the future of FPS

what do we think will happen to the FPS of films? will industries go to higher rates to push a new standard until it becomes the norm? or will they stick to 24 fps?

i know the hobbit in 3d people have mixed reviews but thats to be expected with something 'new' being introduced which is 48fps.

i havent seen it myself but its been described by many as very real.

so what do you think of the future of films and would you be interested in showing at a final format in a higher FPS in 2D?
 
I think low-budget filmmakers will be staying with 24fps for awhile since higher frame rates require more storage and processing time.

Has anyone here rendered photoreal CG before? Remember how long that took? Feel like rendering out twice the number of frames? Thought not. :)
 
I predict frame rates will soon be irrelevant. 3 primary reasons for believing this:

1. Original FPS rate is indistinguishable on YouTube and most other online content providers, so younger viewers give less and less of a crap.

2. The new generation of TV monitors interpolate frames to smooth out motion, giving everything the "video" look, even if it originated on film.

3. James Cameron and Peter Jackson have both embraced a higher frame rate, two filmmakers whose influence on the technical side of the industry is undeniable.
 
Now that the industry has moved to digital projection, you'll probably see a lot more experimentation around this kind of thing. Where it actually ends up, who knows.

It's an interesting time in cinema, we are really and truly at the exact transition point from film to digital, and no-one really knows where we'll end up. Film became standardised to 24fps, and so digital just followed suit. It won't be all that long before digital surpasses film in dynamic range, colour reproduction and spatial resolution. What then? Who knows.
 
what do we think will happen to the FPS of films? will industries go to higher rates to push a new standard until it becomes the norm? or will they stick to 24 fps?

i know the hobbit in 3d people have mixed reviews but thats to be expected with something 'new' being introduced which is 48fps.

i havent seen it myself but its been described by many as very real.

so what do you think of the future of films and would you be interested in showing at a final format in a higher FPS in 2D?

I'm currently reading a book called "Understanding Digital Cinema" and they put forth an interesting idea that takes your questions slightly further.

Not only does 24p,48p,60p all become different points depending on the film, adding 3d into the mix gives 6 different permutations in what you want to see.

With digital distribution, the cinema are able to tailor each cinema to what the customer really wants. You want to see the Hobbit on 24fps to enjoy the old feel of film, fine. You have clients who want the best and are willing to pay more, here's the 60p 3d version. Got corporate clients that don't like 3d, sure, here's a 60p 2d version. That's pretty much what we've seen with the Hobbit anyway (less the 60p versions)

Oh, also add in the resolution and you get more permutations, but really, I'm finding that cinemas are just using 4k projectors on bigger screens, so you're really getting a similar result as you'd get from 2k on a smaller screen, unless I'm missing some point...

Anyway.. Digital cinema lets you go even further. Lets say for instance that the next hot director wants to do a really, really gritty Batman, with full on gore and violence. In the current system that won't happen, as they must dilute all that down since a R rating often kills a movie's success in the cinema.. ok, the point of this is with digital cinema, the costs of distribution is lower, so that director has the possibility to put out 2 (or more) versions of a movie. R rating for the hardcore gore fans, MA version for the teens who want a little more oomph than Snow White but not too much they're not allowed to go watch, and the PG version for Mum, Dad and the kids.

What version would you want to see? Sparta in 3D or Toy Story with the kids?

Add in all the other permutations, it may help let the smaller cinema chains differentiate from the mega chains.

I don't know if that's the future, it does sound like a lot of extra work and costs for a movie, but it was an interesting idea to read and opens a lot of possibilities.

Directors cut anyone? Extended version. There are a lot of extra options available.

What do you think?
 
Oh, also add in the resolution and you get more permutations, but really, I'm finding that cinemas are just using 4k projectors on bigger screens, so you're really getting a similar result as you'd get from 2k on a smaller screen, unless I'm missing some point...
I guess that is the point - 4k is intended for bigger screens, apart from the fact that 4k digital projection is in a growing minority (but still a minority).


Anyway.. Digital cinema lets you go even further. Lets say for instance that the next hot director wants to do a really, really gritty Batman, with full on gore and violence. In the current system that won't happen, as they must dilute all that down since a R rating often kills a movie's success in the cinema.. ok, the point of this is with digital cinema, the costs of distribution is lower, so that director has the possibility to put out 2 (or more) versions of a movie. R rating for the hardcore gore fans, MA version for the teens who want a little more oomph than Snow White but not too much they're not allowed to go watch, and the PG version for Mum, Dad and the kids.
The scheduling nightmare this would cause would be enough for a cinema to say 'no way'. Imagine a standard 10-cinema multiplex. A big-budget epic like The Hobbit comes out. You get delivered to you the 24fps version, the 48fps version, the 24fps 3D version, the 48fps 3D version, the extended Directors cut 48fps 3D version, the extended Director's cut 24fps 3D version, the extended Director's cut 24fps 2D version.. etc. etc. etc.
Do you not show any other films for a week?

Do you shoot extra scenes at an eventual higher cost anyway? If you're making a 'really, really gritty batman' with violence, gore, etc. then shooting extra scenes and dumbing it down to a PG rating as well as your R rating, are you not then shooting two different films? Your costs go up because you're finishing two different films, the different versions need different sound mixes, perhaps different colour grades, and your distribution costs that are half what they were with film, are suddenly the same as what they were because you're distributing two movies.

I mean, sure it could happen, but I don't think it's too realistic, at least not in the near future.
 
I'm not fan of 3D, don't think it adds to the movie. With that said, I saw the movie in 24p 3D, because I knew Peter Jackson shot it specifically for 3D. I didn't know one of the theaters near me was offering in 48p 3D. So when I have the time, I am going to see it, just because I'd like to check it out. I'm a 24p fan, I don't even like the 120 and 240hz modes on newer LCD tvs. My friend has one and keep it on all the time, and movies start to look like home videos. I find it very distracting to watch. I turned my back to 60hz mode, at home.

I like my cinema to look like cinema, not like I'm looking through a large window at a live action play.
 
The scheduling nightmare this would cause would be enough for a cinema to say 'no way'. Imagine a standard 10-cinema multiplex. A big-budget epic like The Hobbit comes out. You get delivered to you the 24fps version, the 48fps version, the 24fps 3D version, the 48fps 3D version, the extended Directors cut 48fps 3D version, the extended Director's cut 24fps 3D version, the extended Director's cut 24fps 2D version.. etc. etc. etc.
Do you not show any other films for a week?

Who said it has to be in the cinema for the entire week? The beauty of digital distribution is you can effectively afford to show a single showing at a particular time suited to your clients.

IE. Wednesday night is Directors Cut or Extended version night. Give people a reason to come in on the quiet night or during the day time (off peak).

Do you shoot extra scenes at an eventual higher cost anyway? If you're making a 'really, really gritty batman' with violence, gore, etc. then shooting extra scenes and dumbing it down to a PG rating as well as your R rating, are you not then shooting two different films? Your costs go up because you're finishing two different films, the different versions need different sound mixes, perhaps different colour grades, and your distribution costs that are half what they were with film, are suddenly the same as what they were because you're distributing two movies.

I mean, sure it could happen, but I don't think it's too realistic, at least not in the near future.

You know, I'm not really sure. You wouldn't have to shoot an entire new movie each time, though certain scenes that you anticipate that would change the rating would have multiple shootings. A lot of the work would be duplicated, so not all of it would need to be done multiple times. I believe it'd just the changes.

From what I've read, the cost difference between digital distribution and film distribution is about 90% cheaper. Doing 2 copies is still cheaper.

Doing 2 versions can help sell extra in the home entertainment area where the studios want to sell as many times to each customer. There are people who first buy the cinematic release and later when the extended versions come out, those. You may get people to see the different versions so it may pay for the difference in production costs.

I don't know if it's something studios/cinemas are considering or even if it's worthwhile, it's just something that I read that I thought was an interesting concept.
 
i think overall its an interesting factor, its also a shame that the really high end work to be kept and shown in the cinema isnt available in most homes, i really think we need to start having screens which can handle the multiples of frame rates, to me it feels like we are forced to a standard and are not allowed to move away from it at least to carry on the effort we put in.
 
with digital cinema, the costs of distribution is lower, so that director has the possibility to put out 2 (or more) versions of a movie. R rating for the hardcore gore fans, MA version for the teens who want a little more oomph than Snow White but not too much they're not allowed to go watch, and the PG version for Mum, Dad and the kids.

Hadn't considered this. I like. :cool:
 
Has anyone here rendered photoreal CG before? Remember how long that took? Feel like rendering out twice the number of frames? Thought not. :)

Hell, even if you aren't doing photoreal work render times are a pain in the ass to work with. I work at 15 fps myself (helps improve my visuals, but at the cost of motion smoothness).
 
i think overall its an interesting factor, its also a shame that the really high end work to be kept and shown in the cinema isnt available in most homes, i really think we need to start having screens which can handle the multiples of frame rates, to me it feels like we are forced to a standard and are not allowed to move away from it at least to carry on the effort we put in.

That's not exactly a bad thing. The last thing we want is for Cinema to die. A lot of people don't go to the cinema since its not really that special anymore. Giving a lot of options that may not be available when it comes to the home entertainment market may drive more people into the cinemas once again. Then again, in my opinion, telling compelling stories is the best way to get bums in seats.

On top of that, my projector that I have in the living room can do 50fps and its 4 year old Panasonic. Consumer level equipment will usually lag behind cinemas. When 3D came out at the cinemas, there was no 3D for consumer projectors. Now its readily available. I've read about some old spec 4k projectors (and TV's) floating around. It won't be too long until a 4k 3D 60fps projectors/TVs will be available. They won't be cheap, but it'll be available sooner or later.
 
Back
Top