4 ms·

I got giddy when I saw 48 fps. Resolution is nice, but I'm one of those people who constantly notices flicker at 24 fps. It shouldn't be difficult to convert

I got giddy when I saw 48 fps. Resolution is nice, but I'm one of those people who constantly notices flicker at 24 fps. It shouldn't be difficult to convert a movie shot on this film to digital, so here's what I'd do: Let Chris Nolan (or whoever's interested) shoot a movie on it, then convert it to digital. Next, do some A/B testing. Select a smallish number of theatres in major markets who would be showing his film on multiple screens and install the needed projectors in one of them. Advertise the choice in those theatres only, and see what happens. If the director likes it, they'll probably talk about it in the press, so that's free advertising right there. If the experience really is that much better, you should see higher viewership for the MaxiVision screenings. After that, it's an easy sell to the studio execs. In all, they spend a trivial amount of money to do some A/B testing and get usable results. Granted, the studios are conservative and often myopic or flat-out wrong (3d), but even they shouldn't have too much trouble seeing whether it's a good (cheap) investment or not.

AndrewDucker 16y ago
The big question is - will people pay more for tickets at 48fps? If not, then it's not in the interests of the distributors/chains to pay to upgrade.
- redthrowaway 16y ago
  Per the article, the purported advantage is that it offers an experience that a) can't be had at home, and b) people actually want (unlike 3d). In so doing, the creator argues that it has the potential to reverse, or at least mitigate the trend of declining viewership. If that's true, then it could be financially worthwhile even if ticket prices don't go up.
  - AndrewDucker 16y ago
    This is true if people do actually want it, and are willing to pay for it (whether they're going to a 48fps showing over a 24fps one, or they are paying for a showing when they wouldn't otherwise have done so). Personally, I like 3D, but I'm aware that not everyone feels this way.
    - redthrowaway 16y ago
      I'd say 3d, when properly used, is a useful tool in moviemaking. That said, it should not be a format and studio reliance upon it will lead to them, in the best case, producing movies that are suited to it, which are few. This technology, on the other hand, is at least purported to be one which can be used for all films and increase quality across the board.
      - AndrewDucker 16y ago
        I definitely agree on increased quality. I see flicker quite a bit, and I'd love it if movies had high frame rates. I'm just sceptical that this can be sold to the general public.
        redthrowaway 16y ago
        That's a legitimate concern, hence my suggestion of A/B testing. There's a very real chance the average moviegoer won't care, in which case the cost is minimal.
- crististm 16y ago
  If the experience is no better than what I get at home, then I will not pay for a premium ticket... Going to the theater should give you an experience that is either not possible or too expensive to get at home. So the only way they will survive is if they get you this experience without paying a premium for it (the _normal_ experience would be HD@home)
Keyframe 16y ago
but I'm one of those people who constantly notices flicker at 24 fps. I'm sorry, but I find that hard to believe - unless you're a cyborg or something. It is known there is a strobing "effect" with 24fps while projection is in 3D though, if that's what you've meant? OTOH, ideal fps for a human eye was shown/concurred long time ago to be at 72-75fps range, and approximate resolution of a 35mm 4-perf to be at 8K-9K range - so that's kind of a mark where we can see things move forward to eventually.
- bhousel 16y ago
  The commenter was probably talking about moving images, not still ones. That is, the strobing effect is due to inadequate temporal resolution, not optical resolution.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  >>but I'm one of those people who constantly notices flicker at 24 fps. I'm sorry, but I find that hard to believe Personally, while I can't see it in movie projection equipment, but 10 years ago when CRTs and stegosaurus roamed the land, I could identify a monitor set to 30Hz refresh at the briefest glance, and could not stand to sit in front of one -- I got headaches from it quickly. That said, I cannot sense the flicker in TVs (presumably their phosphor holds the image longer than a monitor), nor in movie projection.
- jerf 16y ago
  I consciously try not to notice the 24fps rate, but as I play some 3D computer games I am unfortunately somewhat sensitized to the subject. It's easy enough to see; go to a conventional-film film (I don't think you'll get this effect with digital which is always on), and while something bright is on the screen just wave your arm rapidly in front of you. You'll see visible jerking in the image of your arm, it'll jump all over the place. It shouldn't be that visible to you, you should see the same continuous (and possibly blurry) motion you would see in a darkish room lit by conventional lighting. The film looks the same way and if the film isn't generous with its motion blur it is sometimes quite visible during action scenes or even just moderately fast pans. 24fps needs to die.
sonnyz 16y ago
The official website says that there have already been several feature films shot with their cameras. http://www.red.com/experience http://www.red.com/experience It also says that "The Hobbit" is being filmed with a Red camera.
javanix 16y ago
I was thinking the opposite, actually (though I don't notice the flicker at 24Hz). My TV has one of those modes called "motion-smooth" or something like that, and what it purports to do is smooth the transitions between frames. It does this surprisingly well - too well, I would say. The end result is that movies end up looking like cheap soap operas, and I can't get over it. Granted, the 48fps is not the same as 60fps, and maybe the difference is enough for me to subconsciously forget it. But if it wasn't the change would probably be enough for me to forgo MaxiVision films. I think refresh rate is one of those things that our minds compensate for in the background, and the slightest changes one way or the other are instantly noticeable.
- Synaesthesia 16y ago
  That's as a result of the interpolation your TV has to perform. If the content was actually filmed at 48fps it would look natural.

AndrewDucker 16y ago

The big question is - will people pay more for tickets at 48fps? If not, then it's not in the interests of the distributors/chains to pay to upgrade.

redthrowaway 16y ago
Per the article, the purported advantage is that it offers an experience that a) can't be had at home, and b) people actually want (unlike 3d). In so doing, the creator argues that it has the potential to reverse, or at least mitigate the trend of declining viewership. If that's true, then it could be financially worthwhile even if ticket prices don't go up.
- AndrewDucker 16y ago
  This is true if people do actually want it, and are willing to pay for it (whether they're going to a 48fps showing over a 24fps one, or they are paying for a showing when they wouldn't otherwise have done so). Personally, I like 3D, but I'm aware that not everyone feels this way.
  - redthrowaway 16y ago
    I'd say 3d, when properly used, is a useful tool in moviemaking. That said, it should not be a format and studio reliance upon it will lead to them, in the best case, producing movies that are suited to it, which are few. This technology, on the other hand, is at least purported to be one which can be used for all films and increase quality across the board.
    - AndrewDucker 16y ago
      I definitely agree on increased quality. I see flicker quite a bit, and I'd love it if movies had high frame rates. I'm just sceptical that this can be sold to the general public.
      - redthrowaway 16y ago
        That's a legitimate concern, hence my suggestion of A/B testing. There's a very real chance the average moviegoer won't care, in which case the cost is minimal.
crististm 16y ago
If the experience is no better than what I get at home, then I will not pay for a premium ticket... Going to the theater should give you an experience that is either not possible or too expensive to get at home. So the only way they will survive is if they get you this experience without paying a premium for it (the _normal_ experience would be HD@home)

Keyframe 16y ago

but I'm one of those people who constantly notices flicker at 24 fps. I'm sorry, but I find that hard to believe - unless you're a cyborg or something. It is known there is a strobing "effect" with 24fps while projection is in 3D though, if that's what you've meant? OTOH, ideal fps for a human eye was shown/concurred long time ago to be at 72-75fps range, and approximate resolution of a 35mm 4-perf to be at 8K-9K range - so that's kind of a mark where we can see things move forward to eventually.

bhousel 16y ago
The commenter was probably talking about moving images, not still ones. That is, the strobing effect is due to inadequate temporal resolution, not optical resolution.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
>>but I'm one of those people who constantly notices flicker at 24 fps. I'm sorry, but I find that hard to believe Personally, while I can't see it in movie projection equipment, but 10 years ago when CRTs and stegosaurus roamed the land, I could identify a monitor set to 30Hz refresh at the briefest glance, and could not stand to sit in front of one -- I got headaches from it quickly. That said, I cannot sense the flicker in TVs (presumably their phosphor holds the image longer than a monitor), nor in movie projection.
jerf 16y ago
I consciously try not to notice the 24fps rate, but as I play some 3D computer games I am unfortunately somewhat sensitized to the subject. It's easy enough to see; go to a conventional-film film (I don't think you'll get this effect with digital which is always on), and while something bright is on the screen just wave your arm rapidly in front of you. You'll see visible jerking in the image of your arm, it'll jump all over the place. It shouldn't be that visible to you, you should see the same continuous (and possibly blurry) motion you would see in a darkish room lit by conventional lighting. The film looks the same way and if the film isn't generous with its motion blur it is sometimes quite visible during action scenes or even just moderately fast pans. 24fps needs to die.

sonnyz 16y ago

The official website says that there have already been several feature films shot with their cameras. http://www.red.com/experience http://www.red.com/experience It also says that "The Hobbit" is being filmed with a Red camera.

javanix 16y ago

I was thinking the opposite, actually (though I don't notice the flicker at 24Hz). My TV has one of those modes called "motion-smooth" or something like that, and what it purports to do is smooth the transitions between frames. It does this surprisingly well - too well, I would say. The end result is that movies end up looking like cheap soap operas, and I can't get over it. Granted, the 48fps is not the same as 60fps, and maybe the difference is enough for me to subconsciously forget it. But if it wasn't the change would probably be enough for me to forgo MaxiVision films. I think refresh rate is one of those things that our minds compensate for in the background, and the slightest changes one way or the other are instantly noticeable.

Synaesthesia 16y ago
That's as a result of the interpolation your TV has to perform. If the content was actually filmed at 48fps it would look natural.