Douglas Trumbull likes HFR and DSLR's

[sunyata]

I've never seen "showscan" so I have to reserve judgment, but despite how much I respect Douglas Trumbull, I think we part ways on the HFR passion.. interesting video nonetheless:

 

[pablogrollan]

I completely agree with you sunyata, HFR should follow the path of 3D (except, you know, faster!) and go out of fashion, if it ever was "in"...

[Axel]

The stuff about the double bladed projector shutter (some projectors had a three-bladed shutter, there was also a prism-technology by the german manufacturer Kinoton, which, without Maltese cross, had tiny transitions between frames and no black phase at all), the 180° shutter and the discontinuity of time is true for digital technique as well. Insofar as the exposure doesn't capture 50% of all motion then. 

 

What imo counts most is the look and feel of it all. Old 50i/60i camcorders had indeed a more *realistic* way of capturing motion, it looked 'live' always. But as we all still recall, it never looked good.

 

What people like Trumbull a.o. mix up is immersion and virtual reality. 

 

For immersion, which is the goal of fictuous cinematic storytelling, you need to fill the screen with obviously stylized images that trigger intended emotions. 

 

For virtual reality, you have to convincingly avoid obvious style. Ideally, you don't look through a sharp, noise-free window, but are surrounded by an environment. Not an image. Things like cuts and music will destroy that illusion.

 

I am not entirely against HFR. I think all depends on the intention of the narrator. Cameron could have very well filmed Avatar in 48p. Because the narration was about the sensual experience of a virtual reality. He made images that were clearly pure CGI look like ENG-style camcorder-recordings. He inserted lens flares, camera shake, even jerky zooms. And it would have helped 3D to look clearer. I bet, Avatar would have been better in 48p.

 

The Hobbit, on the other hand, is a fairy tale. Once upon a time, but not now. One of those stories where the voice of your grandma can carry enough magic to suspend your disbelief and get you there, totally immersed.

 

I always thought of Galadriels narration ('The world is changed, I feel it in the water ...') that way. I immediately realized how Jackson had a very LFR approach to the accompaning images (as he often has, if appropriate). They could have rather been 12fps than 48fps. Just to test this theory, I downloaded the clip from Youtube and exported it with 12fps, here. 

 

Now of course it is a bit too much. With a modern 200-800 Hz TV-set everybody can easily check the opposite extreme and tell if he wants to follow 10 hours LOTR in HFR.

 

A few days ago, Matt James Smith posted his 12fps test with GH4 raw footage,

[John Wendell]

It is extremely dismaying to me to see so many filmakers (and wannabees) speaking out against HFR as if there was something fundamentally undesirable about it.

 

Let me be clear, I am not a filmaker, just someone fascinated by the technology and a passionate consumer.

 

As I consumer, I absolutely despise the 24fps standard. I remember very distinctly as a young boy watching Predator with my father and being irritated by the choppiness as the camera panned across the scene very early in the movie and how disorienting it was and how it made the whole experience less immersive.

 

As a consumer, I want exactly what Trumbull talks about, a window. I DON'T want film grain, which I hate. I don't want a slow choppy frame rate. I want everything sharp and smooth and immersive.

 

Just when it looked like the DREADFULLY  ANTIQUATED 24fps standard was on the verge of seeing it's loooooong overdue replacement, "The Hobbit" single handedly derailed the whole HFR movement. It's a terrible tragedy that this ONE turd of a movie was used to judge the efficacy of the emerging new standard.

 

I remember reading peoples complaints that the resolution was too high, that you could see the make-up and the limitations of the set that before would have been invisible.

 

This is nonsense. There is NOTHING immersive about a movie like this anyway. That writing, the acting, the CGI, EVERYTHING is cartoonish and turning up the resolution can only reveal that cartoonishness more clearly.

 

The reality is, people who actually like cartoonish movies like this aren't going to care either way. But what is it like to watch a movie that doesn't suck in HFR? Thanks to this one stupid movie and the rampant ludditism of fillmakers, our chance to find out has been pushed back yet again.

 

I don't give a damn about CGI and big explosions. Give me a low budget but well written character study and I am happy but don't give it to me with film grain (real or artificial) and pitifully slow FPS. IMMERSE ME! The medium should be transparent. This is 2014 not 1914. Leave the past behind and immerse me.

 

 

[dhessel]

Just when it looked like the DREADFULLY  ANTIQUATED 24fps standard was on the verge of seeing it's loooooong overdue replacement, "The Hobbit" single handedly derailed the whole HFR movement. It's a terrible tragedy that this ONE turd of a movie was used to judge the efficacy of the emerging new standard.

 

While I don't necessarily disagree with you opinion on this matter, I think it should be pointed out that one of the biggest issues with HFR on this movie had nothing to do with the quality of the movie itself but rather with the fact that viewers were physically uncomfortable and nauseated when watching in theaters...  

[Inazuma]

John, you have no problem with your movies looking like soap operas?

[fuzzynormal]

It is extremely dismaying to me to see so many filmakers (and wannabees) speaking out against HFR as if there was something fundamentally undesirable about it.

Let me be clear, I am not a filmaker, just someone fascinated by the technology and a passionate consumer.

As I consumer, I absolutely despise the 24fps standard. I remember very distinctly as a young boy watching Predator with my father and being irritated by the choppiness as the camera panned across the scene very early in the movie and how disorienting it was and how it made the whole experience less immersive.

As a consumer, I want exactly what Trumbull talks about, a window. I DON'T want film grain, which I hate. I don't want a slow choppy frame rate. I want everything sharp and smooth and immersive.

Just when it looked like the DREADFULLY ANTIQUATED 24fps standard was on the verge of seeing it's loooooong overdue replacement, "The Hobbit" single handedly derailed the whole HFR movement. It's a terrible tragedy that this ONE turd of a movie was used to judge the efficacy of the emerging new standard.

I remember reading peoples complaints that the resolution was too high, that you could see the make-up and the limitations of the set that before would have been invisible.

This is nonsense. There is NOTHING immersive about a movie like this anyway. That writing, the acting, the CGI, EVERYTHING is cartoonish and turning up the resolution can only reveal that cartoonishness more clearly.

The reality is, people who actually like cartoonish movies like this aren't going to care either way. But what is it like to watch a movie that doesn't suck in HFR? Thanks to this one stupid movie and the rampant ludditism of fillmakers, our chance to find out has been pushed back yet again.

I don't give a damn about CGI and big explosions. Give me a low budget but well written character study and I am happy but don't give it to me with film grain (real or artificial) and pitifully slow FPS. IMMERSE ME! The medium should be transparent. This is 2014 not 1914. Leave the past behind and immerse me.

Go download some recent Japanese NHK dramas. Maybe some if the cool Samurai ones, they're all 60p. Watch that Then let us know what you think about immersion.

I personally like high resolution 24p motion images where subjects motion blur on the edges; reality but not reality. I think it aids in the suspension of disbelief.

Anyway, the new video monitors with their default frame blending nonsense are simulating hfr. A lot of people are watching some variation of the thing simply because they're ignorant of the intended screening FR...so people are being conditioned off of 24p regardless.

There's 2cents, rub them together.

[fuzzynormal]

The stuff about the double bladed projector shutter (some projectors had a three-bladed shutter, there was also a prism-technology by the german manufacturer Kinoton, which, without Maltese cross, had tiny transitions between frames and no black phase at all), the 180° shutter and the discontinuity of time is true for digital technique as well. Insofar as the exposure doesn't capture 50% of all motion then.

What imo counts most is the look and feel of it all. Old 50i/60i camcorders had indeed a more *realistic* way of capturing motion, it looked 'live' always. But as we all still recall, it never looked good.

What people like Trumbull a.o. mix up is immersion and virtual reality.

For immersion, which is the goal of fictuous cinematic storytelling, you need to fill the screen with obviously stylized images that trigger intended emotions.

For virtual reality, you have to convincingly avoid obvious style. Ideally, you don't look through a sharp, noise-free window, but are surrounded by an environment. Not an image. Things like cuts and music will destroy that illusion.

I am not entirely against HFR. I think all depends on the intention of the narrator. Cameron could have very well filmed Avatar in 48p. Because the narration was about the sensual experience of a virtual reality. He made images that were clearly pure CGI look like ENG-style camcorder-recordings. He inserted lens flares, camera shake, even jerky zooms. And it would have helped 3D to look clearer. I bet, Avatar would have been better in 48p.

The Hobbit, on the other hand, is a fairy tale. Once upon a time, but not now. One of those stories where the voice of your grandma can carry enough magic to suspend your disbelief and get you there, totally immersed.

I always thought of Galadriels narration ('The world is changed, I feel it in the water ...') that way. I immediately realized how Jackson had a very LFR approach to the accompaning images (as he often has, if appropriate). They could have rather been 12fps than 48fps. Just to test this theory, I downloaded the clip from Youtube and exported it with 12fps, here.

Now of course it is a bit too much. With a modern 200-800 Hz TV-set everybody can easily check the opposite extreme and tell if he wants to follow 10 hours LOTR in HFR.

A few days ago, Matt James Smith posted his 12fps test with GH4 raw footage,

[John Wendell]

John, you have no problem with your movies looking like soap operas?

 

I said I wanted the cinematic medium to be transparent, like looking through a window as Trumbull discusses. Now I don't watch soap operas so I wouldn't know, but if it's a fact that soap operas have achieved this, that would be even more reason for Cinematographers to be imbarrassed by the gross inadequacy of their antiquated medium.

[Cinegain]

[..] but if it's a fact that soap operas have achieved this, that would be even more reason for Cinematographers to be imbarrassed by the gross inadequacy of their antiquated medium.

lol. Oh John. John. John. John.

[Chrad]

24 fps is a tool, like everything else. It's not the only way, and it isn't some holy figure handed down to us by the Movie God. I love the 24fps look, but I'd like to see more HFR filmmaking experiments too.

[fuzzynormal]

If it's a fact that soap operas have achieved this, that would be even more reason for Cinematographers to be imbarrassed by the gross inadequacy of their antiquated medium.

Yeah, they achieved it in the 1940's. How's that for antiquated?

[Axel]

I would have liked to have been immersed in the Avatar reality, but the horrible and trite story was too distracting.

Excuse my while I now go polish my "unobtanium" wedding band... eye-roll...

 

I see your point. As far as trite stories are concerned, cinema is dead. Braindead. You have much more intriguing narration in modern TV series. The excellent True Detective, for example, deals with philosophical concepts, the whole plot looks like a mere pretext to discuss the conditio humana. Needs no phony unobtanium.

 

On the other hand I love cinema. I go there to let myself be overwhelmed. When the lights go down, I'm in a suggestible mood, I beg for immersion. Many couldn't help but find the world of Pandora kitschy and compared it to FernGully. Like the majority I really loved it. To quote a line from a biography of my favorite director: 'He found something to admire in even the vilest Hollywood movie once it grossed more than 100 millions at the box office'.

 

BTW: The enormous success of this movie wasn't reduced by the fact (see imdb technical specs) that the bigger part of principal photography was captured in 1080. Resolution is overestimated. Sure, no one needs to justify his preference for quantity.

[Axel]

I said I wanted the cinematic medium to be transparent, like looking through a window as Trumbull discusses. Now I don't watch soap operas so I wouldn't know, but if it's a fact that soap operas have achieved this, that would be even more reason for Cinematographers to be imbarrassed by the gross inadequacy of their antiquated medium.

 

The days when doubled frame rates meant double weight and costs of the prints are over. The digital servers and projectors are capable of 48p, therefore there is no technical reason to stay 24p. We will see more HFR in the future. If it is appropriate for the film.

 

Know, that HFR is by no means a new concept. George Lucas, who by then owned an, er, empire of state-of-the-art equipment for cinema, was influenced by Trumbull and demanded 48p in the early eighties already. Cameron also subscribed to this idea early on. Who if not they could have forced the industry to change this?

 

I tell you: The audience. Not only did they not care, they voted against it in numerous test screenings. 

 

The same with UHD. 70mm prints and even IMAX existed since decades, side by side with lousy 35mm. Though there is no doubt that they were 'better', the cinemagoers didn't care enough to keep them alive. These are facts.

 

Another point: Sound. Until around 1992 (low-res Jurassic Parc), mono sound was the de facto standard of cinema (Lucas again being ahead of time with his six track Star Wars). Surround (predominantly then a virtual surround, generated of analog stereo tracks, known as 'spectral recording') meant a very big investment for the cinemas, which practically had to be rebuilt sometimes to meet specifications (of Dolby as well as THX). But there had been test screenings, and what was found is that surround sound was crucial for immersion. People frequently complained when there was a bad splice and the sound went mono for two seconds. What does that tell us?

[Fatalfury]

48fps looks really unnatural and disorienting to me (glad im not the only one), i think the fps needs to be much higher than that for life like movement native to the eye. Anyway immersion isn't really that much affected by higher frame rate, Hobbit films are bad either way. Leave virtual reality immersion for future video games, cinema should stay 24 fps. That said reading a book or playing Silent Hill on psone can be just as immersive as watching Avatar in 3D or any PS4 game.

[jcs]

I've seen Showscan (60fps film) and it looks amazing: just like the front of the theater is a giant window, or like watching a live play of actors on stage. 60fps on TVs at home doesn't look the same: I always turn off the various flavors of motion upsampling (it does work better for sports, however). Showscan, like 3D, works very well in amusement parks AKA Location Based Entertainment (LBE).