NAB 2016. Can Ang Lee’s cinematic reality of laser projected 3D 120fps make 24p film obsolete?

[Andrew Reid]

It’s just a matter of how you shoot it, says Lee.

Read the blog post here

[Clayton Moore]

This is one of those - lets see what this looks like.  After all "life" goes by faster then 24fps.

[Glenn Thomas]

I'd be interested to see that. I guess they need to be pushing the limits of technology to differentiate from the sort of movies anyone could make with low budget gear.

[Geoff CB]

I honestly think the shutter angle killed the Hobbit. The DP shot at ~1/64 for most of the film so it would look okay at 24 fps, giving the blurry soap opera experience. If they shot at 1/96 I think it would have been far better received. I'm actually a huge fan of HFR, and laser projection is absolutely gorgeous. Cannot wait to see this film as it was intended.

[The Chris]

3D anything = nauseating and unwatchable for me and many others. This will be a specialty thing at best, like IMAX. 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

I see this whole HFR 3D thing as almost a separate medium from traditional film. 

Laser projection is an entirely separate discussion, and imo should supplant traditional bulbs asap.

[hijodeibn]

1 hour ago, The Chris said:

3D anything = nauseating and unwatchable for me and many others. This will be a specialty thing at best, like IMAX. 

totally agree….a lot of people don't like 3D, I don't, and if this new technology is really implemented after some years, it will only be seen as another option in the menu, 24 fps will continue as the king of the party…..

[Garug]

I would be so happy to say good bye for 24 fps, especially on material distributed on internet. 24 fps just irritates me a lot when viewed on 60 Hz monitor, any fast movements are very jittery. 30 fps would be big improvement on material mostly viewed on Internet.

[IronFilm]

 

"Nothing better than getting together with friends in a dark room to touch each other at a deeper level" ~ Ange Lee

:-o :-o 

[Bioskop.Inc]

The problem with 3D is the framing - if you cut/clip the top of someone's head it just kills the whole aesthetic. The Hobbit was horrible in every single way, it just looked shit - in normal 24fps (non-3D) it was acceptable and still then they messed with the story so much that it still didn't appeal. The only film in 3D that I thought was passable was Prometheus - 3D works really well when it enhances the depth of field of a scene. But it is a gimmick that has had 5 different incarnations over the years & i've vowed to never be hoodwinked again.

I might consider Ang Lee's new film, since he seems to have understood that you need to really rethink how you make a film, but still I don't hold too much hope that it will work.

[MattH]

3 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

The problem with 3D is the framing - if you cut/clip the top of someone's head it just kills the whole aesthetic. The Hobbit was horrible in every single way, it just looked shit - in normal 24fps (non-3D) it was acceptable and still then they messed with the story so much that it still didn't appeal. The only film in 3D that I thought was passable was Prometheus - 3D works really well when it enhances the depth of field of a scene. But it is a gimmick that has had 5 different incarnations over the years & i've vowed to never be hoodwinked again.

I might consider Ang Lee's new film, since he seems to have understood that you need to really rethink how you make a film, but still I don't hold too much hope that it will work.

Exactly! Anything that is positioned in 3d space infront of where the screen is must not intersect with the edge of the screen. How stupid and offputing is it when something goes behind something its meant to be infront of.  The only was around this is to make the viewing field of view much bigger (there are imax cinemas that are like the inside of a sphere) or vr headsets.

[jahwah]

Just seems like filmmaker anxiety about competing with VR. Not needed in my opinion. I connect with characters and stories, not the tech, especially if it makes me nauseous. Obviously if the projection or camera detracts, then that's a  problem, but what I think needs fixing are the scripts/ideas, not the frame rates.

[Jimmy]

Did anyone at NAB see this?

[richg101]

None of the DP's or Directors I look up to will let crap like this interfere with the way they work.  Give me a shout when Deakins starts on this stuff and I'll take an overdose

[enny]

Shrek say noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Jimmy]

Until I see it... I won't say how good/bad it is... Don't judge it on the poor 3d you have seen... Maybe it is just as bad, maybe it is amazing.

Hopefully a NABer can enlighten us more

[racer5]

I have a camera that shoots at 120fps. When footage is played back at that framerate it looks terrible. Screams "video".

Think the big win here is higher dynamic range laser projection, all for that.

[Oliver Daniel]

I wouldn't dismiss the technology until it's been experienced. 

I remember seeing Avatar in 3D on the IMAX, and although the story left a lot to be desired, the visual experience was outstanding at the time. 

Move seen 3D films since that just look a bit warped and frankly, stuck on as a gimmick. So I don't bother with them anymore. 

Hobbit was the worst thing ever in 48fps. I don't know why they thought that looked good. It really didn't. 

Let's give Ang a chance though, who knows eh? I'm all up for extending the experience to new levels. As long as story comes first  

[cpc]

3D is terrible in traditional 24 fps. 2D and 3D are very different forms and translating into 3D any affinities cultivated from 2D makes no sense. While I mostly don't care about 3D, HFR at least makes it bareable and not just a mess of motion artifacts striving to look "real". I wrote this a few years ago, when The Hobbit's HFR debate happened: http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/why-48-fps-is-good-for-3d-movies/ 

In this context I can only applaud Ang Lee's perspective.

[filmvoltage]

Meh, I've found that the younger generation who has grown up with this HDTV "Smoothscan" tech abomination actually PREFERS the artificial and sped-up "soap opera" look, and they prefer the higher frame rates. That said, most theater projectors sold in the past few years can do lower framerate HFR, but this latest format is going to be VERY expensive for theaters to adopt.  It requires two very expensive projectors linked together, so only the very large venues in the very large cities will upgrade.  Keep in mind that an entry level, 9000 lumen 2k DCI projector with IMB costs about $32,000.  Hooking up two of these Barco 4k Laser HFR HDR 3-D projectors will probably cost at least $350,000.  Granted, the price will come down, but still, it'll take 7-10 years to pay off such a large investment for early adopters.  One big tech item to keep an eye on is MagicLeap and their new hyper-virtual reality glasses.  Magicleap is talking about putting photons on glass directly without "pixels" and totally augmenting reality without goggles.  A MagicLeap-like tech, combined with HFR and HDR is probably going to be the norm in less than ten years.  It would be cool to see the technologies combined.  The projected image on the screen could provide depth, and the VR could provide the "wow" factor of stuff literally flying around in the room.  But what's most interesting, is that from what I've read about MagicLeap is that it could simply replace the projector entirely, since the image in the MagicLeap headset is entirely recreated from reality.  People would just come into a theater, put on the glasses, and stare at a calibration screen/image on a wall, and everything else would be VR.