Originally, 24 fps was chosen based on the technical requirements of the early sound era. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring. It looks great, and we’ve actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive. We’ve been watching HOBBIT tests and dailies at 48 fps now for several months, and we often sit through two hours worth of footage without getting any eye strain from the 3-D. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D. Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok–and we’ve all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years–but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or “strobe.†So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps, rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920′s). "I thought I’d address the news that has been reported about us shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 frames per second, and explain to you what my thoughts are about this.We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The expectation is that eventually enough theaters could project those films at 48fps. It started me thinking of what the discussion would be on the correct audio time code rate. I've been reading with interest on Peter Jackson's The Hobbit, and that he is shooting at "48 frames per second" - a process that Jim Cameron has also embraced to create a hyper realism in 3D shoots.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |