48 fps! — Page 6

bkev said:

Today's "make Frink feel old" post is brought to you by bkev, who was born in 1993.

Wow.

Thanks for the clarification, SilverWook. I guess I was mostly just confused by the fact that there seems to be such a big discrepancy in the look of video in the 60s and 70s and the look of digital video today. So what, exactly, is it that causes the "soap opera" effect?

Ridiculous storylines.

Ah, yes. It all makes sense now.

DominicCobb said:

SilverWook said:

I was editing video tape in college in the late 80's, early 90's, and it was always 30 fps.

Not really what I meant. Broadcast video tapes. I'm not an expert so I don't know if I'm explaining it right.

Ever watch those Twilight Zone marathons and catch one of the few episodes that looks different, like a soap? Those were shot on tape instead of film to save money.

Edit: I hate to sound stupid, but I'm not even sure what I'm talking about anymore. I was sure I read somewhere that soap operas and othe broadcast stuff was shot at 60, but, honestly, I'm not sure. The Internet is not very informative in this area.

Were soap operas really shot at 30fps? They don't look like it. 

Maybe finally seeing the Hobbit at 48 would clear things up.

Film speed = 24 fps

PAL video speed = 25 fps = 50 FIELDS per second (1 frame consists of 2 fields)

NTSC video speed = 30 fps = 60 FIELDS per second

TV's Frink said:

SilverWook said:

I was editing video tape in college in the late 80's

It always freaks me out when someone here is older than me.  I went to college in the early 90's.

It's always nice to see an old feller like you keep learning. 

DominicCobb said:

Thanks for the clarification, SilverWook. I guess I was mostly just confused by the fact that there seems to be such a big discrepancy in the look of video in the 60s and 70s and the look of digital video today. So what, exactly, is it that causes the "soap opera" effect?

A combination of low resolution of analogue video, no film grain, and the frame rate

Saw it in good old 24 fps 3D today and loved it.  Wife concurred.  However, I can't help but wonder what the 48 fps looks like.

TV's Frink said:

Going to see it in good old 24 fps tomorrow because the wife will be in tow and she's (rightfully) nervous about 48 fps.

Oh for goodness sakes, it isn't rightful. People need to stop fear mongering this stuff.

Sounds like my grandmother expressing her nervousness about getting a finger trapped in the VCR while inserting a tape. Everyone knows new and untested technology can be quite perilous.

You should go see it in 48fps sometime if you get the chance. This is a historical cinematic landmark, it makes me sad to see people missing out on it because of all the fear being tossed around.

It is quite different, I'll give them that, and it is sure to take some time for people to warm up to. But it is also pretty cool looking. I can see how people who don't understand the effect or know quite what they are looking at or anything about frame rates would find the whole thing jarring and not know why or understand the point. 48 frames a second isn't something we are used to seeing. 

Interestingly, I went to see The Hobbit is 24fps yesterday, it felt painfully blurry and I could swear all the tracking shots and other quick motion shots looked like they were skipping. I wonder if I would have noticed that if I hadn't first seen it in 48fps?

CP3S said:

TV's Frink said:

Going to see it in good old 24 fps tomorrow because the wife will be in tow and she's (rightfully) nervous about 48 fps.

Oh for goodness sakes, it isn't rightful. People need to stop fear mongering this stuff.

Hey, thanks for sharing your opinion, as silly as it may be.

So...how much free time do you have?  How often can you go see a movie?

Wow, way to get defensive by only paying attention to part of my post. I was talking about all the silly fear mongering scaring people (like you and your wife), who very likely would have really enjoyed the 48fps, from going to see it that way.

It is a little different, but it isn't going to make your head explode, cause brain damage, or permanent harm, or even really ruin the experience of the movie if you don't let it (by skyjeding the hell out of it and freaking out about how it is going to destroy cinema, your childhood, and your life all in one blow). I can imagine if there had been an all black and white release of The Wizard of Oz, people may have opted to go see that for fear of color ruining the film for them.

At least my silly opinion isn't based on whiny people freaking out over scary change.

*double post*

CP3S said:

Wow, way to get defensive by only paying attention to part of my post. I was talking about all the silly fear mongering scaring people (like you and your wife), who very likely would have really enjoyed the 48fps, from going to see it that way.

I read all your post.  Did you read mine?  Did you read the one where I pointed out we see maybe two or three movies a year in the theater and we play it safe for that reason?  And how are you such an expert on how we'd react to 48fps?

...

Why am I continuing this stupid conversation?  I'm done.

What the hell?

None of those were personal attacks on you, or even necessarily directed specifically at you. My only point was it is a shame that a lot of people are missing out on the 48fps because there is so much crap and fear being tossed around about it.

:(

OK, fair enough.

It's amusing how some people are so openly hostile about 48 frames, like it raped their moms or something. I don't get it. Personally, I would be glad if I never saw a 24FPS film again.

This is coming from a guy who carries a piece of super-16mm negative in his wallet. It was the first piece of film I shot, because I was in the camera union, the International Cinematographer's Guild, and film was so, so special, it was my life. I found the negative of that film in the trim bin of the editing room, back when we still shot, cut and finished on film--I had to break into the editing room to do so, but it was literally garbage so no one cared. I was a film guy, and prided myself on being an expert on film, not this video crap. That piece of negative has been with me for a decade now, even if its all scratched up and has beer stains on it by now. I also stole some other trims and short ends and things, but if you open up my wallet right now you will find that 10 frame length of 16mm film. It's my good luck charm. I felt that I was really lucky in the film industry, and in life, so I kept it with me all these years, and the only time that piece of film will end up in the garbage is when I am dead.

And so given all those variables it's not a flippant remark when I say this. It's actually something that I never thought I'd be saying in 2006. But fuck film. It's dead. And thank god.

As good looking as the hobbit in 5k 48 and 3d and all that jazz was, it still did not hold a candle to 70mm.

I don't think film is dead just yet.

Also is it just me or was this an INCREDIBLY LOUD film? I thought it was just the theater cranking the volume to unhearable/dangerous levels like they usually do, but this theater has a good track record with volume levels and I've seen several films with great volume levels in there. I also noticed the quiet scenes were just about right, so I'm thinking it was just a problem with the actual mixing of the film.