logo Sign In

48 fps! — Page 7

Author
Time
 (Edited)

xhonzi said:

I am quite curious about this process.  Back when I did 3D animation, the motion blur algorithms were new and didn't quite have the right look.  But heaven forbid you rendered without motion blur.  Even 30fps looked quite jumpy without it.  Also- Looney Tunes and other old school animation was drawn at 12fps, with every frame doubled to get to 24.  So they had to hand draw a lot of motion blur in, and they were pioneers in the art.

Yeah, I am very curious about the process too. A few days before The Hobbit came out, I was at a friend's house and we were talking about the 48fps thing, my friend's wife swore up and down that the movie was actually filmed twice, with two cameras mounted together, one filming in 24fps and the other recording in 48fps and there was no convincing her this wasn't the case. Because of this conversation, I did a google search to try to read more about the conversion process and came up with nothing substantial or even informative.

 

BmB said:

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.

Really? A candle? I've never seen a 70mm film that looked like that.

Author
Time

I finally saw the Hobbit, in old fashioned 24fps. The comments here and elsewhere were not very encouraging about the 48fps - though I still have an academic interest in seeing it in that format. Maybe after my next paycheck. And I don't know if I was primed to notice or it was particularly glaring, but the motion blur in some big scenes was quite irritating.

As a movie, it was...entertaining. But I couldn't help but feel it had too many of the worst characteristics of the PT. Maybe I'll dig up my Hobbit thread to complain in there :P

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

There is also a Tolkein thread you could use.  I tried keeping your Hobbit thread going, but it's hard to do all alone, you lazy bum!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The lenses they use to shoot in 3D might give someone the illusion it's two cameras side by side.

http://www.stereofinland.com/the-hobbit-3d-production-diary/

The side view of the camera clearly shows one unit behind the lens though.

Shooting a movie twice wasn't unheard of in the early 50's when it was uncertain if new costly widescreen processes would catch on. But this actually entailed shooting every scene twice, and resetting for each take with the other camera, not having two cameras side by side. The "flat" versions of these films are sometimes harder to see today than the scope version.

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Well that explains my parents' two very obviously different versions of Oklahoma.  I remember it obviously using different line deliveries.  Interesting.  Wikipedia confirms that's the reason.

Author
Time

The Room was shot twice, with HD and 35mm, because Tommy Wiseau didn't understand the difference.

Also IMAX is larger than 70mm. That's part of the reason the format no longer exists. It's technically inferior.

Author
Time

Whoa! Are both versions of The Room available? Or is the 35mm one just seen in theaters and the HD one used in home video? I kind of want to side by side compare now, but I don't suppose there is any reason for a 35mm transfer to exist

It is crazy the kind of things that can happen when a not so bright or talented person who fancies himself quite bright and talented gets his hands on too much money. Oh, Tommy.

 

Mrebo said:

I finally saw the Hobbit, in old fashioned 24fps. The comments here and elsewhere were not very encouraging about the 48fps

*Cries and dreams of a more enlightened and open world in the future*

Author
Time

Both versions of The Room aren't available, just the standard one. I could be mistaken, but I think the actual movie itself uses footage from both formats depending on which version Wiseau thought looked best. I could be wrong about that, but I remember someone telling me that. I'm not sure if they filmed both 35mm and HD simultaneously, or if they actually shot two distinct versions of each scene.

Author
Time

CP3S said:

It is crazy the kind of things that can happen when a not so bright or talented person who fancies himself quite bright and talented gets his hands on too much money. Oh, Tommy.

The sad part is that he's as sketchy a businessman as he is a filmmaker. He won't say where his money came from, but the one hint he did drop was that part of it came from importing or exporting motorcycle jackets. I get the hint that he dealt in knockoffs. No one really knows what he did for a living but it certainly seems to be an illegal or semi-legal trade of some kind. He seems like just the type of guy to be in such a business.

Author
Time

Problem is even the film based IMAX venues are slowly going digital. The studios don't want to pay to have prints made anymore. IIRC, Christopher Nolan wanted prints to be made for Dark Knight Rises.

There probably never would have been 70mm prints of Titanic had James Cameron not requested it. That was about the last gasp of first run 70mm in the U.S.

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

I didn't know there even were prints made. Now that I think about it, it's kind of surprising Cameron didn't actually film Titanic in 65mm. That would have been pretty sweet.

Author
Time

zombie84 said:

I didn't know there even were prints made. Now that I think about it, it's kind of surprising Cameron didn't actually film Titanic in 65mm. That would have been pretty sweet.

He's been in love with Super 35 far too long for that. ;)

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Was Titanic Super 35? I forgot he was into that. In a weird way, it helped keep his movies very visceral because of the grain. I think it was Xhonzi that said in the Last Movie thread he was glad that Cameron kept T2 rough around the edges to match the first film. I disagree with that, I think T2 is way too slick to even compare to T1, but it's that grainy, fuzzy quality that I think Xhonzi was catching onto, had T2 been filmed anamorphic it would have looked amazing but also would have highlighted the differences even more. That's one reason I regret the Aliens blu-ray, 1986 was a bad year for film stocks, especially on 35mm, but that grainy super35 quality is what I really loved about Terminator and Aliens, it gave them a certain documentary-like, grindhouse feel that matched the quick cutting and handheld camerawork.

I never felt that way about Titanic, but I guess by 1996 technology was just cleaner in general.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

zombie84 said:

Both versions of The Room aren't available, just the standard one. I could be mistaken, but I think the actual movie itself uses footage from both formats depending on which version Wiseau thought looked best. I could be wrong about that, but I remember someone telling me that. I'm not sure if they filmed both 35mm and HD simultaneously, or if they actually shot two distinct versions of each scene.

I remember reading about it sometime ago, I wish I could find the source to quote directly. Apparently the crew was given one (?) film camera to shoot the movie and one HD video camera to shoot backstage, as customary. We can assume Tommy didn't understand about the backstage part or simply did not care, and just shot the movie with both cameras, possibly alternating one with the other.

Author
Time

I thought they actually did HD and 35mm tests and Wiseau didn't understand the difference, so to solve the dilemma he ordered that the film be shot in both formats, "just in case." It's no wonder there are conflicting reports--no one on the crew was around for the whole production. He fired the whole crew, twice.

Author
Time

Just the mere fact alone that nobody has been able to find out where Tommy Wiseau is actually from (he says New Orleans) is quite amazing in this day and age.

Just for the sake of knowledge here's what a quick search on google spits out:

 

Wikipedia says:

The Room originated as a play, completed by Tommy Wiseau in 2001.[1][12] Wiseau then adapted the play into a 500-page book, which he was unable to get published.[7] Frustrated, Wiseau decided to adapt the work into a film, which he would then produce himself in order to maintain total control over the project.[7] Wiseau has been secretive about exactly how he obtained the funding for the project, but he did tellEntertainment Weekly that he made some of the money by importing leather jackets from Korea.[1] He eventually amassed $6 million, all of which was spent on production and marketing.[1] Wiseau has claimed that the reason the film was relatively expensive was because many members of the cast and crew had to be replaced, and each of the cast members had several understudies.[13]

According to Greg Ellery, Wiseau came to the Birns and Sawyer film lot, rented a studio, and bought a "complete Beginning Director package," which included the purchase of a brand new film camera."[14] Wiseau, confused about the differences between 35 mm film and high-definition video, decided to shoot the entire film in both formats with two cameras.[7]


Imdb says:

Shot simultaneously on 35 mm film and high-definition video. Tommy Wiseau was confused about the differences between the formats, so he used both cameras on the same mount. He also purchased the cameras, instead of renting them as film productions usually do. 


Tommy himself said:

... I wanted to do it my way, okay? My way or the highway, you know the story. So basically, I said, "No, I have to do it my way," and I don't know if you heard, [but] we had issues with the crew, etc., etc. So that's what I decided to do, and plus, The Room was shot on the two cameras at the same time: 35 [millimeter film] and HD... and for your information, on the DVD [special features] I say I'm confused. Let me stress that entire Hollywood was confused. It's nothing wrong to say that you were confused because, long story short with the cameras topic, the film is the film, that's the bottom line. But as you know in today's industry standard, we have HD and the film and usually we combine performance if we do the feature movie. The Room is the only one feature movie shot at the same time. Both cameras at the same time.


And again in a later interview:

People don't understand, for example, technical aspects of "The Room." That I shot it in two formats: HD and 35mm. What you see in the theater is a 35mm format. Why? Because it's better, etc, etc. But I still shot it on both formats. It's not just because I said so. It's because every time in Hollywood, they didn't want anything in HD, for your information. That's a fact. When you go way, way back you can see certain data that explains that Hollywood is afraid. Again, the system was set up on 35mm. Keep in mind, by now we convert some of the classic movies to HD. But the fact is fact. Film is the film. You know? You cannot change that. I don't care how much you improve the technology that you have today. A lot of people are shooting on HD, as you know. It seems to me we can use technology for art. But it's very expensive. That's another aspect that people don't realize. I don't care who you are, you will still spend money. I don't care what camera you use. You know, you can use your iPhone and shoot some scenes. But the fact is you can't bring it to 35mm because it's grainy, etc, etc. I always encourage people and say before you do something, please do research first. That's about directing and acting and anything you do. Anyway, continue, move on [laughs]...

 

Author
Time

I wonder if the net had existed back then, if there would have been lots of "wide-screen gives me a headache" and "how come no directors discuss the story telling aspects of technicolor, it's just a money making gimmick?" discussions. 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

CP3S said:

Really? A candle? I've never seen a 70mm film that looked like that.


A candle. All things being equal, The Hobbit was quite blurry even if it's the sharpest digital film I've ever seen.

70mm is more like a window into another world with perfect clarity. That's really all I can say about it. Until digital can do that, it will continue to be second rate.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Blurry? I saw no blurriness. It was probably the sharpest image I have ever seen. Perhaps my experiences with 70mm are too limited.

I am a big fan of film myself and am usually one of the first to argue its superiority, but I feel like they got me on this one. If all digital films look at least that good in the future, I have no problems saying goodbye to film.

Author
Time

Yeah, The Hobbit was probably the best looking movie I have seen. It was a level of clarity beyond anything. I think you are romanticizing 70mm. A lot of 70mm are grainy and look pretty bad. It's definitely not clear. Film can't be clear due to the existance of grain.

Author
Time

TheBoost said:

I wonder if the net had existed back then, if there would have been lots of "wide-screen gives me a headache" and "how come no directors discuss the story telling aspects of technicolor, it's just a money making gimmick?" discussions. 

The answer is yes, because commentators of the time actually did. Sound killed the movies, then colour, then widescreen, now it's 3D and high frame rate. Historically speaking when it comes to movies, groups of people have always resisted the introduction of a new element.

Author
Time

CP3S said:

Blurry? I saw no blurriness. It was probably the sharpest image I have ever seen. Perhaps my experiences with 70mm are too limited.

There was a very obvious softness around a lot of edges. Particularly apparant in slow scenes. It wasn't much but it's still enough to remind that you are seeing a projected image. Better than 35mm, certainly. But not a candle to 70mm.

zombie84 said:

Yeah, The Hobbit was probably the best looking movie I have seen. It was a level of clarity beyond anything. I think you are romanticizing 70mm. A lot of 70mm are grainy and look pretty bad. It's definitely not clear. Film can't be clear due to the existance of grain.

Not all film is created equal. I'm sure there's 70mm material out there that is quite terrible. Especially as it begins to age. But the 70mm stuff I saw was out of this world, very same screen actually (only 70mm capable theather in the country) so it was pretty easy to do a 1:1 comparison in my head.

I think I read something, maybe on here? Maybe some HTPC site or something, don't recall. But basically grain does not preclude clarity, it fosters it. The random sampling that grain provides essentially doubles the apparent clarity for the same amount of points because they can fall directly on whatever feature they represent and make a more faithful representation than an ordered grid of pixels. Yeah it was up in a thread about scanning Star Wars?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well, the image is composed of grain, so the detail is made up of grain. But obviously an image with no grain will be clearer than an image with grain. The digital equivalent is noise, but on high end cameras, and Hobbit in particular, there was no noise.

I would venture to say you just saw a lousy screening. I'll grant you that I went to one of only 4 or 5 theaters in the country showing the film in such high quality (IMAX+3D+HFR) but softening around the edges is due to the projector or print. Especially if it was 35mm that is common, but it could be a poor lens on the projector as well.

Anyway, I've seen a bunch of 70mm, and not old, faded beat up prints, but 70mm in no way at all rivals, let alone surpasses modern IMAX, especially from high-res (ie 4K+) HD, digital projections, assuming the equipment is in good order. Just speaking in terms of science, it's literally not possible when you have such pristine looking films like Prometheus and Hobbit. It doesn't help that most 70mm are blow-ups, with an extra three optical stages on top of the 35mm versions. I guess if you could project the negative it would be different, but almost no one has seen what a negative projection looks like (I have, but only for test footage).