Speculation Will they shoot Episode VII in 48 fps?

If anyone has seen the frame interpolation effect on modern HD TVs, you'll know that higher frame rates do indeed add a "soap opera" look to the image.

I'm hoping for a traditional 24 fps.

 

Well, the Hobbit "debacle" as you call it was unfinished, ungraded footage. Today is the premiere in NZ and on Dec 3rd the embargo lifts and the first reviews will be out. Let's keep an open mind until then. I have my premiere tickets for Dec. the 12th for an 48fps 3D showing and am looking forward to it.
I have no problem with headaches from 3d (though I hate 3d post-conversion for the sake of it) but I heard that people who suffer from it won't from 48fps.

 

The only thing that worries me is that it will seem unnatural at that high a framerate. It's so precise, our eyes will perceive it as something unreal. This could then lead to artificially "blurring" motion and more sped up zooms and jumps to "cover". Which will make it look more wonky. I'll give it a shot, and won't be a negative ninny yet, but I am concerned about the high framerate on a big theater screen.

 

The idea is that 48 fps stabilises the image for the purposes of 3D. The downside is a level of immediacy normally associated with video (e.g. soap operas). I can't see how colour grading can fix this issue.

IMHO, films--especially fantasies--should try to avoid immediacy, not move towards it.

 

And no one is ever going to watch these films in 3D after theatres, so it shows incredible lack of foresight about how the films will look for most people for the rest of foreseeable history.

And I say "debacle" because they had intended to try to force every theatre into upgrading for The Hobbit, but it turns out many theatres just don't see the point. So the film isn't even going to be seen in 48fps by that many people.

But yes, on the whole, it only exists to reduce eyestrain for 3D. And since 3D is ridiculous and pointless in the first place, it's one of many reasons I consider it a horrible move. It's bad enough them compromising the visuals of The Hobbit. If Lucasfilm does that to Star Wars, I am going to be a whole new level of pissed.

 

Do we know how 24fps versions of films shot at 48fps will look? If there's no difference between that and something shot at 24fps, I don't see a problem.

I'm curious to see how it works for The Hobbit but I'd rather have my 9 Star Wars films look as consistent as possible.

 

The answer to that is to just watch the trailers for The Hobbit and decide for yourself. The footage is filmed in 48fps and the trailers are scaled back down to 24fps so they can run on current cinema equipment. A lot of people ranted about how converting 48fps to 24fps looks awful, but from what I have seen it looks pretty stellar. A little too clean if I had to nit pick, but I'm pretty sure that has more to do with the resolution than the frame rate.

 

WHAT DEBACLE ???? the film is only just having it's world premier .

 

How on Urf can 48fps converted to 24fps look either awful? Or stellar, for that matter? How come it won't just look the same as something that was shot in 24fps?

 

I meant that the cinematography itself looks stellar, without bad picture quality interfering with my enjoyment of the film (Or what I have seen of it to be more precise). You are, of course, quite right. 48fps converted to 24fps shouldn't look any different to native 24 fps. And in my opinion it doesn't.

 

Oh, OK! Gotcha, sorry.

FWIW, I'm very interested in seeing it—a few times, before making up my mind about it. My understanding is that the "Avatar" sequels will also be in 48fps, I'm interested in seeing that as well.

 

Yeah. "debacle" is an extreme over-reaction. According to THR its getting rave reviews to include the higher frame rate:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...on-stars-fans-rave-reviews-new-zealand-394992

 

I'll say it again.

SW films have always pushed the envelope of projection tech available. 48 fps is a no brainer imho, there's nothing uglier than having to endure the tear when camera moves fast in traditional 24 fps.

If the films will have 3d then it's also a no brainer as this helps make 3d more enjoyable, regardless if you hate it or not.

Many people I know still don't get the need for BLUEray or 256+ Hz tv. They don't see the point. I think they're just getting old and resisting change.
Same arguments came when color and sound were first introduced to cinema.

Also about using digital cameras and digital editing.

 

How do you throw dice? That's interesting. Don't think I've seen that before.

 

Unless The Hobbit in 48 fps really blows everyone's mind, I don't think they'll do it for SW. It seems there's really only a couple directors that are invested in this enhanced frame rate idea for now anyways. It will be interesting to see what the general opinion is about 48 fps after The Hobbit is in and out of theaters.

Personally, I'm excited for it-it's unprecedented, and supposedly it's supposed to make 3D look amazing! (Putting aside the fact that the movie was actually filmed with 3D cameras-same as Avatar.) Either way-I'm sure The Hobbit will be the Oscar winner for special effects this year, if for no other reason than based purely on the innovative methods used.

I'm not going to base my opinion off what a handful of reporters saw from a 4 minute clip of unfinished material. But as far as whether or not SW should be in 48 fps, I guess we'll have to see!

This also raises the question: Will it be in 3D? My guess is: absolutely. Will it actually be FILMED with 3D cameras? I hope so, but even if not-it could still be great. Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader was in 3D (done in post production) and I think it looked great. And, that was two years ago!

 

I'm pretty sure that has more to do with the frame rate than the resolution.

I'm with you on blu-ray, although personally I don't see the point and in fact actively dislike the aesthetic quality of 256Hz (or even 48Hz in cinema) because of the perceptual affect it has on the medium. Personally I'm not convinced by the whole trend to push for increased "realism" in cinema, in many ways I think its counterintuitive and a waste of time and effort. If I were to start getting into a philosophy of art headspace I might almost argue that pushing for increased perceptual realism in Hollywood movies is immoral, but I don't think there's many here that would follow me down that particular rabbit hole.

 

You mean they're going to shoot it with regular 35mm film stock then?

 

'The Hobbit' will usher in a new technology at movie theaters

 

If they are using it mostly for 3D I agree just don't bother.

I guess we'll see the reaction for The Hobbit, and I do realize change=sucks for most people, at least initially.

 

I think nostalgia is what causes this. Plus the fact that we're getting old!
I'm getting too old for this 48 fps thing...

It's also funny some people say that 48 fps makes movies look like soaps. Isn't SW supposed to be a soap opera in space?

I seem to recall the flanneled one referring thus to SW

 

I'm indifferent as long as it looks good and doesn't look like someone vomited all over the screen.

 

Yeah, Space Opera is the sub-genre; basically fantasy set in space.

Given that soaps look like crap. They look live. I dont want SW to look live, but I'm up for new tech.

This is stupid IMO. If you don't want the negative feedback then show them a finsihed product.

 

If it is not shot in at least 4K then I will be seriously disappointed. 2K is practically the same resolution as BluRay and part of the experience of seeing a movie in a real movie theatre is to be able to get a better experience than at home.

A 35 mm film (22 mm effective width) that you see in a movie theatre is considered to have about the same resolution as 2K. A film frame could theoretically have more resolution, but what you see in the theatre has usually been copied a few generations. The original trilogy contained many effects shots that were copied on top of each other many times, but most (if not all) had been shot in Vistavision (36 mm effective width) to reduce some of the quality degradation. Then, the movies were printed and projected in 70 mm film in certain theatres.

I prefer traditional 2D over the current standard of 3D cinema.
The current cinema technology is limited in that there is always some "cross-talk" (blending) between left and right images. Some theatres don't even have people or equipment that are capable of projecting 3D without too much cross-talk.
There are more issues with 3D. In 2D you can have a blurry foreground and that is fine. In 3D, the spectator may try to focus on something else than the main action, so the cinematographer needs to put everything in the frame to be in focus or the experience will be weird.
In 3D you can't have too many things moving at once, or the eye will not be able to adjust to the action. This (should) limit the filmmakers in what kinds of scenes that they can shoot and how they can composite action shots. I have heard claims that going to 48 fps would alleviate some of this problem, however.
When I saw The Phantom Menace in 3D earlier this year, there was noticable crosstalk, blurry parts of the frame now and then and the lightsaber fight at the end wasn't easy to follow. It was an awful blurry mess.
When I went to see Prometheus earlier this year (at opening night, midnight premiere), there was so much cross-talk that I asked for the ticket price back - and got it. I had brought special 2D glasses to the cinema just in case, but the crosstalk had made them useless. I could go and see it in 2D later, but the point of seeing it on opening night was lost. You can go on opening night only once.

If I am paying full price for a movie ticket in a cinema then I don't want a sub-par picture experience.
If I am going to see a movie in 3D, then there'd better be 0.00000% crosstalk, at least 4K/48fps and the full frame in focus!

 

I recall reading somewhere that a fourth-gen 35mm print effectively has the same resolution as 1080p. Is that true?

 

Parts of the Holiday Special look like a soap opera. Then again that doesn't exist...