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:
Sorry, I'm sure I'm not explaining terribly well

Phibbus
Rohan


Dec 12 2012, 4:08pm


Views: 79
Shortcut
Sorry, I'm sure I'm not explaining terribly well [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
This is not my field. How does that differ if the numbers involved are 24 rather than 48. One would imagine it is just a bigger gap between the still hand images, still no blur. And yet that seems at odds with the general duscussion.

First, understand that I'm not arguing for or against 48fps, only challenging the notion that deliberately minimizing motion blur necessarily makes a "better" or more realistic filmic image.

I should also have explained that the example I gave assumes an ideal condition which couldn't actually exist: namely a motion picture camera capable of an infinitely short exposure time, since that is what would be required to actually capture no motion blur at all in the image of the moving hand, whether at 48 or 24 fps. The main point I was trying to make was that, given that situation—which would be sort of a real-life equivalent of the animated GIF which Artemis Roach cited—our brains would not supply the blur.

The amount of blur that does get captured in the image depends on how fast the object being filmed is moving and how long you actually expose the medium to it (whether film or electronic sensor.) The greater the distance covered by the moving object while the medium is being exposed, the more area of the medium is actually exposed to it, and thus the greater amount of motion blur. Given an object in constant motion, the less time you expose each frame to it, the less motion blur is captured (and the more detail you will be able to see in the object, itself.)

The exposure time (or shutter) in cinema photography is traditionally expressed in degrees, since film cameras normally use a rotating shutter with an adjustable-sized aperture (think in terms of a pie chart.) Since the shutter rotates synchronously with the film transport, the more degrees you open the aperture, the longer each individual film frame will be exposed to the subject while in the gate. Thus, the shutter represents the percentage of time each frame is actually exposed, up to the maximum dictated by the frame rate.

For 24fps film, each frame has a theoretical maximum exposure time of 1/24 second (since that is the full amount of time each frame is actually in the gate.) A 360° shutter (in which the aperture would be fully open with no actual shutter present) would expose each frame for that full 1/24 second. With film, this is again a practical impossibility since some portion of the cycle is occupied by the transport of the film to the next frame, during which the film must not be exposed.

With a 180° shutter, the aperture would be half open, and each frame would be exposed for 50% of the frame cycle. So, for 24fps, the exposure time for each frame would be 1/48 of a second; for 48fps a 180° shutter would yield an exposure time of 1/96 of a second. A 90° shutter would yield 25% exposure times of 1/96 and 1/192 of a second, respectively. A better-illustrated discussion can be found in the Wikipedia article for "Rotary Disc Shutter." It also has a nice chart of blur effects achieved by various degrees of shutter:



So, to get back to the example: Assuming that the hand was being filmed simultaneously by both 24 and 48 fps cameras, if the shutter were infinitely small ("tight") for each, each would capture perfectly crisp still images of the hand with no motion blur. As you say, between the first two frames of film, the distance covered by the hand would be twice as great for the 24fps camera (since the hand at the second frame would be in the same position captured in the third frame of film by the 48fps camera.) The 48fps motion would appear smother when played back, but both would still appear "staggered" (the Wikipedia article uses "stuttered".)

If both cameras were using a 180° shutter, both would capture half the hand's trail of motion (as illustrated by the middle "Normal Motion Blur" example in the Wikipedia diagram.) However, for the 48fps camera, while the same 50% of the motion is being captured, the frequency is twice as great (the alternating dashes representing the exposure/non- in the diagram would be half their length.)

Thus, at the same shutter, the motion blur captured by 48fps would be half that captured by 24fps (which is again oversimplifying, but basically accurate.) The 48fps image will appear crisper under most circumstances.

In order to capture the same amount of motion blur as the 24fps camera at a 180° shutter, the 48fps camera would have to employ a 360° shutter. With digital cameras, unlike film, a 360° shutter is possible. (In fact, shutters greater than 360° are possible, where information buffered during capture of the previous frame is applied to the current one.) With a 360° shutter, the Wikipedia diagram would be a constant line with no interruptions in exposure.

However, certain problems are presented by this situation: First, our brains don't seem to care much for uninterrupted blur trails under many circumstances, and they can yield a streaky effect akin to time-lapse photography of car headlights on a highway. (My own instinct is that such an image does not present sufficient "stop points" for our brains to process an image of the thing, itself, rather than just the blur, however I have not read any scientific confirmation thereof.)

Secondly, with most mosaic CMOS digital sensors, certain problems affecting later color grading are introduced as the shutter widens above 180°. I've already gone on too long, but I've read that Jackson himself discusses these in one of the vlogs (if someone can point out where and in which one, I'd appreciate it, since I have not seen it.)

Thus, with 48fps digital, there is a natural predisposition toward shorter exposure times and less motion blur.

The question then becomes: how much motion blur is the "right" amount? Is it determined by the way we perceive things in real life, or is it a response conditioned by our exposure to the way things have "always been done"? Cinematographers have approached the problem mostly through experimentation, observation, and practical application rather than through any scientific principle or measurement. They have traditionally used wide and tight shutters with amended or clipped blur as colors in their palettes to represent deviations from "normal reality." However, experience tells us that people can enjoy video games at high frame rates with no motion blur at all.

My own suspicion is that our brains use the blur as a visual queue as to how fast an object is actually moving and that it does affect our perception of how "realistic" the motion is, although I won't speculate as to how much of that is conditioning. I have not yet seen the film, but I also suspect the reports of The Hobbit appearing "sped up" at 48fps to some viewers may be due to decreased motion blur (akin to the "Benny Hill effect" proposed by someone in another post, where footage is played back at a faster rate than it was captured.)

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.

Subject User Time
How come PJ never saw any problems with 48 fps? Danielos Send a private message to Danielos Dec 10 2012, 6:43am
    Well among the critics it is like hit and miss utku Send a private message to utku Dec 10 2012, 6:48am
    Why are you saying nobody seems to like it? Tim Send a private message to Tim Dec 10 2012, 6:49am
    There's nothing "wrong" with it, per se.... Aragorn the Elfstone Send a private message to Aragorn the Elfstone Dec 10 2012, 6:56am
        As long as we can choose how we see the movie Notanelvishname Send a private message to Notanelvishname Dec 10 2012, 7:24am
            Traditionalist film lover I am - but still one in his '20s... Aragorn the Elfstone Send a private message to Aragorn the Elfstone Dec 10 2012, 7:29am
                And that's my point ;) Notanelvishname Send a private message to Notanelvishname Dec 10 2012, 7:47am
    The Lucas Effect JWPlatt Dec 10 2012, 7:06am
        I am a PROPONENT of HFR (as of today, at least!) Danielos Send a private message to Danielos Dec 10 2012, 8:03am
            Where The Heck Did I Put My Sarcasm Meter? JWPlatt Dec 10 2012, 8:37am
    HFR herzogian Send a private message to herzogian Dec 10 2012, 7:49am
        It reduces motion blur, which benefits 3D... Aragorn the Elfstone Send a private message to Aragorn the Elfstone Dec 10 2012, 7:54am
        I don't think that Notanelvishname Send a private message to Notanelvishname Dec 10 2012, 9:34am
            HFR herzogian Send a private message to herzogian Dec 10 2012, 11:00am
                Good point Durhil Send a private message to Durhil Dec 10 2012, 11:10am
                I see your point Notanelvishname Send a private message to Notanelvishname Dec 10 2012, 11:35am
                    Sweet jesus Jax_Teller Send a private message to Jax_Teller Dec 10 2012, 12:19pm
                        I suspect the post was tongue in cheek... Notanelvishname Send a private message to Notanelvishname Dec 10 2012, 12:24pm
                            Bomby went to tbe LOTR Extended Edition Marathon Bombadil Send a private message to Bombadil Dec 10 2012, 2:01pm
                        Benny Hill, etc. Artemis Roach Send a private message to Artemis Roach Dec 10 2012, 7:15pm
                            We do not really know why yet Finrod Send a private message to Finrod Dec 10 2012, 7:46pm
                                Ebert and Maxivision48 Artemis Roach Send a private message to Artemis Roach Dec 10 2012, 7:55pm
                                    I saw a Siskel & Ebert back in the 80s sauget.diblosio Send a private message to sauget.diblosio Dec 10 2012, 8:09pm
                                        AC/DC Artemis Roach Send a private message to Artemis Roach Dec 10 2012, 8:32pm
                                            Con-current Phibbus Send a private message to Phibbus Dec 10 2012, 9:30pm
                                                Edison thread? Finrod Send a private message to Finrod Dec 10 2012, 9:48pm
                                                    Sorry Phibbus Send a private message to Phibbus Dec 11 2012, 12:55am
    Some people like it, some people don't. DanielLB Send a private message to DanielLB Dec 10 2012, 8:02am
    Because he watched 48fps for hours and hours Morok Cloudkeeper Send a private message to Morok Cloudkeeper Dec 10 2012, 8:03am
        I guess it is only a matter of getting used to it The Preciousss Send a private message to The Preciousss Dec 10 2012, 8:14am
            Exactly Morok Cloudkeeper Send a private message to Morok Cloudkeeper Dec 10 2012, 8:37am
    This may sound harsh but... FiliSonOfDis Send a private message to FiliSonOfDis Dec 10 2012, 8:52am
        why is everyone using the word "flopped"?? Chopsta123 Send a private message to Chopsta123 Dec 10 2012, 9:44am
    Recent science supports the "adaptation" idea DwellerInDale Send a private message to DwellerInDale Dec 10 2012, 8:54am
        Good reference Phibbus Send a private message to Phibbus Dec 10 2012, 1:51pm
            It is a good thing, shooting at HFR does not give us super visual processing power R11 Send a private message to R11 Dec 10 2012, 10:59pm
                Thank you for the informations Notanelvishname Send a private message to Notanelvishname Dec 11 2012, 12:25am
                Blur again Phibbus Send a private message to Phibbus Dec 11 2012, 1:03am
                    That's surprising! Escapist Send a private message to Escapist Dec 11 2012, 1:11am
                        Clarification Phibbus Send a private message to Phibbus Dec 11 2012, 1:23am
                        Anime Artemis Roach Send a private message to Artemis Roach Dec 11 2012, 1:30am
                Mostly JWPlatt Dec 11 2012, 2:33am
        It sounds like this may be related to what a person is "used to" Escapist Send a private message to Escapist Dec 11 2012, 2:08am
            They aren't stupid questions. Artemis Roach Send a private message to Artemis Roach Dec 11 2012, 2:14am
            Indeed, no stupid questions Phibbus Send a private message to Phibbus Dec 11 2012, 2:54am
                Forgive me if I'm being dim. Lacrimae Rerum Send a private message to Lacrimae Rerum Dec 11 2012, 10:07am
                    Sorry, I'm sure I'm not explaining terribly well Phibbus Send a private message to Phibbus Dec 12 2012, 4:08pm
    I think you're being unduly negative dormouse Send a private message to dormouse Dec 10 2012, 2:09pm
        Sarcasm Loves Company JWPlatt Dec 10 2012, 4:58pm
            Oh - was it sarcasm? dormouse Send a private message to dormouse Dec 10 2012, 7:28pm
                Notice: This Is A Sarcastic Thread JWPlatt Dec 10 2012, 8:10pm
    Well... LordotRings93 Send a private message to LordotRings93 Dec 10 2012, 3:26pm
    It was a mistake to show it to critics frodolives Send a private message to frodolives Dec 10 2012, 4:29pm
        I think that mistake was done in CinemaCon 2012 utku Send a private message to utku Dec 10 2012, 4:37pm
    Who says he didn't? dave_lf Send a private message to dave_lf Dec 10 2012, 4:43pm
    Who knows how many people are seeing this correctly-projected... sycorax82 Send a private message to sycorax82 Dec 10 2012, 4:46pm
    Everybody doesn't have a problem with 48 FPS ... Escapist Send a private message to Escapist Dec 11 2012, 1:00am

 
 
 

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.