HFR is coming to town

HFR (High Frame Rate), being pushed by Douglas Trumbull (2001) and James Cameron (Avatar) is verging on the edge of introduction. It uses 48 or 60 fps rather than the current value, and thus it improves resolution and "uses more film" which are both good for us.

Lets hope that it moves forward and captures the market. And lets hope that they don't do it digitally!

PE

huh? how does it improve resolution without using a larger negative?
avatar wasn't shot on film, fyi

Higer frame rate increases resolution of movements (object- or camera-wise).

"The Hobbit" was shot at 48fps and most certainly was not shot on film, and neither was Avatar which was shot on a digital 3D camera.

... an array of high-resolution RED Epic cameras recording video at 5,120-by-2,700-pixel resolution, and at 48 fps ...

Click to expand...

Both films were dropped down to standard speeds for film prints for most theaters that don't have the expensive projectors required.

It only increases temporal resolution, not spatial.

PS: the high speed showings of the Hobbit movie(s) still cause a lot of debate over whether the higher playback speed is better, worse, or just different.

No other filmmaker in the intervening years has used this format, which hardly counts as a landslide of positive opinion from the guild. Also, in the meantime, at least one major franchise (aka Star Wars) is specifically going to shoot to film at standard speeds and not digital because they don't like the look one little bit.

I can't stand the look of 30fps+ in cinematic applications. In other media, such as video games or television, it's fine, but there's something about the look of a movie playing at 30+fps that is extremely offputting to me...it almost imparts a low-budget look in my opinion.

I thought the latest Hobbit in HFR looked awesome - the first one made me a little seasick because it looked at times like the film had been speeded up. I read that Peter Jackson adjusted the second film so it looked more 'film like' and by golly it seems to have worked, the HFR was not obvious at all, which I guess is the point.

Douglas Trumbull used 60fps in his "rides" for the theme parks in Las Vegas and Orlando. It is all film. He says that it give an almost 3D quality to 2D images and for 3D is superb.

And, even if shot using digital, the films were projected using print film. At this time and for the foreseeable future, most theaters will be analog.

I know the arguments pro and con and all of the comments above, but this is possibly a new trend that I am just going to be open minded about and hope that something good for film comes of it.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Douglas Trumbull used 60fps in his "rides" for the theme parks in Las Vegas and Orlando. It is all film. He says that it give an almost 3D quality to 2D images and for 3D is superb.

And, even if shot using digital, the films were projected using print film. At this time and for the foreseeable future, most theaters will be analog.

I know the arguments pro and con and all of the comments above, but this is possibly a new trend that I am just going to be open minded about and hope that something good for film comes of it.

PE

Click to expand...

I thought most theatres would be converted over to digital by 2015. Isnt that the set conversion date?

Should the higher frame rate become the new standard then death will come knocking on films door not the other way. Higher frame rates means the death of film not the survival twice the frame rate means twice the cost meaning less people will be able to afford a film shoot. Also a higher frame rate makes the film look more like digital (ultra realistic and sharp) than film imo. Europe has gone nearly 80% digital cinema. Higher frame rate also favours digital as most digital cine cameras have a natively higher frame rate than 24/25 fps. Most cine film cameras are only truly Sync sound between 24 to 32 fps all faster cameras are MOS and Showscan requires twice the frame rate too bad that no current Sync Sound camera can handle that speed. I congratulate the digital guys they finally found a way to kill off film.

Nearly forgot film projectors in cinemas have a fixed frame rate of either 24 or 25 fps so the few remaining analogue cinemas would have to retrofit their projectors something they won't be able to afford. In short they have to make the move to digital or perish.

MDR said:

Nearly forgot film projectors in cinemas have a fixed frame rate of either 24 or 25 fps so the few remaining analogue cinemas would have to retrofit their projectors something they won't be able to afford. In short they have to make the move to digital or perish.

Click to expand...

and from what i remember, the cinemas have already installed new projectors at a gigantic expense in the past few years ..
so i guess the small cinemas (not mega corp ) will probably go under, after another huge dump of $$

Well, the article I read, and the conversation I had with Douglass Trumbull gave some measure of hope for film. They did not all of the drawbacks mentioned, and two more. At the higher frame rate, tearoffs with acetate films occur frequently and conversion to Estar increases cost and may cause damage to the hardware.

So, perhaps I was just being optimistic.

As for cost of the stock, the storage cost goes down as digital storage runs about 10x film storage and if you store a digital film shot at 60FPS you do have to convert it to film at the same speed. Digital storage would work but would be more expensive and less reliable.

Have high hopes and be optimistic. Thanks for the comments.

PE

.Using film to archive the movies is the only way I can imagine an increase in film use. Five or six archival copies still won't equal the thousands of release prints that used to be done and were a thorn in the producers behind. Digital is the producers medium not necessarely the film makers medium
Projection is already done with Polyester/Estar bases. The higher speed is just something that the older projectors can't do. Most remaining Analogue cinemas use old machines some even 50 years old updated with a dolby System that's it. 60fps means a major upgrade around 30 to 100K if not more.
I see a future for archiving on film but I also see a future without film as origination and presentation medium

I wish this crap would just go away--high frame rates look terrible for movies. Trumbull has been trying to promote this for years and fortunately he's been mostly ignored. What has been wildly successful is digital video emulating 24fps film. Why? Because it looks good! If high frame rate were to become popular (and I don't see that happening), it would all be done in digital.

MDR said:

.Using film to archive the movies is the only way I can imagine an increase in film use. Five or six archival copies still won't equal the thousands of release prints that used to be done and were a thorn in the producers behind.

Click to expand...

You said it yoursewlf:
3 colour seperation copies per movie can't cope with the hundreds or thousands of release copies. Not even with the small amount used for taking.

My small bolex is able to take 64 frames per second and it is made at 1956 and sold for 35 dollars.

Agx Das ist leider die traurige Wahrheit, This is unfortunately the said truth Maybe a solar storm will wipe some important magnetic media and we will get an analogue renaissance :devil:

Mustafa your small Bolex can't shoot sync sound at any speed let alone 64fps there are 16mm cameras that can shoot at more than 10 000fps but MOS only. A digital camera can shoot sync sound at any speed because they are quieter than a film camera and the speed is digitally/electronically controlled. Film running trough a camera at high speed generates a lot of noise. The camera also has to maintain a constant speed very low fluctuation allowed in order to be considered sync.

its too bad projectors dont have several speeds like old phonographs ...

8mm ones do have them.

Chris Lange said:

I can't stand the look of 30fps+ in cinematic applications. In other media, such as video games or television, it's fine, but there's something about the look of a movie playing at 30+fps that is extremely offputting to me...it almost imparts a low-budget look in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I've been reading about Mirrorless and DSLR video and 24 FPS is the shebang nowadays for this reason... The cinematic way.
I haven't worked at all seriously into the video capabilities of current digital cameras, but I am interested in it... Two devices in one! The snapshooting thing plus the video thing on a small device. I love travelling and while nowadays for me it is a daydreaming activity as a student, I always get to think setting up situations for a trip. My dad always tells me how he brought his small 35mm and a huge camcorder. Now both can be seen in a P&S body with video quality exceeding most amateur needs.

And I think I am more tolerant to these FPS variations, but I haven't studied it closer... I should.

My take on the Hobbit: Interesting film but it looks artificial, videogame like. I've watched the LOTR series and that isn't so. It could well be the FPS.

jnanian said:

and from what i remember, the cinemas have already installed new projectors at a gigantic expense in the past few years ..
so i guess the small cinemas (not mega corp ) will probably go under, after another huge dump of $$

Click to expand...

Sadly so and with my limited scope, by reading articles, this has been a forced change. And that is something I really dislike.
This year I've barely been to theaters, perhaps watched a couple or three films. It really is due other factors but I'm not bothered to not attend that much nowadays. Sadly, it looks like a glorified youtube to me.

Photo Engineer said:

Well, the article I read, and the conversation I had with Douglass Trumbull gave some measure of hope for film. They did not all of the drawbacks mentioned, and two more. At the higher frame rate, tearoffs with acetate films occur frequently and conversion to Estar increases cost and may cause damage to the hardware.

So, perhaps I was just being optimistic.

As for cost of the stock, the storage cost goes down as digital storage runs about 10x film storage and if you store a digital film shot at 60FPS you do have to convert it to film at the same speed. Digital storage would work but would be more expensive and less reliable.

Have high hopes and be optimistic. Thanks for the comments.

PE

Click to expand...

Indeed higher FPS would increase the need for film footage for the archiving but of course it wouldn't be comparable to the loss of film print consumption.

I like digital in the advantages it brings to amateurs and lower budget films, giving great quality with a truly budget spending (I am seeing one of the latest $1k still cameras do in excess of what I'd need for travel videoing) but I really dislike the forced conversion that the industry is pushing. However, there is a hardcore film group around hollywood (or so I heard, with some prominent directors) and I'm sure it will continue to be used. If I were a high budget cinematographer I would have no hesitation of using film! (but of course we are in a film based forum so biases apply )

Then there are the effects of a declining MP industry on the film manufacturing... Kodak.

ok..I finally have reached the limit of my patience with this pet peeve.I'm going to write a grammer ticket.
Folks...I will say this once for all to the otherwise extremely articulate members of this wonderful forum...If FEWER people would say"less people",I would be LESS frustrated.(or do you say FEWER frustrated?hmmm?)

ok back to photo stuff!

ok..as you were.





Sent from my LG-P509 using Tapatalk 2

irvd2x said:

ok..I finally have reached the limit of my patience with this pet peeve.

Click to expand...

Since you're talking about things such as grammar and syntax, please fix the spacing issues in your post, lol.

irvd2x said:

ok..I finally have reached the limit of my patience with this pet peeve.I'm going to write a grammer ticket....

Click to expand...

Even with the spelling mistakes I could care less. (As in; I could care less, but I would have to work at it.)

Where are the old Television programs? On film from the original camera technology that was video to film. Where are the old video taped shows that followed them? Recoded over. Tape was too expensive to keep buying and storing. And when the electronics technology ages, no one pays to move everything to the new supported format. And the two technological generations old precious wonder becomes a technological dinosaur. Much 10 - 15 - 20 year old data is gone. You can't afford the time to recover it from 8, 5 1/4, 3.5 inch floppy disks, 10 meg platters and 1/2 inch digital tape... if someone kept the interface. If your operating system will support the old interface.... Oh no one pays to bring that old stuff forward. "No one needs that any more.." Don't write off the ancient that still works economically. It keeps on working.

Germany's largest public TV Station had started to digitise all their video archive. That may include advanced physical restoring means.