With native, whatever stereo you shoot, that's what you get. If you watch Gemini Man, you'll notice many of the shots are lacking internal volume. The stereographer, Demitri, did a great job, but there's only so much you can control with native. Even Avatar has conversion in it. It's a tool to help those that need it.
Offline

Dennis Sørensen

  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:59 am
  • Location: Denmark

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostFri Jan 10, 2020 11:57 am

Offline

robedge

  • Posts: 840
  • Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:24 am
  • Location: U.S.
  • Real Name: Rob Edge

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostFri Jan 10, 2020 1:33 pm

John Hess is good on this subject. Here’s his latest:

Video: Pocket 4K, Fujinon MK 18-55mm, Leica primes 35-135mm, Nikkor 55mm macro

Stills: Leica M3/M6/M240; Mamiya 7II; Arca Swiss 4x5/8x10

Sound: Schoeps omni & supercardiod mikes; DPA miniature omni mikes; Sound Devices 702T/MixPre-6 v.2
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2353
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostFri Jan 10, 2020 5:02 pm

LazerKaboom wrote:I'd like to chime in about the native 3D and "fake" 3D. Most 3D films fail because they are not good movies. Gemini man is sitting at a 26% critic score on rotten tomatoes.



Well then let's see...

So far I can count at least two oscar winning directors FAILING at making "good" HFR movies.

In fact...

Has anyone made a "good HFR movie ? I wonder is it even possible ?

JB
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 13379
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostFri Jan 10, 2020 11:01 pm

Thanks for the link to John Hess. Very entertaining to have that perspective going back more than a century. And didn’t that early hand-coloured print look gorgeous!?
Rick Lang
Offline

robedge

  • Posts: 840
  • Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:24 am
  • Location: U.S.
  • Real Name: Rob Edge

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSat Jan 11, 2020 2:29 am

rick.lang wrote:Thanks for the link to John Hess. Very entertaining to have that perspective going back more than a century. And didn’t that early hand-coloured print look gorgeous!?


He knows what he’s talking about, and he can be quite entertaining about pretty technical stuff.
Video: Pocket 4K, Fujinon MK 18-55mm, Leica primes 35-135mm, Nikkor 55mm macro

Stills: Leica M3/M6/M240; Mamiya 7II; Arca Swiss 4x5/8x10

Sound: Schoeps omni & supercardiod mikes; DPA miniature omni mikes; Sound Devices 702T/MixPre-6 v.2
Online
User avatar

timbutt2

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSat Jan 11, 2020 4:16 pm

I was a champion of HFR. I visited the set of Gemini Man and sat in on dailies. It looked great, and technically was done incredibly well. However, I do agree with John Hess on a lot of his criticisms.

HFR 3D is definitely great for travel films. However, the wooden acting was abundantly obvious when watching in HFR. When I was doing the set visit and saw the dailies I never saw any scenes with Clive Own, which were some of the worst culprits of the very wooden acting. A lot that I saw looked great. But when not in the complete movie it is hard to judge because you're only in the moment of the dailies.

I still have hope for HFR 3D, and would love for experimentation to still happen. It's always worth exploring technological boundaries. Yet, I see how the argument about a "good HFR movie has yet to be made" can be stated when there are so few and most of them have had major story issues.

There's potential, but for narrative filmmaking we are sadly ingrained in 24 due to decades of it being the normal.
"I'm well trained in the art of turning **** to gold." - Tim Buttner (timbutt2)

Cameras: URSA Mini Pro G2, URSA Mini 4.6K EF & Cinema Camera 2.5K EF
Computers: iMac 5K (Late 2015) & MacBook Pro Retina 15.4in (Mid 2018)
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 3550
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSat Jan 11, 2020 4:26 pm

Think of how many movie-goers, including cineastes, prefer to watch from the back of the house, or sprawled in the balcony, when theaters still had balconies. This is not a group intent on deriving the excitements of virtual reality from cinema. Maybe a generation raised on cell phones will want the constant sensory stimulation of 3D and HFR, but for classic cinema -- it's a regression.

Peter Jackson seems to have given up on it, but Ang Lee is, despite the evidence, still a believer. Whether James Cameron changes anyone's mind remains to be seen.

But at least some of the audience will want the old experience: cinema is something you watch, not participate in glandularly. And that's assuming HFR hyperreality doesn't take audiences out of the experience altogether, the same way those old video "making of" pieces on DVDs revealed big budget movies to be what they actually are: preposterously contrived.

I'm guessing dreams resolve about 100 lines, on the order of pixelvision, and with frame rates in the single digits, and nobody ever complained they lack presence.
Last edited by John Paines on Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 13379
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Cinema: HFR movies

PostSat Jan 11, 2020 4:38 pm

The first three years I had a BMD cinema camera I almost always used 29.97/30 fps because everything I did was viewed on television or computer. But I’ve gone the other direction in 2019 and only shoot 23.976/24 fps feeling very comfortable with the results. I feel the same about digital noise and seldom apply noise reduction unless it’s bad. Some noise is our equivalent of film grain. I’m only shooting close to people so there may be reasons for HFR and noise reduction when shooting sports and landscapes and so on including virtual reality and perhaps 3D.

But for general use, 24 fps and some noise are fine. Motion blur is especially fine unless you’re shooting sports. Of course 120/240 fps is better if your camera is used to determine if a tennis ball is in the court, but for dance, the opposite is true—your brain doesn’t see the blur in moving pictures, only when you look at a frame. Your brain sees the beauty and generates the pleasure of watching the recorded dance.

Going further in the other direction, when I shot film on the Bolex, there is a difference to the 24 fps we use normally in cinema. You can still have beautiful movement at 18 fps, but it’s close to the edge where the illusion of reality we have at 24 fps falls apart. I don’t know when that happens but I could experiment with off-speed I suppose and try 18, 16, 12 fps. I don’t think many viewers would prefer it. I’ll leave that to the visual perception scientists. I suspect 24/25 fps is a happy accident and there is good reason it is popular with an audience beyond the purely technical reasons it was adopted.
Rick Lang
Offline

robedge

  • Posts: 840
  • Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:24 am
  • Location: U.S.
  • Real Name: Rob Edge

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSat Jan 11, 2020 8:06 pm

rick.lang wrote:Of course 120/240 fps is better if your camera is used to determine if a tennis ball is in the court, but for dance, the opposite is true—your brain doesn’t see the blur in moving pictures, only when you look at a frame. Your brain sees the beauty and generates the pleasure of watching the recorded dance.


Reading that, a question occurred to me, although it’s not the kind of dance film that you have in mind...

Had Norman McLaren/The National Film Board of Canada made Pas de deux today, do you think that he could/might have made use of HFR in making the film?

I suspect that McLaren would have had a lot of fun with current technology.

Wikipedia for those who aren’t familiar with Pas de deux: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pas_de_deux_(film)

The NFB has Pas de deux on its web site: https://www.nfb.ca/film/pas_de_deux_en/

Cheers
Video: Pocket 4K, Fujinon MK 18-55mm, Leica primes 35-135mm, Nikkor 55mm macro

Stills: Leica M3/M6/M240; Mamiya 7II; Arca Swiss 4x5/8x10

Sound: Schoeps omni & supercardiod mikes; DPA miniature omni mikes; Sound Devices 702T/MixPre-6 v.2
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 13379
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSat Jan 11, 2020 9:09 pm

It seems perfect, but I agree he would have done it differently, played with time, perhaps have played with colour. Interesting assignment to give to a film class.
Rick Lang
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 6497
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSat Jan 11, 2020 9:29 pm

Chris Shivers wrote:What do yall think about movies being shot at high framerates. I heard the new Will Smith movie (not aladin) will be shot at 120fps and paramount trying to make movie theater show it at 120. I personally dont like the idea of a movie being shown at HFR, they are specifically made for slow motion. I can see if you want to do a certain effect that's fine in my book, but you're shooting HFR just to shoot it then I dont like that.


And do you know why we have 24fps? Purely due to costs savings on film. It was fist acceptable fsp which had enough motion to be called moving picture. Nothing that fancy.

24p on UHD LCDs is not pleasant to watch at all. Cinema is better, but they show it at 72Hz, so even there tricks are needed to make it more "pleasant".
How much artistic value is in 24p I'm not sure, but 1 is for sure- we got use to it.
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 3550
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSat Jan 11, 2020 9:47 pm

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:And do you know why we have 24fps? Purely due to costs savings on film. It was fist acceptable fsp which had enough motion to be called moving picture.


Silent films ranged from 16-26fps, mostly 16-18, and and you can go lower than that and still maintain the illusion of continuous motion. Though even in the silent era, some filmmakers, like Buster Keaton, preferred frame rates above 24fps. The 24fps standard was more determined by the requirements of sound, and because the first manufacturer who came up with viable sound sync system had settled on 90 ft/minute.
Last edited by John Paines on Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

robedge

  • Posts: 840
  • Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:24 am
  • Location: U.S.
  • Real Name: Rob Edge

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSat Jan 11, 2020 9:51 pm

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:And do you know why we have 24fps? Purely due to costs savings on film. It was fist acceptable fsp which had enough motion to be called moving picture. Nothing that fancy.


You might find it useful to watch John Hess’s “myth-busting” video, linked nine posts up from yours.
Video: Pocket 4K, Fujinon MK 18-55mm, Leica primes 35-135mm, Nikkor 55mm macro

Stills: Leica M3/M6/M240; Mamiya 7II; Arca Swiss 4x5/8x10

Sound: Schoeps omni & supercardiod mikes; DPA miniature omni mikes; Sound Devices 702T/MixPre-6 v.2
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 6497
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSun Jan 12, 2020 9:28 am

John Paines wrote:
Andrew Kolakowski wrote:And do you know why we have 24fps? Purely due to costs savings on film. It was fist acceptable fsp which had enough motion to be called moving picture.


Silent films ranged from 16-26fps, mostly 16-18, and and you can go lower than that and still maintain the illusion of continuous motion. Though even in the silent era, some filmmakers, like Buster Keaton, preferred frame rates above 24fps. The 24fps standard was more determined by the requirements of sound, and because the first manufacturer who came up with viable sound sync system had settled on 90 ft/minute.


16fps is not a movie- it's a slide show :)
Yes, but why was it 24? Was it not related to again lowest achievable value?

Another way- show me facts from history proving that industry tested many fps (50+) and came up with 24fps as best choice mainly due to 'artistic values'. Never seen anything about it- 24p was simply a compromise mainly due to technology and costs restrictions.

Costs problems are present even today. When you ask VFX company to create effects for eg. 48 or 120fps movie they shake their head. I seen it in real life...
I don't mind 24p in cinema. Its compromised look creates this unreal effect which so many people want/like in movies. We got use to 24p look and now we take it as reference, but it could be eg. 25p as well. There is no real magic in number 24.

I more agree with this explanation:
https://www.filmindependent.org/blog/ha ... er-second/
and another one:
https://jwsoundgroup.net/index.php?/top ... come-from/

Mentioned video is just a "loads of talking about nothing"- typical for youtube.
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2353
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSun Jan 12, 2020 10:49 am

Before sound cameras were hand cranked.

Most cameras exposed 8 or 9 frames per crank.

The idea was to do two cranks per second.

But it was well known that many would shoot scenes slower or fast depending on the content. There was no standard. It was only what was “roughly” shot by the individual camera person. There were apparently songs or ditties they sang to themselves to keep time.

Sound meant two things.

You needed a more constant and accurate camera speed. The camera couldn’t vary speed anymore at the whim of the operator. So what was once a standard that was variable now needed to be constant.

That would mean the camera has to become motorised (much bigger)

It also had to be silenced. At first they would put the camera into sound proofed little rooms, later adding baffles and blimps that made the cameras huge. So big, that you’ll notice basic camera moves like a dolly stopped for a few years during the early days of sound cinema.

Sound, being continuous also had a certain “bandwidth” requirement along with interlocking to the projector to stay in sync.

One really important thing that many fail to acknowledge and understand when the issue of frame rate and HFR comes up...

The display rate.

Does anyone think that shooting something at 24 frames per second means 24 frames per second are displayed ?

It’s much higher than that.

A film projector, typically has three blades. Each frame is actually “flashed” 3 times, and so....

The display rate is actually 72Hz. Not dissimilar to modern computer displays !

Same when you watch on TV. NTSC was a SLOWER refresh rate than most cinemas at 60hz.

A lot of Americans that come to Australia immediately notice flicker in their visual peripheral vision on pal TV at 50hz but often for used to it after a few weeks

Modern televisions usually have high refresh rates of 100hz or 120hz and also offer not very helpfully, motion interpolation features to mess with your visual perception more.

JB

Here’s a shot from 1996, when I worked on a project to recreate some of the first film footage ever shot in Australia at the Melbourne cup.

Shot in 1896 by a lumiere brothers camera person, we went to the same sites and shot with the oldest camera we could find, this wooden hand cranked Pathe camera.

That’s me popping up in the background behind my old mentor John Bowring ACS on the camera.
Attachments
8C7607A1-1581-4003-96C9-6810557232DB.jpeg
35mm hand cranked Pathe Feres camera
8C7607A1-1581-4003-96C9-6810557232DB.jpeg (298.29 KiB) Viewed 4178 times
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 6497
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSun Jan 12, 2020 11:32 am

If you have a TV which can display 24p at multiple of 24Hz then this straight away looks nicer. Our Pioneer KURO plasma had this option. Not sure why TV manufactures don't offer it (some do), but instead do motion interpolation. My Sony TV does it, but it's fairly cheap and looses too much brightness (due to need of black frame to be inserted). Modern TVs should have no problem with it, but TV manufactures focused on other things.
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 3550
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSun Jan 12, 2020 1:05 pm

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:16fps is not a movie- it's a slide show :)


If you believe that, then you've probably never seen a silent film projected at its original frame rate. Also note John Brawley's explanation above.

You can offer your own rationale for why 24fps came to be the standard, or you can look at the historical record. There were indeed cost considerations, and the sensitivity of the film at that time would have also made higher frame rates difficult. But the determining factor for that particular rate, rather than 19, 21 or 23, etc. was sound.
Offline

robedge

  • Posts: 840
  • Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:24 am
  • Location: U.S.
  • Real Name: Rob Edge

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSun Jan 12, 2020 2:01 pm

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:I more agree with this explanation:
...
https://jwsoundgroup.net/index.php?/top ... come-from/

Mentioned video is just a "loads of talking about nothing"- typical for youtube.


Ahh, John Hess, in his “talking about nothing” video, and Jeff Wexler, in your jwsoundgroup link, say the same thing :) Pretty hard to miss that if you actually watched the video before trashing it.
Video: Pocket 4K, Fujinon MK 18-55mm, Leica primes 35-135mm, Nikkor 55mm macro

Stills: Leica M3/M6/M240; Mamiya 7II; Arca Swiss 4x5/8x10

Sound: Schoeps omni & supercardiod mikes; DPA miniature omni mikes; Sound Devices 702T/MixPre-6 v.2
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 6497
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSun Jan 12, 2020 2:14 pm

Watched almost whole video (after 30min you have enough, so gave up) and didn't find it interesting or factual.
Those links are straight to the point.
Last edited by Andrew Kolakowski on Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 6497
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSun Jan 12, 2020 2:19 pm

John Paines wrote:
Andrew Kolakowski wrote:16fps is not a movie- it's a slide show :)


If you believe that, then you've probably never seen a silent film projected at its original frame rate. Also note John Brawley's explanation above.

You can offer your own rationale for why 24fps came to be the standard, or you can look at the historical record. There were indeed cost considerations, and the sensitivity of the film at that time would have also made higher frame rates difficult. But the determining factor for that particular rate, rather than 19, 21 or 23, etc. was sound.


I only argue that it's low number mainly due to costs and technology limitation not because it was a magical number chosen based on some test/research or artistic needs.
Fact that it was at the end determined by needs of audio is actually best proof for it.

Displaying 24p video at 72Hz does help, but it's still not the same as shooting and displaying 72p video.
Offline

robedge

  • Posts: 840
  • Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:24 am
  • Location: U.S.
  • Real Name: Rob Edge

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSun Jan 12, 2020 2:29 pm

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Watched almost whole video (after 30min you have enough, so gave up) and didn't find it interesting or factual.
Those links are straight to the point.


On the point that you raised, you clearly think that Hesse’s video is indeed factual. Apparently, you just don’t like the video generally, not surprising given your views :)

It would be interesting to know what Jeff Wexler’s father, Haskell Wexler, thought about this, but he doesn’t mention him in the linked post.
Video: Pocket 4K, Fujinon MK 18-55mm, Leica primes 35-135mm, Nikkor 55mm macro

Stills: Leica M3/M6/M240; Mamiya 7II; Arca Swiss 4x5/8x10

Sound: Schoeps omni & supercardiod mikes; DPA miniature omni mikes; Sound Devices 702T/MixPre-6 v.2
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 6497
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSun Jan 12, 2020 2:43 pm

Hmm...maybe it's actual video about it, not the content itself. This "YouTube's" annoying style :D
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 13379
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Cinema: HFR movies

PostSun Jan 12, 2020 4:21 pm

John Brawley wrote:... Modern televisions usually have high refresh rates of 100hz or 120hz and also offer not very helpfully, motion interpolation features to mess with your visual perception more.

JB

Here’s a shot from 1996, when I worked on a project to recreate some of the first film footage ever shot in Australia at the Melbourne cup.

Shot in 1896 by a lumiere brothers camera person, we went to the same sites and shot with the oldest camera we could find, this wooden hand cranked Pathe camera.

That’s me popping up in the background behind my old mentor John Bowring ACS on the camera.


Thanks for that photo of the wooden camera with the film magazine box. Looks like an alien creature with two eyes!

I think most recently released consumer televisions (in North America) are 120Hz with the ability to turn Off all those annoying motion enhancements. 120Hz being a good choice for both 24 fps and NTSC 30 fps material and double the 60Hz original electrical AC phase.

The worst TV motion enhancement ever invented occurred several years ago when ice hockey was becoming more popular in the United States. Someone thought the puck travelled too fast for the audience to see it when shot hard at the net so the television displayed a large ring around the puck! So bad.
Rick Lang
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2353
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSun Jan 12, 2020 4:54 pm

Never bought the myth about cinemas running films fast to get more sessions in

It really doesn’t work out that way once you do the math. Most early films were a single reel running about 10-12 mins. Later longer films become 4 reel-ers and eventually the “feature” (more than 60 mins) is born.

Though many claim variations of feature films existed before this was happening.

My early career was working a lot with projectionists.

The guy I trained under had done a university degree to become a projectionist and took it very seriously.

Cinemas usually underpowered their projectors to save power which drastically changed the colour. Projectors were generally ARC RODS not lamps don’t forget.

Same today, a lot of lamps get pushed beyond when they should retired.

But the whole more sessions by running a couple of FPS faster is a furphy I think.

JB
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 6497
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSun Jan 12, 2020 6:19 pm

You can't tell this about broadcast though. Up to 10% speed up on commercials became a norm and it has gained popularity in last few years. It's all about $.
Last edited by Andrew Kolakowski on Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 3550
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSun Jan 12, 2020 8:35 pm

If anyone cares to see a cranked camera in action, and an indication of why frame rates on silent films tend to be "flexible", this excerpt from a Buster Keaton classic ("The Cameraman") might help. Also, there's an unintentionally adjustable tripod, which was something new for the 1920s.

Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2353
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostSun Jan 12, 2020 10:57 pm

Perceptually we find that a lot of our ideas about silent era footage is tainted by always having watched it at the wrong frame rate.

Telecine and modern sound playback means it’s always playing back too fast and develops the near comic jerky ness.

I saw this magnificent documentary made by Peter Jackson in the cinema. There’s a great price at the end where he talks about taking this archival footage from the imperial war museum and giving it this treatment.

The first thing he says he did was re-time the footage. He said the frame rates were all over the place and mostly the re-timed it by simply eyeballing the speed changes.

They added sound. Jackson, a WW1 enthusiast had lip readers work out what the subjects were saying. Then, by identifying their units from their uniforms, cast actors from where those units came from to ADR the sound.

It’s hard to describe how much more engaging and emotionally connected this footage becomes once it’s re-timed to 24fps and the simple addition of sound.

The colourising is perhaps the least successful.

Watch this trailer.

At the beginning is shows archival footage presented in the way we are used to seeing. Then it goes to the restored footage, with the correct frame rate and sound.

It’s a wonderful film on its own anyway and nicely illustrates the differences in frame rate playback.

They shall not grow old.



JB
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline

robedge

  • Posts: 840
  • Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:24 am
  • Location: U.S.
  • Real Name: Rob Edge

Re: Cinema: HFR movies

PostMon Jan 13, 2020 12:53 am

John Brawley wrote:I saw this magnificent documentary made by Peter Jackson in the cinema.


Thanks for mentioning this film, which I’ve been meaning to see. Looks like Amazon, iTunes, and perhaps others, now have it for sale.

Adam Gopnik has an interesting piece about it in the New Yorker: “A few thoughts on the authenticity of Peter Jackson’s ‘They Shall Not Grow Old’”: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-co ... t-grow-old
Video: Pocket 4K, Fujinon MK 18-55mm, Leica primes 35-135mm, Nikkor 55mm macro

Stills: Leica M3/M6/M240; Mamiya 7II; Arca Swiss 4x5/8x10

Sound: Schoeps omni & supercardiod mikes; DPA miniature omni mikes; Sound Devices 702T/MixPre-6 v.2

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: eskelinen, plzbrt, SaschaH, timbutt2 and 25 guests