Apparently Trumbull did a 60 fps / 70 mm test on a roller-coaster back in '79 or '80 and presented it to studio execs to show them what Showscan could do. It was meant to have blown their minds. Would love to see that footage.
Great Guy. His original experiments showed the greatest audience reaction at motion PORTRAYAL at 70Hz. Perhaps films ought to be shown at this speed. or at least 72Hz (Three times film). The problem is that 120Hz would give problems in the rest of the world. The best frame rate for a world standard would be 300fps. Divisible to 60Hz AND 50Hz systems (or even 75Hz). Think BIG!
No idea if anyone is still watching this in 2020. But Trumbull has been trying to push 60 fps on 70mm film since he did Brainstorm back in the early '80s. In the end the studio allowed him to do the' hyper real' scenes he wanted on 70mm which contrasted with the 35mm for the rest of the scenes but he had to keep it at the standard 24fps. To me the images just looked wide-screen with a fish eye lense effect.
Did there used to be a showscan presentation at Disneyland (California) in the early 80's? I remember seeing a short film there where the curtains parted, and somebody walked on stage and began to talk. Then it was revealed that is was just a film being played. It looked amazingly realistic.
Wish I lived near Doug so I could finagle my way into seeing his theater and his demo reel. All this makes me think about Phil Tippett and his animations for Star Wars, introducing motion blur into stop motion animation. Logical next thought of course, is, animating at 120 frames a second. Oh boy. Back to go motion. Philosophical thought is can the mind learn to store information more efficiently, and most importantly, retrieve it at some higher success rate. Reality. A frisbee.
Interesting solution to having the option of both high fps playback and film-like motion blur at 24fps playback without worrying about video's strange blur artifacts, like those introduced from rolling shutters with CMOS capture. Not to mention the option of just conventional slow motion, like the Vericams. Cool.
It's 2016, and it's sad that this - VERY low-quality video, of a VERY hI-end High-quality imaging/film system is shown - NOT close to even 'analogue'-quality images, but, WORSE (the 'highest' quality is 360p!). I've 8k video monitors (yes, 'TV's - and, I DO need them, for my work), and a couple of 4k's, as well, and it's such a shame, because I ALWAYS wished to see ShowScan at it's best. From what I understand, (Mr. Trumbull's original) ShowScan, and the later Showscan Film Corp., and THEN (phew!) Showscan Entertainment are kaput. I thought this was amazing when I first heard about it (when I was VERY young), and now - grown, this technology - or, more accurately, the IDEA OF what ShowScan can do, is more relevant, and now, easier-than-ever to actually commit to!
@@asdfjklo124 It's 2023 now. There are high tier phones that film 8k 120fps now. Marvel movies after Guardians 2 were all shot in 8k (24fps but 3D so twice the frames). It's possible. Theaters can handle kt
they aren't issues at all. They just say they are issues (invented) - they have a goal to manipulate the mind with 60fps. that's why they wanted to use it so badly in "Brainstorm" but the studio cheaped out on them.
old / outdated material here but still good ... however, sometimes a little motion blur is added to some frames intentionally, in some 3d or 2d animations for example, in order to make it more 'film-like' thus looking more 'realistic' since regular film viewers are used to it ... probably, Douglas Trumbull and people like him trying to reduce / remove motion blur want it for industrial and technical uses of cinematography where the sharper the image the more details are visible and needed too ...
the down side to 60fps was film handling. you would need a lot of film and big storage drums to hold the film. just imagine projecting a movie that's 2 hrs long at 60 fps. that's what killed it. ive seen movies at 60 fps and it looks lifelike.
Showscan was supposed to had taken the world by storm in 1984. It never happened. The movie industry killed it because it required investments it refused to do. Lets cross our fingers this tamed version gets a greenlight.
Just in case anybody is confused - this video is "about" high frame frates. It's not *shot* at a high frame rates. TH-cam only displays 30FPS anyway so you will see no difference in the examples while watching the video. People linking to this as an "example" of 48 or 60FPS are just confused about what they're watching here.
30 frames is just a myth. The eye can see even beyond 200 frames per second in some cases. Do a google search for "15 FPS vs. 30 FPS vs. 60 FPS" and you see the same animation at 15, 30 and 60 fps. Unless you have something wrong with your brain or eyes, you see a very clear difference between them even if you just use one eye.
It doesn't make sense to do this. At 24fps, that blur it gets is what helps FILL IN the lost information from being played back at such a low framerate. Take a ball bouncing for example, often in 24fps playback, there won't be a frame where the ball actually touches the ground, but visually it looks like it does due to the blur trail that happens. But if you use this method, you're stuck with less blur to indicate movement, resulting in object popping. The industry just needs to move up to 48fps
On the other hand, I would note that higher shutter speeds can be used for good. Spielberg employed an extremely fast shutter speed on Saving Private Ryan which made a more gritty feel during the Normandy Beach scenes, etc. But the rest of the film and his other films use the standard shutter speed, and all of them use 24 fps.
You may not notice blur, but when you see the same film at 60FPS, you notice less blur. Your brain is used to 24p and that is why it looks normal, but the picture really is blurred somewhat.
@kazioo2 Great comment and thank you for proving my point. The eye is "king" in everything video and film related. A camera that doesn't reflect our eyes' natural abilities is probably worse than a "good" camera that does beyond them. Keep in mind that film and video are based entirely on the concept of persistence of vision. That is, we see one frame after another. Two images. It would be different if you actually saw something physically move in front of you. That's why blur is necessary.
well...I made a mistake... in the abstract there is no limit ... you could see one billion frames as well... but our perception of the environment is something like 60fps But I still believe that we do not need more than 60fps
I think most of the comments missed the point, I'm pretty sure he is saying shoot at 60 or 120fps etc. and then master at 24fps but have the ability using showscan processing to retain detail but still have motion blur as data is not being lost by only shooting at 24fps. I don't think he was after the 48fps Hobbit like look.
There are movies that are made for living, and there are movies that are made for telling. Do you think that the movie "Up" for example would benefit from being 48fps? Movies are one of my greatest passions, as a matter of fact.
The information it puts across is not lost on someone who apparently not as thick headed as you. If you want to see it at 120fps then contact Doug Trumbull and get a video file that runs at 120. But you'll need equipment that can show it at 120fps as well. This however does not change the fact that it still brings across the information properly to explain WHY higher frame rates are better.
I agree with that... Humans struggle to tell the difference between 48 and 60fps - let alone anything higher. (However the same is not true of lighting flicker - we can actually detect flicker almost up to 150Hz if it's an unsmoothed on/off effect which is why florescent or LED lights need to have their power 'smoothed' out to avoid flicker)
So I get filming in 120 means you can drop frames in post to recreate a lower frame rate, basic maths right? But how do you get around blurring? I might want motion blurrng at 24fps but if my original source was 120fps my shutter is presumably 1/240 (or there abouts) which means when I drop frames to get to 24fps each remaining frame is shot with a shutter of 1/240 and not 1/50 which would have been the optimal for source at 24fps so does my new interploated 24fps footage now look really choppy because of the high shutter speed?
All divided by 5 and yes, you have 1/48s shutter speed and 24 frames per second... so it is just math and all is proven in his theory, as in this film.
Seriously? Someone here really hates Blu-Ray and can't watch it? WTF? It's the best new restorative technology to come along in years. What is wrong with watching super-sharp images of your favorite films? I've never heard the whining of so many nay-sayers of 60 fps film technology. I guess we will find out at Christmas if Peter Jackson's experiments with 48 fps filming is flawed or ends up being something mind blowing. The faster the frames, the better it will look - a hyper-real experience!
may I ask my friend, why the framerate average hasn't changed since the 1920s with the new technologies available? is that a matter of action detail that would look more "fake" if filmed with this frame speed? (because, at 24fps it looks like a more fluid, fast and heavy reactions to certain situations, as those shown in this video at the beginning) that if shown at 48-60fps I think they would look way smoother than 24fps... that looks more "rude" hehe... sorry, I don't know about this at all xP
Sure, as long as I don't have to put up with Home video like High motion that breaks the suspension of disbelief and makes everything look un-cinematic or Fake. HOWEVER, I think these people have the RIGHT IDEA. Use Higher framerate segements for where it's needed. Next time you are home at 11am , turn to CBS and watch The Young And The Restless. I'm pretty sure this show is filmed at 60FPS, because it looks home video like.(Actually the better way would be to watch an episode on cbs.com)
no, you're wrong. in professional camera you may reduce "shutter" time. (check i.e. Canon XH A1) which gives you sharp frames, which gives you possibility to make very stable slow-mos shooting even with only 24fps. check manual. page 55 - shutter priority mode.
Unfortunately, he's too late. HFR beat him to it, and it was soundly rejected. Maybe if he had gotten his way with the film version of Showscan, it would be different now...
If blu ray looked weird to you the first time you saw it, you had something on your TV or player making it that way. The only difference between the image on a blu-ray vs a DVD is the resolution. Again, anything than 24fps looks like garbage.
Stop trolling. The human eye sees way more than 30FPS - which is why 60Hz florescent lighting (which strobes at 120hz due to the way mains rectifiers work) flicker (despite lots of smoothing capacitors designed to mitigate the effect. 30FPS has very visible judder which is why modern TVs digitally smooth pans to try and negate this (often at 120Hz or 200Hz).
No. He's not using a shutter when he digitally captures at 120fps. He exposes for the full 1/120 sec. Then later he can use the footage to simulate 24 or 60 just the way it would look with the shutter.
Dude - did you not listen at all to why it is better to shoot like this? It's not more is better and neither is he suggesting it is. He's laying out PRACTICAL uses for shooting at higher frame rates which can be used both creatively and technically. Plus the fact that he's saying that 24p is the standard. At no point does he suggest that more than 24 frames is shit and that more frames is better.
it's others saying that over and over = 60fps is certainly an effect as it doesn't represent real eye sight at all. It has more in common with digital video output CGI than how we see the world. Plus they want to use higher frame rates to carry other messages to the viewer subconsciously..so it's rather nasty that way.. like a carrier wave in audio. They were ready to play that up in that movie Brainstorm (about mental manipulation) but they couldn't snag the funding to implement it.
(2) since people grew accustomed to 24fps cinema, they rejected everything else as "garbage" as you say, but 24fps is totally arbitrary...on an objective level there is nothing special about it. images are images, you can experience them blurred (24fps) or clear (48fps and higher) and there is nothing wrong with either. and besides, shutter angle, lighting and lenses do more to make a movie look like a movie than frame rate.
Why would you post this on TH-cam? @Vradst, if you want us to see the benefits of 120FPS you need to provide a download link for offline viewing. TH-cam doesn't even go up to 60FPS. It's 30FPS.
While this is better, we are still forced to watch videos at 24 frames per second at the cinema. At home, a modern computer can interpolate the frames and thus you can get 100 (or any number of) frames per second with the right settings. And once you start getting used to the smoothness of 100 frames per second, going back to 24 isn't really an option. As such, cinemas are just falling more and more behind with their frankly quite silly decision of staying with 24 frames per second.
Saw ufotog in his magi pod theatre. Short demo film but brilliant. Images hang in the air. Hyper real. Amazing sound. And it's a brilliant story. Mind bending. An artist who made his own tools to tell stories better. I guess you gotta be there.
24 frames per second was broke from the beginning. it is SOOOOO REDUCTIVE!!! i cannot be the only one to notice all that flicker! judder is an ugly thing. let the 24 frame lovers have their old-fashioned setup but let the rest of us who hate judder have the new tech!
You never notice the 'flicker' that's called a projector that needs to be serviced. Same movies were put out in the same frame rate (24fps) in other formats.. you just realized that. And who knows what you're even crying about in the comments.. no one said you can't have your 60fps. It's put into many films as an "EFFECT" because that's all it is. By your logic the color red should be green because red is old fashioned to you. You sound like a moronbot.
We may see action at a "higher frame rate" in our natural vision. But motion is still blurred, having such a smooth image without any motion blur just looks off putting
@ Cole Amundson good points! old / outdated material here but still good ... however, sometimes a little motion blur is added to some frames intentionally, in some 3d or 2d animations for example, in order to make it more 'film-like' thus looking more 'realistic' since regular film viewers are used to it ... probably, Douglas Trumbull and people like him trying to reduce / remove motion blur want it for industrial and technical uses of cinematography where the sharper the image the more details are visible and needed too ...
I really don't understand why everyone is talking shit about anything higher than 24fps. You wouldn't want that kind of frame rate for your game so why would you want it for a movie. Both forms of entertainment should look as realistic as possible to maximize the idea that you're in another world. If the movie looks bad and makes the fiction obvious, i can't enjoy it. Simple as that.
it is not dumb. 24fps is blur...people like blurred images. they've seen nothing but blurred images at the movies since the 1920s. higher frame rates are clearer, meaning it looks "better"...better = clearer. YOU may not like it, but that doesn't make it a dumb statement.
the frame rate hadn't changed since 1920s because there was no reason to change it. studios were making plenty of money with films at 24fps, so why change a good thing? the only reason they are thinking of changing it now is bc 3D doesn't look good at 24fps...there is way too much strobing. the Hobbit is being released at 48fps 3D, and Cameron is shooting Avatar 2 at 60fps 3D. it was a 3D issue. Trumbull is doing something else.
(1) people have been conditioned to accept 24fps as cinema since the 1920s...24 is not a magic number that captures the essence of movies or some such nonsense. diff. theaters used diff. frame rates prior the 1920s, and when sound came to movies, they needed one standard frame rate as not to cause problems with audio not matching the picture, so 24 was chosen as a weighted average between the frame rates theaters were using. it was nothing but a math problem, not a quality one.
anything more than 24 is introducing something akin to carrier waves in sound. People embed garbage into it further controlling the audience through what Trumbull sought after 'emotiona' response. Things aren't clear by the naked eye in real life at fast movements.... that's why it looks horrible in higher frame rates 'clear' in movies. It is an effect..a film shouldn't be shot entirely in this high FPS.
judder is the thing that looks fake to me, i never could "tune it out" like a lot of people on this forum see to be able to do. it is really bad with standard IMAX to the point where i can't even look at the screen without getting physically ill. i will stick to my motionflow sony set to avoid that ugly judder-ridden "cinematic" look. i have always preferred the smooth unjerky motion which represents the "soap opera look" if not the soap opera content.
Watching 100 fps doesn't make any sense: The human eye sees 30fps and since we have two eyes we only see 60fps. I agree, 48fps (or 60fps) would be great to see in cinema. But in my opinion on 35mm film (YES THIS IS POSSIBLE!) (You just need more frames for shutter glasses)
@theLordKelvin Ecxatly, motion blur is part of the human condition, we can only see motion up to a certain point...the Showcam footage of the fighters is proof of this. The one in white looks faster due too the motion blur, motion of the fighter in black looks "slower" as you can see his every move... This is also the problem with CGI...it's too clean with too much detail. Humans do not perceive the world in crisp HD.
"It used to be that everybody, digitally, wanted to make it look like film, but we kinda like to skip that and just say No - we want to make it look great." That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.
I hated bluray when I first saw it, still do :/ theres nothing wrong at all with dvd and 24 fps quality. seriously. 24 fps is what we are used to and we should KEEP IT THAT WAY! if its not broke dont fix it.
Blur is good. Life has blur. What's the problem? These people are obsessing over the "because we can," without considering "if we should." Films aren't made out of test charts. Motion, in life, blurs. Period.
Cinema ends at 24p Try to watch any cinema movie at 50/100hz on TV with added frames - looks like a handy-cam amateur video all cinema magic is gone. Even eye has motion blur High speed action without motion blur looks plastic. Cinema is not about being perfect its about magic it makes.
Boy oh boy Trumbull couldn't have been more wrong huh? Remember when certain blu-ray features were 60fps and everyone complaining and feeling weird watching the movie? Yeah 60frames sucks.
Yes modern TVs smooth the pans (and actually all motion) to 'negate the judder'. Although quite why you'd want them to do this is pure marketing BS. Film, & TV, had over 100 years of beautifully reproduced imagery built on standards. The 24 fps film look has been the holy grail that video has always tried to emulate, until recently it seems. They're pushing 3D & 48fps for exactly the same reasons as 120Hz on a TV - more money. It's cheaper to stick on pointless tat than sell better products.
what a bullshit... it depends on time of the shutter, not on fps. Of course shutter opening time cannot be longer than 1/FPS so maximum is 1/24, 1/60 etc... but clear frame depends on time of the shutter
Having grown up with Mr Trumbull's great movie innovations, I certainly respect him. But his decades long pursuit of faster frame=better image idea is surely wrongfooted. The technology is not what's wrong with filmed storytelling these days, it's the stories, dialogue et al. Having an action scene with less blur will NOT make for improved movies.
Well, Hobbit in 48fps looks terrible. Like low-budget HBO-fail production. Its totally washed from that "fairy-tale" softness, blur and thing we just "like". ofc, 24 fps was just those "minimal" framerate to make movie smooth, and its made and standarised to cut cost of film back in the days, we all know that. But "crystal sharp" Hobbit looked just terrible for me. Like bad 3d game, with great graphics but no AA, and other image filtres that add this "fairy tale" look...
This is so stupid. No one at the theatre gives a damn that you lose that many frames, as long as it looks fluid it's fine. This guy has a "more is better" outlook on film, which is just plain wrong in every sense.
Sorry, anything other than 24 fps looks like unnatural garbage. The guy at 60 frames looks like he's performing on a green screen even though he's not. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Leave 24 fps alone.
A monumental waste of time. Not only does the human eye not care. But neither do people watching a movie. Give me a compelling movie over a higher frame rate, and I could care less what you shoot the film at. Guys like Trumbull forget that a film which truly matters is the one with a compelling narrative. Not the frame rate it was shot at, or the camera that was used.
How is improving technology a waste of time? Do people care if their TV is standard definition, 720p, 1080p or 4K? Some don't, but most do when they see the improvements that have been made. Yes, of course the movie has to be good, but why not have it look better too.
I never said improving technology was a waste of time. What I did say is that a compelling narrative is what moves the audience. There is a big difference between the two, and technology isn't what counts. The history of cinema, and the films that people still talk about decades later, is a perfect example. And technology isn't the reason for that success.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 69 | คู่เอก "กุหลาบดำ vs นาบิล"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PNM6U8e_HMo/mqdefault.jpg)
Douglas Trumbull was and is an utter genius!!! RIP you legend!!
Apparently Trumbull did a 60 fps / 70 mm test on a roller-coaster back in '79 or '80 and presented it to studio execs to show them what Showscan could do. It was meant to have blown their minds. Would love to see that footage.
Originally, the film was projected at the higher frame rate, too. People had much stronger emotional reactions to what they were seeing.
just ride a real roller coaster..they still exist. what's with the virtual garbage.
Great Guy. His original experiments showed the greatest audience reaction at motion PORTRAYAL at 70Hz. Perhaps films ought to be shown at this speed. or at least 72Hz (Three times film). The problem is that 120Hz would give problems in the rest of the world. The best frame rate for a world standard would be 300fps. Divisible to 60Hz AND 50Hz systems (or even 75Hz).
Think BIG!
They still have to make... a GOOD movie.
No idea if anyone is still watching this in 2020.
But Trumbull has been trying to push 60 fps on 70mm film since he did Brainstorm back in the early '80s.
In the end the studio allowed him to do the' hyper real' scenes he wanted on 70mm which contrasted with the 35mm for the rest of the scenes but he had to keep it at the standard 24fps.
To me the images just looked wide-screen with a fish eye lense effect.
It's too bad TH-cam shows this video in 30 fps.
too bad? this is how myopic people have become and take for granted tools they use that they didn't even make.
Man nobody ever listens to Douglas Trumbull! We could have had cinema innovations for decades now.
Did there used to be a showscan presentation at Disneyland (California) in the early 80's? I remember seeing a short film there where the curtains parted, and somebody walked on stage and began to talk. Then it was revealed that is was just a film being played. It looked amazingly realistic.
Real life is what realistic is based on.. maybe check it out sometime. No admission cost and no pedophiles posing as an overgrown mouse.
Wish I lived near Doug so I could finagle my way into seeing his theater and his demo reel. All this makes me think about Phil Tippett and his animations for Star Wars, introducing motion blur into stop motion animation. Logical next thought of course, is, animating at 120 frames a second. Oh boy. Back to go motion. Philosophical thought is can the mind learn to store information more efficiently, and most importantly, retrieve it at some higher success rate. Reality. A frisbee.
This is the future. Embrace it or get left behind.
Interesting solution to having the option of both high fps playback and film-like motion blur at 24fps playback without worrying about video's strange blur artifacts, like those introduced from rolling shutters with CMOS capture. Not to mention the option of just conventional slow motion, like the Vericams. Cool.
Thank you so much for posting the video !!
It's 2016, and it's sad that this - VERY low-quality video, of a VERY hI-end High-quality imaging/film system is shown - NOT close to even 'analogue'-quality images, but, WORSE (the 'highest' quality is 360p!).
I've 8k video monitors (yes, 'TV's - and, I DO need them, for my work), and a couple of 4k's, as well, and it's such a shame, because I ALWAYS wished to see ShowScan at it's best.
From what I understand, (Mr. Trumbull's original) ShowScan, and the later Showscan Film Corp., and THEN (phew!) Showscan Entertainment are kaput.
I thought this was amazing when I first heard about it (when I was VERY young), and now - grown, this technology - or, more accurately, the IDEA OF what ShowScan can do, is more relevant, and now, easier-than-ever to actually commit to!
the quality of picture doesn't supercede the message. this is a superficial effect -
I want an 8K 120fps with no shutter and 17.1 sound. Now. The technology is there. You want my money? You want me back in the theaters? Do it.
I dunno, 8K @ 120 fps creates an insane amount of bandwidth. Maybe barely possible, but hardly practical right now.
4k 120fps would be enough imo
@@asdfjklo124 It's 2023 now. There are high tier phones that film 8k 120fps now. Marvel movies after Guardians 2 were all shot in 8k (24fps but 3D so twice the frames). It's possible. Theaters can handle kt
This is great and all, but this video does need to be reuploaded with better framerate and quality.
@ thelordakira here:
th-cam.com/video/JhbFrkCJ_nA/w-d-xo.html
it worked on my end.
...though, you can solve all those issues capturing and projecting at higher fps. Simple.
they aren't issues at all. They just say they are issues (invented) - they have a goal to manipulate the mind with 60fps. that's why they wanted to use it so badly in "Brainstorm" but the studio cheaped out on them.
old / outdated material here but still good ... however, sometimes a little motion blur is added to some frames intentionally, in some 3d or 2d animations for example, in order to make it more 'film-like' thus looking more 'realistic' since regular film viewers are used to it ... probably, Douglas Trumbull and people like him trying to reduce / remove motion blur want it for industrial and technical uses of cinematography where the sharper the image the more details are visible and needed too ...
the down side to 60fps was film handling. you would need a lot of film and big storage drums to hold the film. just imagine projecting a movie that's 2 hrs long at 60 fps. that's what killed it. ive seen movies at 60 fps and it looks lifelike.
actually 240p option supports 60FPS, however this video was not uploaded at 60.
Showscan was supposed to had taken the world by storm in 1984. It never happened. The movie industry killed it because it required investments it refused to do. Lets cross our fingers this tamed version gets a greenlight.
RIP DT 🙏
Simply because movies are about telling stories, not about living them.
Expo in 1967 was the first 70mm early imax large format projection.
This projection & theatre technology was produced by Canadians.
Uh, yes, that IS correct.
Your point…'Fidel' (I'm not gonna even ask 😉)?!?!?
Just in case anybody is confused - this video is "about" high frame frates. It's not *shot* at a high frame rates. TH-cam only displays 30FPS anyway so you will see no difference in the examples while watching the video. People linking to this as an "example" of 48 or 60FPS are just confused about what they're watching here.
30 frames is just a myth. The eye can see even beyond 200 frames per second in some cases. Do a google search for "15 FPS vs. 30 FPS vs. 60 FPS" and you see the same animation at 15, 30 and 60 fps. Unless you have something wrong with your brain or eyes, you see a very clear difference between them even if you just use one eye.
@bdogfilms
Motion blurs in our eyes, not in life. Blur should be caused naturally by ineffectiveness of an eye, not because camera sucks.
It doesn't make sense to do this. At 24fps, that blur it gets is what helps FILL IN the lost information from being played back at such a low framerate. Take a ball bouncing for example, often in 24fps playback, there won't be a frame where the ball actually touches the ground, but visually it looks like it does due to the blur trail that happens. But if you use this method, you're stuck with less blur to indicate movement, resulting in object popping. The industry just needs to move up to 48fps
Great video (despite youtube kills half of the frames in it and limitited it to 30 fps). 24 fps are just not enough today. :)
I have tried 60fps in logo animations. So much better clarity and no frame cutting and no must for motion blur.
Its so sad the the HQ 60fps version of this is lost
This is genius.
On the other hand, I would note that higher shutter speeds can be used for good. Spielberg employed an extremely fast shutter speed on Saving Private Ryan which made a more gritty feel during the Normandy Beach scenes, etc. But the rest of the film and his other films use the standard shutter speed, and all of them use 24 fps.
You may not notice blur, but when you see the same film at 60FPS, you notice less blur. Your brain is used to 24p and that is why it looks normal, but the picture really is blurred somewhat.
@kazioo2 Great comment and thank you for proving my point. The eye is "king" in everything video and film related. A camera that doesn't reflect our eyes' natural abilities is probably worse than a "good" camera that does beyond them. Keep in mind that film and video are based entirely on the concept of persistence of vision. That is, we see one frame after another. Two images. It would be different if you actually saw something physically move in front of you. That's why blur is necessary.
well...I made a mistake... in the abstract there is no limit ... you could see one billion frames as well... but our perception of the environment is something like 60fps
But I still believe that we do not need more than 60fps
I think most of the comments missed the point, I'm pretty sure he is saying shoot at 60 or 120fps etc. and then master at 24fps but have the ability using showscan processing to retain detail but still have motion blur as data is not being lost by only shooting at 24fps. I don't think he was after the 48fps Hobbit like look.
There are movies that are made for living, and there are movies that are made for telling. Do you think that the movie "Up" for example would benefit from being 48fps? Movies are one of my greatest passions, as a matter of fact.
The information it puts across is not lost on someone who apparently not as thick headed as you. If you want to see it at 120fps then contact Doug Trumbull and get a video file that runs at 120. But you'll need equipment that can show it at 120fps as well.
This however does not change the fact that it still brings across the information properly to explain WHY higher frame rates are better.
this is something quite interesting. 60fps where there would be "needed", and 24fps elsewhere.
I agree with that... Humans struggle to tell the difference between 48 and 60fps - let alone anything higher. (However the same is not true of lighting flicker - we can actually detect flicker almost up to 150Hz if it's an unsmoothed on/off effect which is why florescent or LED lights need to have their power 'smoothed' out to avoid flicker)
Ok Peter Jackson...... you were right.
Bravo! Precisely.. 'Innovations' such as these will kill cinema as an art form far quicker than any number of Transformers CGI clusterfucks.
So I get filming in 120 means you can drop frames in post to recreate a lower frame rate, basic maths right? But how do you get around blurring? I might want motion blurrng at 24fps but if my original source was 120fps my shutter is presumably 1/240 (or there abouts) which means when I drop frames to get to 24fps each remaining frame is shot with a shutter of 1/240 and not 1/50 which would have been the optimal for source at 24fps so does my new interploated 24fps footage now look really choppy because of the high shutter speed?
All divided by 5 and yes, you have 1/48s shutter speed and 24 frames per second... so it is just math and all is proven in his theory, as in this film.
What!? I thought Sigourney Weaver was a real actress. They made her up? Oh my God.
Seriously? Someone here really hates Blu-Ray and can't watch it? WTF? It's the best new restorative technology to come along in years. What is wrong with watching super-sharp images of your favorite films? I've never heard the whining of so many nay-sayers of 60 fps film technology. I guess we will find out at Christmas if Peter Jackson's experiments with 48 fps filming is flawed or ends up being something mind blowing. The faster the frames, the better it will look - a hyper-real experience!
I wish they'd show more than a few seconds of comparison footage at a time. Makes me feel as though they aren't that confident in it.
By the way, the brandnew H.265 or HEVC codec supports framerates of up to 300 fps! The end of peasantry is near!
I just looked up beta movement and I don't understand how it's applicable to this. The idea of higher frame rates is to eliminate jitter.
may I ask my friend, why the framerate average hasn't changed since the 1920s with the new technologies available? is that a matter of action detail that would look more "fake" if filmed with this frame speed? (because, at 24fps it looks like a more fluid, fast and heavy reactions to certain situations, as those shown in this video at the beginning) that if shown at 48-60fps I think they would look way smoother than 24fps... that looks more "rude" hehe... sorry, I don't know about this at all xP
Sure, as long as I don't have to put up with Home video like High motion that breaks the suspension of disbelief and makes everything look un-cinematic or Fake.
HOWEVER, I think these people have the RIGHT IDEA. Use Higher framerate segements for where it's needed.
Next time you are home at 11am , turn to CBS and watch The Young And The Restless.
I'm pretty sure this show is filmed at 60FPS, because it looks home video like.(Actually the better way would be to watch an episode on cbs.com)
where can I watch Night of Dreams please? I cant find it anywhere
no, you're wrong. in professional camera you may reduce "shutter" time. (check i.e. Canon XH A1) which gives you sharp frames, which gives you possibility to make very stable slow-mos shooting even with only 24fps. check manual. page 55 - shutter priority mode.
Anyway I can watch this on 120fps?
TH-cam = 30fps. Can I find this hosted in 120hz somewhere?
Unfortunately, he's too late. HFR beat him to it, and it was soundly rejected. Maybe if he had gotten his way with the film version of Showscan, it would be different now...
If blu ray looked weird to you the first time you saw it, you had something on your TV or player making it that way. The only difference between the image on a blu-ray vs a DVD is the resolution.
Again, anything than 24fps looks like garbage.
Anyway, looking forward to movies shot in 48 like Avatars 2&3 and The Hobbit.
Stop trolling. The human eye sees way more than 30FPS - which is why 60Hz florescent lighting (which strobes at 120hz due to the way mains rectifiers work) flicker (despite lots of smoothing capacitors designed to mitigate the effect. 30FPS has very visible judder which is why modern TVs digitally smooth pans to try and negate this (often at 120Hz or 200Hz).
In digital they simply eliminate the need for a shutter. So you're wrong.
But even at 120FPS the shutter will be closed half the time, and it will be closed half the time at ALL frame rates. It is just moving more quickly.
No. He's not using a shutter when he digitally captures at 120fps. He exposes for the full 1/120 sec. Then later he can use the footage to simulate 24 or 60 just the way it would look with the shutter.
Dude - did you not listen at all to why it is better to shoot like this? It's not more is better and neither is he suggesting it is. He's laying out PRACTICAL uses for shooting at higher frame rates which can be used both creatively and technically. Plus the fact that he's saying that 24p is the standard. At no point does he suggest that more than 24 frames is shit and that more frames is better.
it's others saying that over and over = 60fps is certainly an effect as it doesn't represent real eye sight at all. It has more in common with digital video output CGI than how we see the world. Plus they want to use higher frame rates to carry other messages to the viewer subconsciously..so it's rather nasty that way.. like a carrier wave in audio. They were ready to play that up in that movie Brainstorm (about mental manipulation) but they couldn't snag the funding to implement it.
(2) since people grew accustomed to 24fps cinema, they rejected everything else as "garbage" as you say, but 24fps is totally arbitrary...on an objective level there is nothing special about it. images are images, you can experience them blurred (24fps) or clear (48fps and higher) and there is nothing wrong with either. and besides, shutter angle, lighting and lenses do more to make a movie look like a movie than frame rate.
Why would you post this on TH-cam? @Vradst, if you want us to see the benefits of 120FPS you need to provide a download link for offline viewing. TH-cam doesn't even go up to 60FPS. It's 30FPS.
While this is better, we are still forced to watch videos at 24 frames per second at the cinema. At home, a modern computer can interpolate the frames and thus you can get 100 (or any number of) frames per second with the right settings. And once you start getting used to the smoothness of 100 frames per second, going back to 24 isn't really an option.
As such, cinemas are just falling more and more behind with their frankly quite silly decision of staying with 24 frames per second.
Thank you!, hmm that explains why I hated 3D movies hahaha....
Saw ufotog in his magi pod theatre. Short demo film but brilliant. Images hang in the air. Hyper real. Amazing sound. And it's a brilliant story. Mind bending. An artist who made his own tools to tell stories better. I guess you gotta be there.
No.
It was a facetious response to the stupid comment by @ incarnedine.
24 frames per second was broke from the beginning. it is SOOOOO REDUCTIVE!!! i cannot be the only one to notice all that flicker! judder is an ugly thing. let the 24 frame lovers have their old-fashioned setup but let the rest of us who hate judder have the new tech!
You never notice the 'flicker' that's called a projector that needs to be serviced. Same movies were put out in the same frame rate (24fps) in other formats.. you just realized that. And who knows what you're even crying about in the comments.. no one said you can't have your 60fps. It's put into many films as an "EFFECT" because that's all it is. By your logic the color red should be green because red is old fashioned to you. You sound like a moronbot.
We may see action at a "higher frame rate" in our natural vision. But motion is still blurred, having such a smooth image without any motion blur just looks off putting
@ Cole Amundson good points! old / outdated material here but still good ... however, sometimes a little motion blur is added to some frames intentionally, in some 3d or 2d animations for example, in order to make it more 'film-like' thus looking more 'realistic' since regular film viewers are used to it ... probably, Douglas Trumbull and people like him trying to reduce / remove motion blur want it for industrial and technical uses of cinematography where the sharper the image the more details are visible and needed too ...
I really don't understand why everyone is talking shit about anything higher than 24fps. You wouldn't want that kind of frame rate for your game so why would you want it for a movie. Both forms of entertainment should look as realistic as possible to maximize the idea that you're in another world. If the movie looks bad and makes the fiction obvious, i can't enjoy it. Simple as that.
it is not dumb. 24fps is blur...people like blurred images. they've seen nothing but blurred images at the movies since the 1920s. higher frame rates are clearer, meaning it looks "better"...better = clearer. YOU may not like it, but that doesn't make it a dumb statement.
the frame rate hadn't changed since 1920s because there was no reason to change it. studios were making plenty of money with films at 24fps, so why change a good thing? the only reason they are thinking of changing it now is bc 3D doesn't look good at 24fps...there is way too much strobing. the Hobbit is being released at 48fps 3D, and Cameron is shooting Avatar 2 at 60fps 3D. it was a 3D issue. Trumbull is doing something else.
I have totally no idea! :/
(1) people have been conditioned to accept 24fps as cinema since the 1920s...24 is not a magic number that captures the essence of movies or some such nonsense. diff. theaters used diff. frame rates prior the 1920s, and when sound came to movies, they needed one standard frame rate as not to cause problems with audio not matching the picture, so 24 was chosen as a weighted average between the frame rates theaters were using. it was nothing but a math problem, not a quality one.
In 360p (!)
avisynth+mvtools2
24 frames per second is a hangover from mechanical movie cameras. It is no longer needed.
anything more than 24 is introducing something akin to carrier waves in sound. People embed garbage into it further controlling the audience through what Trumbull sought after 'emotiona' response. Things aren't clear by the naked eye in real life at fast movements.... that's why it looks horrible in higher frame rates 'clear' in movies. It is an effect..a film shouldn't be shot entirely in this high FPS.
They never said to show the film entirely in high fps. Only take certain elements and frames needed to show fast action sequences clearly.
In Europe it would be 50fps since we shoot 25fps.
For TV production yes
When you watch the incredible in 2004 with Dash it's almost the same idea (they accelerate the fps for this character).
judder is the thing that looks fake to me, i never could "tune it out" like a lot of people on this forum see to be able to do. it is really bad with standard IMAX to the point where i can't even look at the screen without getting physically ill. i will stick to my motionflow sony set to avoid that ugly judder-ridden "cinematic" look. i have always preferred the smooth unjerky motion which represents the "soap opera look" if not the soap opera content.
Watching 100 fps doesn't make any sense: The human eye sees 30fps and since we have two eyes we only see 60fps. I agree, 48fps (or 60fps) would be great to see in cinema. But in my opinion on 35mm film (YES THIS IS POSSIBLE!)
(You just need more frames for shutter glasses)
@theLordKelvin
Ecxatly, motion blur is part of the human condition, we can only see motion up to a certain point...the Showcam footage of the fighters is proof of this.
The one in white looks faster due too the motion blur, motion of the fighter in black looks "slower" as you can see his every move...
This is also the problem with CGI...it's too clean with too much detail.
Humans do not perceive the world in crisp HD.
"It used to be that everybody, digitally, wanted to make it look like film, but we kinda like to skip that and just say No - we want to make it look great."
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.
No thanks, I'd still rather watch film. And I've never noticed any blur during my favorite action scenes, thanks!
I hated bluray when I first saw it, still do :/ theres nothing wrong at all with dvd and 24 fps quality. seriously. 24 fps is what we are used to and we should KEEP IT THAT WAY! if its not broke dont fix it.
Blur is good. Life has blur. What's the problem? These people are obsessing over the "because we can," without considering "if we should." Films aren't made out of test charts. Motion, in life, blurs. Period.
Nope
yeah... no.
Cinema ends at 24p
Try to watch any cinema movie at 50/100hz on TV with added frames - looks like a handy-cam amateur video all cinema magic is gone.
Even eye has motion blur
High speed action without motion blur looks plastic. Cinema is not about being perfect its about magic it makes.
Boy oh boy Trumbull couldn't have been more wrong huh? Remember when certain blu-ray features were 60fps and everyone complaining and feeling weird watching the movie?
Yeah 60frames sucks.
Yes modern TVs smooth the pans (and actually all motion) to 'negate the judder'. Although quite why you'd want them to do this is pure marketing BS.
Film, & TV, had over 100 years of beautifully reproduced imagery built on standards. The 24 fps film look has been the holy grail that video has always tried to emulate, until recently it seems.
They're pushing 3D & 48fps for exactly the same reasons as 120Hz on a TV - more money. It's cheaper to stick on pointless tat than sell better products.
what a bullshit... it depends on time of the shutter, not on fps. Of course shutter opening time cannot be longer than 1/FPS so maximum is 1/24, 1/60 etc... but clear frame depends on time of the shutter
Having grown up with Mr Trumbull's great movie innovations, I certainly respect him. But his decades long pursuit of faster frame=better image idea is surely wrongfooted. The technology is not what's wrong with filmed storytelling these days, it's the stories, dialogue et al. Having an action scene with less blur will NOT make for improved movies.
Gross! Okay well, I wont enjoy it!
Well, Hobbit in 48fps looks terrible. Like low-budget HBO-fail production. Its totally washed from that "fairy-tale" softness, blur and thing we just "like". ofc, 24 fps was just those "minimal" framerate to make movie smooth, and its made and standarised to cut cost of film back in the days, we all know that. But "crystal sharp" Hobbit looked just terrible for me. Like bad 3d game, with great graphics but no AA, and other image filtres that add this "fairy tale" look...
This is so stupid. No one at the theatre gives a damn that you lose that many frames, as long as it looks fluid it's fine. This guy has a "more is better" outlook on film, which is just plain wrong in every sense.
Spoken by someone who's (obviously) got a film character obsession, as well as a general 'always posing - waiting to be discovered' quality.
Yawn.
Sorry, anything other than 24 fps looks like unnatural garbage. The guy at 60 frames looks like he's performing on a green screen even though he's not. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Leave 24 fps alone.
A monumental waste of time. Not only does the human eye not care. But neither do people watching a movie. Give me a compelling movie over a higher frame rate, and I could care less what you shoot the film at. Guys like Trumbull forget that a film which truly matters is the one with a compelling narrative. Not the frame rate it was shot at, or the camera that was used.
How is improving technology a waste of time? Do people care if their TV is standard definition, 720p, 1080p or 4K? Some don't, but most do when they see the improvements that have been made. Yes, of course the movie has to be good, but why not have it look better too.
I never said improving technology was a waste of time. What I did say is that a compelling narrative is what moves the audience. There is a big difference between the two, and technology isn't what counts. The history of cinema, and the films that people still talk about decades later, is a perfect example. And technology isn't the reason for that success.
MrBrad898540 then why didn’t people shoot blockbuster masterpieces on Super 8 or VHS? Why don’t you ask Spielberg or Nolan to shoot with an IPhone?