Speculation Will they shoot Episode VII in 48 fps?

Discussion in 'Star Wars: Episode VII and Beyond (Archive)' started by Garth Maul, Nov 27, 2012.

  1. Count Yubnub Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 1, 2012
    star 4

    Say, do you happen to know how this works with monitors and TVs? If a film has 24FPS and you play it on a TV with a 60Hz refresh rate (or on a monitor with an 80Hz refresh rate), how does that work?
  2. solojones Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 9
    I just can't wait until The Hobbit is released and people can see for themselves the putrid awfulness of 48fps that I've been trying to explain to people since the announcement it was being shot that way was made. It's even worse because they also shot it at a 270 shutter angle, the equivalent of a 135 shutter angle for normal 24fps, which is just enough to be able to notice that the motion is less blurred and 'off', but not enough to look like an actual stylistic choice. Having seen 12 minutes of the film in 24fps at Comic Con, I can confirm that while the 24fps version will look better, it's still got some weird moments when there's fast motion.

    This whole thing is rubbish. I genuinely think it's about to blow up in their faces and no one will be trying this again. It'll go down alongside Smell-O-Vision in the annals of weird attempts at film 'innovation' that were both unnecessary and actually detrimental. This should never, ever have been experimented with on these films. You can sure as hell bet Lucasfilm won't think of it for the ST after the next couple weeks.

    A friend of mine was just on set with an extremely famous actor/director yesterday, and they had a conversation about how awful 48fps is, and the fact that is will never catch on. If people like this realize how awful it is, it's never catching on.
    Artoo-Dion likes this.
  3. SithLordDarthRichie London CR

    Chapter Rep
    Member Since:
    Oct 3, 2003
    star 8
    I feel bad for all the cinemas that have had to upgrade their projectors (I'm told it's not exactly cheap either, we only got one done), just for this and Life of Pi if it's likely to make no significant difference to the showing quality and most people likely won't notice it anyway.

    The worst thing is if more money is going to be charged specifically for 48fps 3D showings, I haven't heard if this is the case yet. Certainly doesn't seem to have been a big public interest in the format from what I've seen, maybe 2 people have asked if we're doing it.

    If the new SW movies are in IMAX, 48fps won't be needed since the 3D will actually be decent.
  4. solojones Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 9
    There isn't a wide public interest, no. And after people start complaining about it (most likely to theatre managers), I don't think it's going to be welcome many places anymore.

    IMAX I would be totally okay with, though I'd rather it be IMAX film like TDKR which looked so much better that way than digital... that obviously wouldn't happen. SW has been digital for a long time anyhow, so that's okay.
  5. LawJedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 11, 2009
    star 4
    @SithLordDarthRichie my local chain is especially annoying, because they were very quick to embrace digitial projection, 3D, and HFR3D, but have yet to build an IMAX screen of any sort. :oops:
  6. Artoo-Dion Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2009
    star 4
    The thing is, people won't know exactly why it looks so "off". Bad acting? Cheap sets? Poor special effects? They won't be able to put their finger on what's wrong and will probably blame other things.
  7. SithLordDarthRichie London CR

    Chapter Rep
    Member Since:
    Oct 3, 2003
    star 8
    That's probably down to the IMAX people and whether they think it is viable to have one there. Plus they may have a specific contract with one chain as they do here.

    I never saw IMAX AOTC, but I would very much hope to see the ST done that way. TPM even in converted RealD 3D was not bad, so properly filmed stuff should be even better.
    Although 2D in IMAX would be fine, I'm not a huge fan of 3D overall.
    Last edited by SithLordDarthRichie, Dec 4, 2012
  8. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    IMAX AOTC was a waste of time, IMO. All the connective tissue, so to speak, is gone.
  9. LawJedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 11, 2009
    star 4
    Well it's the dominant and only chain in the area, which is a decent sized metropolitan area (Memphis, TN). By comparison, both the nearby Nashville and (much smaller) Little Rock markets have IMAX screens with different chains.
  10. Artoo-Dion Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2009
    star 4
    Here's Variety's take:

  11. solojones Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 9
    Precisely as expected. If I want to watch filmed plays, I'll dig into the BBC's 70's archive, thanks.
    Artoo-Dion likes this.
  12. InterestingLurker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 15, 2011
    star 4
    Why not just simply have a choice between the two?
    Last edited by InterestingLurker, Dec 4, 2012
  13. Artoo-Dion Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2009
    star 4
    solojones is suggesting that the shutter angle chosen on The Hobbit has reduced the motion blur on the 24 fps version.

    My question would be, can you shoot in 48 fps and still have a 24 fps version that looks as good as if it were shot natively at 24 fps?
  14. LawJedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 11, 2009
    star 4
    Another article just suggested that they actually have to go in and add digital blur to the 24fps version to make it look normal. That's just... :oops:
  15. Artoo-Dion Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2009
    star 4
    So basically you get to choose from two different styles of crappy image. Not much of a choice, really.
  16. LawJedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 11, 2009
    star 4
    To be fair, the same article said that the digital blur was effective, and the 24fps print looked fine. But yeah, this seems like a whole bunch of unnecessary.
  17. Count Yubnub Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 1, 2012
    star 4
    Perhaps I'm being naive once again, but it strikes me that interpolating from 48fps to 24fps and adding some kind of digital motion blur would be a fairly straightforward algorithm... No?
  18. Artoo-Dion Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2009
    star 4
    Sure, but it's a pretty topsy-turvy world when the new tech requires you to run a digital motion-blur algorithm while reducing the source to 24 fps just to get the same pleasing image a regular camera produces with no effort at all.
    Count Yubnub and LawJedi like this.
  19. LawJedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 11, 2009
    star 4
    I wasn't in awe of the difficulty of the process (I'm not tech savvy enough to understand it), but the motivation to do so. Like I said, the reviews of the 24fps prints saw no complaints. But it seems incredibly strange to have to dumb down the tech for the eyes of an "older" generation. Especially when getting rid of that blur is supposed to be a selling point of that tech.

    I'm not denying that this might end up being a generational debate, with younger audiences accepting the new tech. But I do question the motives. I question the artistic merit of wanting to movies to "look more realistic" in this fashion. I don't think that's necessarily the ideal goal for filmmaking, nor is it going to be the result of this tech in the near future. A lot of these critiques are saying that we're going to have to rethink set design, costuming, and lighting over the next few years. This is doable, and obviously it was done for the transition from BW to color, or for SD TV to HD TV.

    But it's not happening overnight. SW is starting production fairly soon. More than anything, I question how this has any benefit for fantasy fiction like SW, when we already have enough of a fanbase squealing in disdain about prequels and CGI "not feeling real."
    Last edited by LawJedi, Dec 4, 2012
    Count Yubnub and Artoo-Dion like this.
  20. LawJedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 11, 2009
    star 4
    There was a good point being made in a Hobbit review. PJ went to such extremes to make the Hobbit look like the LOTR movies: replicating set design, costumes, locations, and even actors. Is it so out of sorts, especially considering these critiques, to suggest that the 24 fps look was an important ingredient in that mix? Certainly Lucas would be lambasted for those inconsistencies, as he was with the transition to digital film and CGI methods. A day hasn't gone by on this forum for over a decade without someone complaining that the PT just doesn't look like the OT. So I think it's fair to keep an eye out for these issues of consistency.
    Last edited by LawJedi, Dec 4, 2012
  21. Doug625 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 9, 2012
    star 1
    I hope not. I have heard several reviews about "The Hobbit" and most did not like it at all. They said even by the time the film was over they could not get used to it and it actually was annoying. Also, many years ago 24fps became the standard for a reason, it looked great, it was not because of a lack of technology.
    Last edited by Doug625, Dec 4, 2012
  22. Count Yubnub Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 1, 2012
    star 4

    I'm assuming the "dumbing down" is just for practical purposes. For distribution to theaters who don't have the option to play 48FPS. For audiences to be able to pick and choose (so that the marketing people will be able to better target future projects...). For home theater purposes, for players that can't play 48FPS. And, for the simplest reason, comparison purposes.

    I mean, "Avatar" and other films were shot in 3D, which IMO is also a very promising movie technology that's having its birth pangs. That also needed to be "dumbed down" for 2D distribution and home theater release (I own the 2D Blu-ray version, and I can't help but wonder "which eye" I'm watching—or does it alternate between scenes? Does anybody know? Also, there are major lighting issues between 2D and 3D). I'm assuming this is the same thing: just apply an algorithm, and POOF, backwards compatibility with no hassles.

    I just think there might be a great future for high frame rates even if "The Hobbit" sucks (or maybe variable frame rates)—even for movies that depend on "painterly" images like genre movies such as Star Wars. I'd hate the see the baby thrown out with the bathwater because of birth pangs [face_thinking] . Perhaps James Cameron, for instance, will learn from The Hobbit's failures for his "Avatar" sequels, who knows.

    Anyway, I know very little about this stuff but I find it very interesting.
    Last edited by Count Yubnub, Dec 4, 2012
    LawJedi likes this.
  23. solojones Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 9
    It's not just as simple as applying and algorithm, though. For one thing, just as there's no way to light for both 2D and 3D at the same time, the framerate would greatly affect that as well. Trust me, I've shot at high frame rates before (up to about 60), and it affects a lot of stuff. Granted, I was shooting 35mm film and doing the usual thing of shooting at hfr but playing back at 24fps in order to do in-camera slow motion. But the lighting principles are the same.

    I hope that they did two different color gradings, because the 2D graded version we've seen now in trailers and the like looks pretty good, certainly miles better than the original, only somewhat graded footage I saw at Comic Con. But regardless, yeah, it's making a lot of extra work for yourselves so that... what, you could wind up with a super special 48fps version that most people will never see and which looks like crap? Brilliant.
    Artoo-Dion likes this.
  24. LawJedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 11, 2009
    star 4
    Wow. So while they figure out how to more effectively light and set dress for 48fps, we have to deal with less artistically cohesive 24fps prints?
  25. Count Yubnub Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 1, 2012
    star 4
    OK... so, do you not see any future for high frame rate, or variable frame rate, for movie making—genre and/or otherwise?