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

[IronFilm]

How can Magic Leap be the world's most secretive start up if there is a video about them?!

[Alex T]

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

I think this is the future of immersive film: http://360designs.io/eye/

Taping into VR capabilities to let the viewer feel like they are there when the action is happening. 

[wwjd]

Those who DON'T enjoy 3D are often vocal about it.  But, there are thousands more that love 3D and are looking forward to the advancement of movie tech from 100 year old frame rates.  3D still sells very big (or it would have stopped years ago) so it will continue and probably grow.  FINALLY more big names are all over HFR.  It's coming.  Evolve or go extinct.

[The Chris]

1 hour ago, wwjd said:

Those who DON'T enjoy 3D are often vocal about it.  But, there are thousands more that love 3D and are looking forward to the advancement of movie tech from 100 year old frame rates.  3D still sells very big (or it would have stopped years ago) so it will continue and probably grow.  FINALLY more big names are all over HFR.  It's coming.  Evolve or go extinct.

3D grosses have declined over the last few years, accounting for just 14% of the overall grosses in 2014. The market has spoken, the fad is dying. It's a niche market compared to 2d and it's fading, just like those goofy 3D TV's. 

 

[Pussycat]

Ang Lee rocks!

But I don't think 24p film will die...that soon.

[Garug]

14 hours ago, Pussycat said:

Ang Lee rocks!

But I don't think 24p film will die...that soon.

I am still listening LP, I think CD will die before LP. Why should 24 fps die, traditional movies will remain for long. 3D video, 360 Video, VR, I do not think they will replace traditional film, they are something different.

I hope though 24, 25, 50 fps would be replaced by 30 and 60 fps. 30 fps and 60 fps are much better suited for computer monitors that usually run at 60 Hz.

[Ed_David]

I think HFR 3d is just more crap because the headsets hurt your eyes.  

VR is an entirely new artform.  I just shot a commercial in VR using the Nokia OZO - I'm a believing in VR technology as long as it doesn't cause eye strain.  It feels like the early days of film.  I just wish it was only 270 degrees - having to look behind you is awkward.

But all this 3d stuff - just seems like the cinema trying to compete.  I saw Avatar in 3d and it blew me away, but I also saw a bunch of other films in 3d and was less than impressed.

It's the same old argument - it's content that matters and finding directors who can utilize this to an advantage, vs the gimmick of it all.

[enny]

i will never watch 3d film why because it takes me out of the film it ruins color and some of them you have to put glasses on then take them off

[Bioskop.Inc]

Saw an interesting piece on the BBC about VR & Binaural Sound - one without the other just won't make too much sense for fiction.

If you can watch this, go to 5.20min - it will freak you out!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b078jryn/click-23042016

If not google some clips or read the following:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2013/03/listen-up-binaural-sound.shtml

[tugela]

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 8:19 PM, filmvoltage said:

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 is because low frame rates look unnatural and usually like crap.

[hmcindie]

11 hours ago, tugela said:

That is because low frame rates look unnatural and usually like crap.

That's not quite true though. During the '90s and early 2000's we were enamored with 24p. Every camera had to have 24p, otherwise it wasn't cinematic.

Remember that we've been actually shooting 50/60p (although interlaced, the actual fps was 50/60) for a very, very long time. Every one who wanted to do cinema was always into the 24fps look. That's why the DVX100 was so popular. If you did a regular over the shoulder shot with two people talking, one at 24fps vs 60, the 24fps seems to be better. Try it.

[tugela]

12 minutes ago, hmcindie said:

That's not quite true though. During the '90s and early 2000's we were enamored with 24p. Every camera had to have 24p, otherwise it wasn't cinematic.

Remember that we've been actually shooting 50/60p (although interlaced, the actual fps was 50/60) for a very, very long time. Every one who wanted to do cinema was always into the 24fps look. That's why the DVX100 was so popular. If you did a regular over the shoulder shot with two people talking, one at 24fps vs 60, the 24fps seems to be better. Try it.

People who had pretensions about being the next Spielberg were enamored with 24p. Young people who were viewing content on devices that largely displayed at 60Hz were not. And the reason was simple: 24p displayed on a 60Hz screen looks terrible. Who cares if it reminds the shooter of the golden age of movies - no one who watches it owns a film projector. Almost no one shoots (at least, no one who buys a consumer video camera) for the big screen, so the obsession with 24 fps is an anachronism. I find it baffling that enthusiasts want to shoot to conform to a medium that essentially is obsolete, and not to conform to a medium that viewers actually use.

What I always found particularly amusing were the folks who drooled over 24p, but 25p, why, that was no good. No good at all (even though it would be impossible to tell the difference without counting frames).

 

[cpc]

Unnatural is part of the appeal. These days you don't shoot 24p for naturalism, on the contrary. 

Many TVs have a 24p mode, so do some graphics adapters for PCs. Of course, it is best to have choice. Dogmatic obsession with an acquisition framerate is as bad as any other obsession. Also, in Europe a lot of cinema is actually shot 25p because movies also go on air eventually, and pretty much all relatively recent DCP servers handle 25p fine (and 30, and 23.97, and 29.97 for that matter), so there is no need for speed canges and resampling audio.

 

[Garug]

I doubt many would see the difference between 24 fps on 24 Hz monitor, 25 fps on 25 Hz monitor or even 30 fps on 30 Hz or 60 Hz monitor. However for me 24 fps on 60 Hz monitor is just terrible experience. 24 fps on 24 Hz monitor is for me just fine. I do not think I am alone with this, but apparently not everyone is sensitive for 24 fps on 60 Hz monitor.

It is not a question about the frame rate but about frames shown for uneven time to fit 24 fps to 60 Hz monitor. 120 Hz monitor would solve the problem. with 120 Hz monitor at 24 fps each frame would be shown 5 times, at 30 fps each frame would be shown 4 times, there would be no misalignment of the speed, no ugliness on panning and fast movement and all frames would be shown for the same length of time. Unfortunately most computer monitors are just 60 Hz.

At 60 Hz monitor, when viewing 24 fps, some frames are shown for 33.3 ms, some for 50 ms when they all should be shown for 41.7 ms, I do not much care of that kind of unnatural appeal.

 

Ps. to answer the questions on the headline "NAB 2016. Can Ang Lee’s cinematic reality of laser projected 3D 120fps make 24p film obsolete?" 24 fps film should play back just beautifully with that projector, so it is at least backward compatible.

[mfeldt]

On 21.4.2016 at 3:07 AM, The Chris said:

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

This! It's just - still not there, like so many times before. 

 

3D gives me a headache, and I will avoid it as long as it can be made to enable a better experience for anyone, preferably without any need for additional gear when watching!

24p2D will live until the holodeck gets invented!  Maybe even longer!

[Jimmy]

It's seem this blog posting and all comments (including mine) are speaking about something we haven't seen, eg, pointless!

Did Ang Lee actually show anything at NAB, if so, what is being said by the people who saw it?

[Chrisis]

People who like HFR: 

1) Gamers who think that because their vidya is more enjoyable at 60fps so cinema should be.

2) Tech nerds who think that giving their audience a brain hemorrhage = immersion and couldn't give a fig for storytelling.

3) Out of touch directors who spend their days watching test footage in THX certified screening rooms and only sit up when something pops because they likely haven't watched a daytime soap opera in 20+ years.

Literature is no less enjoyable for its use of old style printing. Theatre no worse for its ancient form. By all means push technology, and play with different ways of projecting images into a dark room, but ultimately you'll never reinvent the wheel. 

[Geoff CB]

41 minutes ago, Chrisis said:

People who like HFR: 

1) Gamers who think that because their vidya is more enjoyable at 60fps so cinema should be.

2) Tech nerds who think that giving their audience a brain hemorrhage = immersion and couldn't give a fig for storytelling.

3) Out of touch directors who spend their days watching test footage in THX certified screening rooms and only sit up when something pops because they likely haven't watched a daytime soap opera in 20+ years.

Literature is no less enjoyable for its use of old style printing. Theatre no worse for its ancient form. By all means push technology, and play with different ways of projecting images into a dark room, but ultimately you'll never reinvent the wheel. 

Orrrrr

4) People who think 3D and "ride" films like the marvel movies would benefit from the higher frame rate in the action scenes.

Also, just because I appreciate an old book doesn't mean I won't pick up my kindle 99.9 percent of the time.

[William Malone]

Mr. Lee is a great director but he's so wrong, on so many levels on this one, I don't know where to start.  I think by now its been proven that audiences don't like High Frame Rates... They don't even like 30FPS, let alone 120 FPS.

Lets first take 3D. It has come and gone at least three times already in the history of film and the reason is clear.  It will never be the generally accepted format until they can do 2 things.

#1. (As someone already pointed out) It needs to be projected in a hemispheric format with no frame because a frame destroys the illusion. 

#2 (and perhaps more significantly) It will NEVER be THE format until you can get rid of the glasses.  Audiences don't like the grimy glasses and the headaches they create.   In a film-making sense, there are things that just don't work in really good 3D.  Close-Ups for instance,  They don't look like close-ups anymore, they look like giant things,  If you've ever gone to an Imax screening and see a close up... it's weird.

RE: High Frame Rates  - I don't think anyone wants the 6 O'Clock news look for motion pictures.  High frame rates get rid of blurs.  Blurs are your friend. (Learn it, know it, live it (Judge Reinhold -Fast Times at Ridgemont High")  Blurs ad smoothness to the image.  The higher the frame rate the closer to reality.  Motion pictures are not, and have never been,  about reality but are about varying states of dreams.  The best motion pictures carry you away from reality and imbed you in that dream.  24FPS is magic..... Don't destroy the magic....