Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
New post on 48 fps from Peter's Facebook Page:
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

SF
The Shire

Apr 26 2011, 11:51pm

Post #26 of 45 (457 views)
Shortcut
Shutter Angle [In reply to] Can't Post

Basically, the wider the shutter angle, the longer the exposure time, which results in more motion blur. The narrower the shutter angle, the shorter the exposure time, which results in less motion blur.

Whenever you're shooting with a film or video camera, each frame is not an instantaneous record of what was before the camera. It's a fraction of a second, but that's still enough time for some motion blur, because anything moving will have covered some small distance in that time.

If you're shooting film at 24 fps with a 180 degree shutter, each frame is sitting in the gate, collecting light for 1/48 of a second. (The shutter's circular. A 180 degree opening is half of a full 360 circle, so 1/24fps x 1/2 = 1/48 s.)

Going from a 180 degree shutter to a 90 degree shutter would cut exposure time in half, resulting in crisper images.

Frame rate affects exposure time as well. The faster the frame rate, the less time there is for the light to be collected for each individual frame. Shooting film at 48 fps with a standard 180 degree shutter would get you crisper images than 24 fps with a 180 degree shutter, due to the shorter exposure time for each frame. That's my understanding, at least.

At a guess, I'd think the wider shutter angle Jackson and Lesnie are using for The Hobbit would push the look somewhat back towards the 24 fps look, at least in terms of motion blur, since the exposure time will increase. Just a guess, though. Haven't dealt with shutter angle when shooting video, but the idea's the same.

(This post was edited by SF on Apr 26 2011, 11:55pm)


R11
Lorien

Apr 27 2011, 1:37am

Post #27 of 45 (449 views)
Shortcut
Yes [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
At a guess, I'd think the wider shutter angle Jackson and Lesnie are using for The Hobbit would push the look somewhat back towards the 24 fps look, at least in terms of motion blur, since the exposure time will increase. Just a guess, though. Haven't dealt with shutter angle when shooting video, but the idea's the same.



It will mean more motion blur captured in the frames.


ron


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 27 2011, 2:08am

Post #28 of 45 (401 views)
Shortcut
I don't think so, but lets settle this [In reply to] Can't Post

I'll call PJ up and ask him, and get him to post the truth on here tomorrow...Sly

Anyone have his number?Wink

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 27 2011, 2:11am

Post #29 of 45 (397 views)
Shortcut
it all positive, no negative :-) [In reply to] Can't Post

Good catch on the logic btw! Cool

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


Maiarmike
Grey Havens


Apr 27 2011, 2:12am

Post #30 of 45 (399 views)
Shortcut
That's not what PJ said in his post. // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

"I'm just a happy camper! Rockin' and a-rollin!"


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 27 2011, 2:17am

Post #31 of 45 (417 views)
Shortcut
So [In reply to] Can't Post

it sounds like with 48 we get less motion blur, but then with the 270 deg we get some of that motion blur back...!?
I don't like motion blur...I hope it's not too much blur...at least not as much as some of the slow panning I've seen in many movies of the past that are full of judder and blur. I would hate to see the 48 get rid of the judder, but have too much blur...that's just my preference though. Cool

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


R11
Lorien

Apr 27 2011, 2:45am

Post #32 of 45 (432 views)
Shortcut
More data [In reply to] Can't Post

As a comparison:

- Live TV = 1/60th second shutter speed (30 fps @ 180 shutter angle)
- Cinema = 1/48th second shutter speed (24 fps @ 180 shutter angle)

- 48 fps @180 shutter angle = 1/96th second shutter speed
- 48 fps @ 270 shutter angle = 1/64th second shutter speed

So using the 270 degree angle shutter setting with the 48 fps frame rate drops the shutter speed down close to what's used for live TV, but still higher than what standard cinema uses.

The higher frame rate should take care of the judder from camera pans that are done to quickly and the amount of motion blur from fast movement of the subjects being shot should approximate what you see when watching TV, (which I think is very close to what you see with your own eyes in person).


ron


SF
The Shire

Apr 27 2011, 4:27am

Post #33 of 45 (385 views)
Shortcut
Seems to be [In reply to] Can't Post

He says they've been shooting with a shutter angle wider than 180 degrees.

For a given frame rate, a shutter angle wider than 180 gives you more motion blur, because you're increasing the exposure time for each frame. That must be where the "lovely silky look" is coming from.

Really curious as to how it's going to look in 24fps now.


SF
The Shire

Apr 27 2011, 4:31am

Post #34 of 45 (394 views)
Shortcut
TV Comparison [In reply to] Can't Post

That's good. Hadn't thought about the shutter speed for TV being so close to where they're winding up.

Thanks.


Mooseboy018
Gondor


Apr 27 2011, 3:34pm

Post #35 of 45 (363 views)
Shortcut
As long as there's still SOME motion blur... [In reply to] Can't Post

Getting rid of it too much is what can make movement look a little unnatural. Motion blur exists in real life and is part of how our eyes work. It's not just some annoying thing leftover from 24fps films that needs to be put in its place.Tongue


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 27 2011, 4:01pm

Post #36 of 45 (343 views)
Shortcut
I disagree to some extent [In reply to] Can't Post

blurred panning is not natural looking to me...in real life the amount of motion blur varies depending on the person, but in most cases real life is not nearly as blurred as 24fps (180deg shutter) nor 48fps (270deg shutter), so I would prefer less blur...especially if you slow pan in real life, there is much less blur.
I think to a certain degree it is an annoying thing leftover from films that needs to be put in their place, where they want it to look cinematic instead of more natural...I think they should have pushed it toward the more natural, as 48fps @ 180deg would still have enough motion blur, but likely more closer to what our eyes naturally see.

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


Flagg
Tol Eressea


Apr 27 2011, 4:55pm

Post #37 of 45 (342 views)
Shortcut
I don't understand this complaint [In reply to] Can't Post

If a film looks exactly like reality if it has such an absurdly high resolution and frame-rate that the human eye cannot tell the difference between the two then surely the film will look completely natural? If the frame-rate is high enough, your eye won't be able to follow the film completely, so rapid movement on-screen will still seem as blurred as rapid movement in real life won't it? I'm finding it hard to conceptualise how a film could look so much more natural than reality that it becomes unnatural.


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 27 2011, 7:01pm

Post #38 of 45 (320 views)
Shortcut
Very good point! [In reply to] Can't Post

I'd like to know the answer to that question...

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


Mooseboy018
Gondor


Apr 27 2011, 10:07pm

Post #39 of 45 (325 views)
Shortcut
I guess I'm still worried based on how HDTV motion plus looks... [In reply to] Can't Post

I know it's a different process, but it's the only "perfect smoothness" I've seen. I trust PJ, but right now it's all I can associate with reduced motion blur until I actually see a the real thing.

When I've watched movies with motion plus on, the smoothness of the camera movements actually made me slightly sick. The camera movements that felt more subtle (yet with the slightly shaky/blurriness of 24fps) without motion plus on, now felt completely exaggerated. Every small movement felt like I was on the dock of a boat moving up and down with the water. And every movement of characters and objects on screen looked unnaturally "sped up".

Apparently you can adjust the motion plus settings, and having them too high is what can give it that unnatural look.

As long as a film shot and projected at 48fps doesn't resemble that faked "perfectly smooth" look, which I don't think it will, I'll be happy.


(This post was edited by Mooseboy018 on Apr 27 2011, 10:13pm)


R11
Lorien

Apr 27 2011, 10:18pm

Post #40 of 45 (299 views)
Shortcut
At a high enough frame rate [In reply to] Can't Post

That would be true. I would think it would have to be a much higher rate than only 48 fps though...


ron


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 28 2011, 1:09am

Post #41 of 45 (309 views)
Shortcut
Good news and bad news [In reply to] Can't Post

Good news for you is that is will not be as smooth as the faked "perfectly smooth" motion, bad news is that it will likely be about half way between what you like and the faked "perfectly smooth".

Good news for me is that it will not look completely 24fps 180deg judder...the bad news for me is that it will not be as close to the "perfectly smooth" reality look that I prefer.

It's all good news! Cool


sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 28 2011, 1:14am

Post #42 of 45 (282 views)
Shortcut
That is kinda my fear [In reply to] Can't Post

If this movie is to really stand out in theatres that become or are 48fps capable, then they should have kept it at 180deg, but 48fps blurred down by 270deg may not be enough to stand out like 120Hz TVs do...I would have preferred the 48 at 180deg, but all good things come in time...I guess they must want to ease in the changes until enough people get used to 48fps before they make it really clear and perfectly smooth...but at this point I'm just guessing at their reasons behind why the 270deg...

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


R11
Lorien

Apr 28 2011, 6:38pm

Post #43 of 45 (260 views)
Shortcut
Perspective [In reply to] Can't Post

You're point of view seems to be skewed from viewing on an LCD TV :-). The main reason LCD TVs began to incorporate the "120hz" technology was to counter a drawback in the way LCD panels themselves produce images, not with programming source (film) issues. Do a search on "Sample and Hold blur" and LCD, and you will find all kinds of info on it's adverse effects on motion perception with the eye. The 120 hz implementations also help eliminate Judder introduced from the mismatch of frame rate of the film and refresh rate of the TV (pulldown), but they don't do anything with motion blur captured on film from lower shutter speeds. The blur reduction you are seeing (not the stutter) when you engage the 120 hz is likely almost completely from the reduction of the sample and hold blur that the LCD panel itself exhibits.

I have three HD TV's. A CRT (tube), an LCD panel and a plasma. The LCD is from before the 120 hz systems came out and it's a good little panel but it exhibits very obvious "field" blur even from slow pans and motion that the CRT and Plasma simply don't. It's why you might hear talk about plasma having superior native "dynamic resolution" (resolution during movement).


ron


(This post was edited by R11 on Apr 28 2011, 6:44pm)


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 28 2011, 7:13pm

Post #44 of 45 (261 views)
Shortcut
I wish [In reply to] Can't Post

I still have one of those big rear projection TV's 1080i, and I go to the stores and salivate at the 120Hz TVs.

But yeah I agree with you, the 120hz only helps with the judder and not the blur, which is another reason I am concerned about the 270deg shutter adding blur.

But as you say...perspective! Laugh

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


Huan71
Lorien

Apr 29 2011, 6:36pm

Post #45 of 45 (1224 views)
Shortcut
Viewing at home. [In reply to] Can't Post

OK...I suspect i'm going to make a right dunce of myself! That said....
How does this all relate (if at all??...) to future DVD/Bluray releases? What are they produced from?
...Or am i displaying a complete lack of understanding about the process !? UnsureCool

New Zealand,
Home to the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit Movies...

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.