Movies with high frame rates / Avatar 2 Petition
Rob
24 fps?
If so, please sign the Avatar 2 petition at
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/avatar--2.html
Shooting movies at higher frame rates will mean much less judder or strobing
and much better motion resolution and make movies more real. Please sign
the petition so more movies can be made with higher fps.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Steve Kraus
> Do you think at least some movies should be made at a higher frame
> rate than 24 fps?
> If so, please sign the Avatar 2 petition at
> http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/avatar--2.html
>
> Shooting movies at higher frame rates will mean much less judder or
> strobing and much better motion resolution and make movies more real.
> Please sign the petition so more movies can be made with higher fps.
I'd be more apt to sign a petition asking that major theatrical release not
be shot in HD which is and always was a consumer format.
Scott Dorsey
Would it be too much to ask for realistic plots and believable dialogue
also?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Derek Gee
"Rob" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hh0dk5$1fv6$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
> Do you think at least some movies should be made at a higher frame rate
> than 24 fps?
> If so, please sign the Avatar 2 petition at
> http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/avatar--2.html
To do so, someone's going to have to find out if the 50+ fps patent owned by
Showscan is in force anywhere outside the US. It expired in 2001 in the US,
but could well be in force in some other country. Showscan was liquidated
in 2002, so it's possible the patent was purchased by someone during the
liquidation.
According to an old 10-K filing I found, they had patents in Australia,
Canada and Japan, as well as "European Patent Convention". The same 10-K
filing notes that:
"Although the Company believes that its existing patents are valid, there
can be no assurance that the Company's patents, if challenged, will be
upheld, nor can there be any assurance that competitors will not develop a
different technology that offers comparable or better visual effects. "
So if someone has enough money they could challenge the patents in court...
Derek
Rob
"Derek Gee" <dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b367d46$0$5093$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> "Rob" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:hh0dk5$1fv6$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
>> Do you think at least some movies should be made at a higher frame rate
>> than 24 fps?
>> If so, please sign the Avatar 2 petition at
>> http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/avatar--2.html
>
> To do so, someone's going to have to find out if the 50+ fps patent owned
> by Showscan is in force anywhere outside the US. It expired in 2001 in
> the US, but could well be in force in some other country. Showscan was
> liquidated in 2002, so it's possible the patent was purchased by someone
> during the liquidation.
>
>
Before liquidation wasn't the showscan patent about projecting (or a method
of projecting) 70mm film at 60 fps? So even even if the patent still
existed, wouldn't it not apply to digital projection? Or projection of
another film size or frame rate or using a different method? Surely you
can't patent a frame rate? The Variety article says "The NBA execs made a
bold decision to do the All Star Game 3-D simulcast at 60 frames per second"
and 60 fps is now part of the digital cinema standards.
Derek Gee
Showscan had digital projection patents as well. Here's a list of some of
the later patents...
Derek
Rob
> Showscan had digital projection patents as well. Here's a list of some of
> the later patents...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y9a2l4r
>
> Derek
>
Aren't they all those showscan ones from the URL from the 1980's? The one
that says "electronic projector" is talking about moving film. I can't see
any that talk about digital video projectors (ie. using a video signal
instead of film)
Derek Gee
>
> "Derek Gee" <dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4b37c2b5$0$5093$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>> Showscan had digital projection patents as well. Here's a list of some
>> of the later patents...
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/y9a2l4r
>>
>> Derek
>>
> Aren't they all those showscan ones from the URL from the 1980's? The one
> that says "electronic projector" is talking about moving film. I can't
> see any that talk about digital video projectors (ie. using a video signal
> instead of film)
I haven't read that particular patent. The original Trumbull patents
reference both film and pixels. Does that matter? I don't know, I'm not a
patent attorney.
Derek
Greg Faris
Things strobe at different frequencies, but not any less. Wagon wheels still
turn backwards at certain speeds.
There is something to be said for the fact that each image is projected only
once, instead of twice, nevertheless we observed that the biggest gain in
fluidity was achieved in moving from 24 to 30FPS, and less from 30 to 60FPS.
The actual "flicker rate" on the screen is of course identical between
Showscan and Todd-AO.
If you recall, Showscan also made the claim that 60FPS was the natural
perception frequency of the human brain - I�ll refrain from comment.
The original patent covered "filming and projecting" at frame rates higher
than 50. This was necessary because of course most films involve high-speed
photography for slow-motion effects. Though an extension was granted to the
patent at the time the European patent was delivered, it is safe to assume it
has lapsed everywhere by now. In fact, we always assumed the patent would not
survive a serious challenge anyway. It doesn�t take any money to challenge an
existing patent - just do your thing and see if the patent holder comes after
you. Today that would be, well unlikely.
I am unaware of Showscan trying to patent anything in video, though they did
make something of a deal of the 60-frame to 60-field transfer to SONY HDVS,
which is what we called "HD" in those days. The "electronic projector" patents
are design patents for those 70mm film projectors using servo motors instead
of gears and mechanical movements, and interfaced to computers for theme park
shows.
In article <4b38288b$0$5112$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com says...
R...@theatresupport.com
Would it be too much to ask for bigger boobs on the actresses as well?
:-)
Rob
"Greg Faris" <gr...@faris.net> wrote in message
news:4b49ced4$0$24844$426a...@news.free.fr...
> Showscan's claim that the 60FPS rate reduced strobing was specious.
> Things strobe at different frequencies, but not any less.
But for things moving across the screen, capturing and projecting at 2.5
times the frame rate will mean they will appear to 'jump' across the screen
a lot less - so the moving object (moving across the screen) will appear to
'strobe' a lot less (or not at all - depending on the amount of movement).
Maybe for something stationary in the frame but moving at higher than the
capture rate it still might strobe (eg. a bee/bat/helicopter flying?) but
higher capture & display rate should mean more things are able to be shown
without seeming to strobe and even those that still strobe should have
better, more accurate motion displayed.
>Wagon wheels still turn backwards at certain speeds.
But capturing at 60 fps should mean that wagon wheels can go a lot faster
before they start to appear to go backwards (ie. 2.5x the speed or
revolutions per sec?)
Capturing using video at higher fps with an open shutter will probably be
better too.
> There is something to be said for the fact that each image is projected
> only
> once, instead of twice, nevertheless we observed that the biggest gain in
> fluidity was achieved in moving from 24 to 30FPS, and less from 30 to
> 60FPS.
According to James Cameron "the benefit of 30 is not great enough to be
worth the effort".
60 fps should be a lot better and better motion, even though as you increase
the frame rate at the higher fps, the less difference each change of fps
will look.
In fact, according to the BBC, the higher spatial resolution and the bigger
the screen, the higher fps you need. They (researchers at the BBC,
including Richard Salmon) say "if standard definition is acceptable at 50hz,
then full HDTV needs 150hz. As resolution increases, we probably want at
least 300Hz". Because if you increase the spatial resolution but not the
frame rate, when things move, the benefit of the increased spatial
resolution is lost (for the object that is moving - or everything if it is
the camera).
Greg Faris
at multiples and sub-multiples. Whenever we impose one grid on another,
interference patterns will occur, and higher frequency alone cannot resolve
this.
I was unaware of Cameron�s statement about 30FPS, and I would like to know
more about how he determined this. At Showscan, many of our viewing tests
showed the opposite, and I recall Doug Trumbull saying, at the end of a long
afternoon, "Thirty�s all you need" - leaving Showscan marketing staff aghast!
I strongly agree with the argument for frequency resolution coupled with
spatial resolution and screen size. The statement "if you increase the spatial
resolution but not the frame rate, when things move, the benefit of the
increased spatial resolution is lost (for the object that is moving - or
everything if it is the camera)" is definitely pertinent.
There is another argument, now obsolete, relating to film projection systems
that project each image twice, compared with Showscan, which projected a new
image at every shutter opening. There was a compelling perceptual study on
this presented at SMPTE, and it would be worth exploring further, if anyone
believed that film projection systems had a future.
In article <hiirue$qp4$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, nob...@nowhere.com says...
Rob
"Greg Faris" <nos...@goaway.net> wrote in message
news:4b4d01fb$0$316$426a...@news.free.fr...
> I was unaware of Cameron's statement about 30FPS, and I would like to know
> more about how he determined this. At Showscan, many of our viewing tests
> showed the opposite, and I recall Doug Trumbull saying, at the end of a
> long
> afternoon, "Thirty's all you need" - leaving Showscan marketing staff
> aghast!
>
He's an article from April 2009 when he says that:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=2868&cs=1
when he was talking about how he wanted 48 fps for films.
Article quotes:
"I've run tests on 48 frame per second stereo and it is stunning. The
cameras can do it, the projectors can (with a small modification) do it. So
why aren't we doing it, as an industry?..."
"The 48 fps negative or digital master can be skip-printed to generate a 24
fps 35mm DI negative for making release prints, so 48 is the magic number
because it remains compatible with the film-based platform which will still
be with us for some time, especially internationally. 30 and 60 fps are out
for that reason. Anyway the benefit of 30 is not great enough to be worth
the effort, especially when 48 is so easy to achieve. SMPTE tests done about
15 years ago showed that above 48 frames the returns diminish dramatically,
and 60 fps is overkill. So 48 is the magic number."
-------
Though I think that article was written before 60 fps was added as a proper
digital cinema standard (even though they had simulcast a 3D 60 fps NBA game
to cinemas), which I think happened this year:
http://www.imago.org/index.php?new=76
And while at Comic Con he said again he thinks frame rates should increase
to 48 fps, at the Avatar premiere when talking about the future of film he
said "we'll look at films that are 48 or 60 frames".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgrdKmgniGI
Rob
Correction - that should have been:
> Here's an article from April 2008 when he says that:
>
> http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=2868&cs=1
>
Rob
> I was unaware of Cameron's statement about 30FPS, and I would like to know
> more about how he determined this. At Showscan, many of our viewing tests
> showed the opposite, and I recall Doug Trumbull saying, at the end of a
> long
> afternoon, "Thirty's all you need" - leaving Showscan marketing staff
> aghast!
>
>
While the higher fps you use the less of a difference each new fps will
make, I still think there will be an advantage to the higher frame rates.
TVs with 100hz and 120hz interpolation show that there is a difference that
can easily be seen (even though interpolated frames aren't real). There are
also 240hz TVs and I think even higher. Flicker can still be seen on a seen
on a CRT monitor at 60hz. 120hz LCD monitors are supposed to show smoother
movement than 60hz ones I've read. And I notice an improvement in motion
between 60hz HDTV content and 50hz. And tests done with pilots show they
can recognise aeroplanes flashed onto a screen for around 1/220th of a
second.
The BBC white paper on high frame rate television shows that there are
benefits to going even to around 300hz
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP169.pdf
Greg Faris
In the Showscan tests we were comparing 24 and 30 with 60FPS, and found
somewhat diminishing returns, as Cameron claims (though I wonder what SMPTE
paper he is referring to). We did not include 48 in these admittedly
unscientific tests. While Cameron makes a compelling argument for 48, the
number is not really as magic as he suggests. 48 does have the advantage of
being projectable with one projection per frame, instead of two (see note),
however I think he is really out of touch if he considers the projector
modifications to be minor. On a mechanical projector it requires a new
intermittent and different gear ratios - a cost that has really no chance of
being adopted by exhibitors. Not to mention the fact that the projector has to
be disassembled and rebuilt to switch between 24 and 48 frame pictures! (Yes,
you can just "crank it" but many intermittents will seize by about the time
they get to 48 - believe me, been there, done that)!
As for the subjective result, how many people have seen the IMAX HD
projection? Personally, I found it less than "stunning", compared with regular
Imax, and I believe they basically scrapped it after Expo 92.
In proffering 48fps as the magic number, Cameron joins a long list of
well-intentioned visionaries who will wait out their careers in vain hoping to
see film projection graduate beyond 24FPS. This time at least we have the
certainty of knowing it�s too late.
NOTE : While a "single-flash" system, which projects an image only once, at a
suitable frame rate (at least 48) has a strong theoretical advantage over a
classic "two-flash" system, there is debate as to whether this perceptual
advantage can be realized in a real-world system. Willy Borberg, in his series
of SMPTE papers surrounding the development of the Simplex XL projector,
indicated that the first flash in a two-flash system was always unsharp, due
to thermal shock and residual resonance from the transport system, and only
the second flash had any chance of being really sharp.
In article <hij4p7$1a92$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, nob...@nowhere.com says...
ep4...@yahoo.com
dialogue
also?
Picky, picky......*LOL*
Little noticed and remarked on is that all or almost all of Avatar is
highly derivitive. (This is not necessarily bad, but anyone that
thinks Avatar is 'original' is sadly mistaken.) The scenes were the
'natives' meet the 'spy' who turns out to be a good guy (and when they
circle around him) is just like a hundreds of scenes in westerns where
the Indians meet the 'white man', often a trooper who turns out to be
a friend of the Indians. The reaction of the the 'natives' to
technology.....just like the old time serials where the 'natives' say
things like 'white man come big bird in sky....make gods angry.' And
again, the whole bit about the natives respecting 'nature' - just like
a lot of the old time Tarzan films. As is the 'rescue' by the animals
toward the end of the film. Avatar is great fun and a really
remarkable use of technology and digital stuff. But whatever virtues
the film may have, originality is not one of them. (YMMV)
Martin Hart
(SNIP)
>
> >Wagon wheels still turn backwards at certain speeds.
>
> But capturing at 60 fps should mean that wagon wheels can go a lot faster
> before they start to appear to go backwards (ie. 2.5x the speed or
> revolutions per sec?)
Actually the number and size of the spokes in a wheel have a lot to do
with the appearance of spinning backwards. I suspect that MGM did a lot
of testing before having the chariots in "Ben-Hur" built because there
is very little of that reverse spin apparent in the chariot race. Most
of the race was shot at 16 to 20 frames per second depending on the
direction the chariots took in relation to the camera position.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/
Greg Faris
ema...@thewidescreenmuseum.com says...
>Actually the number and size of the spokes in a wheel have a lot to do
>with the appearance of spinning backwards. I suspect that MGM did a lot
>of testing before having the chariots in "Ben-Hur" built because there
>is very little of that reverse spin apparent in the chariot race. Most
>of the race was shot at 16 to 20 frames per second depending on the
>direction the chariots took in relation to the camera position.
>
Of course it is very simple to calculate frequency, though it takes some
trial and error to get precise speed on a horse-drawn wagon or chariot! Even
if you do it, any shot of the wagon starting or slowing will sooner or later
cross over a frequency with an integer relation to the frame rate, and things
will freeze and reverse. You can construct wheels with asymmetric geometry,
but then you can ONLY film them in motion, as a still shot would look weird.
About the best you can do is to use the widest shutter on these shots, to
blur the spokes. The interference pattern still happens, but it is less
conspicuous to our eyes. And of course you can simply edit around any shots
where the strobe effect is considered to be distracting. Generally,
film-going audiences are relatively forgiving of this iconic movie artifact,
and few consider it objectionable. I only brought it up because it was a
claim I frequently heard from Showscan marketing people, when it is of course
untrue.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Little noticed and remarked on is that all or almost all of Avatar is
>highly derivitive.
Well, of course. That's what makes it popular.
>(This is not necessarily bad, but anyone that
>thinks Avatar is 'original' is sadly mistaken.)
Truly original films are never very popular because people can't relate
to them. Films that are really successful are films that take a lot of
standard concepts and draw them out in a slightly different way. Star
Wars was probably the canonical example for my generation.
On the other hand, Dog Star Man is actually original, but it's not very
much fun to watch.
rjn
> Do you think at least some movies should be made at a higher
> frame rate than 24 fps?
It's not going to happen. I bet that it would some years back,
and bought ShowScan stock. You win some, You lose some. :(
I later saw the triad of 48fps 70mm "ride" films that were at one
time installed in the Luxor in Las Vegas. Minimal benefit.
One of the venues was even pretending to be a "live" stage,
and counting on the high frame rate to carry off the illusion.
It didn't.
Plus, HDMI and BluRay are already claiming the first rate
doubling, for home 3D.
Plus, to the average viewer, a higher frame rate translates
to "more video-like".
ep45...@yahoo.com wrote: >
> Little noticed and remarked on is that all or almost all of Avatar is
> highly derivitive.
It's noticed. Snarky remarks like "Dances with Blue Smurfs"
and "Pocahontas in Space" are fairly common.
And I suspect that the exhibitors are thrilled about that,
seriously.
Avatar was billed as the make-or-break watershed event
for 3D cinema. It is setting BO records, and it is clearly
NOT due to a creative, original and compelling storyline.
The studios and theatres now know that it is at least
possible to make big bucks on recycled dreck, as long
as it has eye-popping 3D and state of the art CGI.
I wasn't planning to see Av, actually, but now that the
Chinese have decided that it's too threatening to their
thugocracy, and have banned it in 2D, I just might.
--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:na...@ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
Scott Dorsey
>
>The studios and theatres now know that it is at least
>possible to make big bucks on recycled dreck, as long
>as it has eye-popping 3D and state of the art CGI.
They have known that it is possible to make big bucks on recycled dreck
ever since Bride of Frankenstein came out.
Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch
> Plus, to the average viewer, a higher frame rate translates
> to "more video-like".
...to film lovers too, I might add:
I always frown at modern TVs that display movies like video commercials, smooooth that is (and loaded with other "enhancements" on top). You could even call it introducing an unwanted motion artifact! (much like edge enhancement for artificial sharpness should be considered an unwanted image artifact!)
ML
Derek Gee
news:357b64af-ef1d-4185...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> I wasn't planning to see Av, actually, but now that the
> Chinese have decided that it's too threatening to their
> thugocracy, and have banned it in 2D, I just might.
The Chinese said the 2D version wasn't taking in any money - all the cinema
goers were wanting the Digital 3D and IMAX 3D versions (the 3D versions
weren't pulled). Plus they wanted to free up space for the new film about
Confucius.
Derek