The Hobbit - 48fps

[dukey]

So if anyone has seen the news recently, it's that the hobbit was filmed at 48fps.

What does this mean for transfering it to DVD or bluray ?

[nevcairiel]

Its also shown at 24p in Cinemas, not every Cinema has 48p tech, and even those that do didn't upgrade all projectors, so there already is a 24p version.
Both DVD and Blu-ray do not have 48p in any form in their spec, so they will be 24p.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Maybe they'll put it on the disc as 24 fps interlaced? :scared:

[nevcairiel]

Maybe they'll put it on the disc as 24 fps interlaced? :scared:

Out of spec, so, doubtful.
Its really sad that there is nothing better then 24p for a medium like Blu-ray, well maybe the next generation optical media for 4k @ 48p...

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Out of spec, so, doubtful.
1080i25 (http://www.x264bluray.com/home/1080i) would be possible though.

Its really sad that there is nothing better then 24p for a medium like Blu-ray, well maybe the next generation optical media for 4k @ 48p...
Well, there must be reason to re-release the movie as "48 fps Ultra-HD edition" when the next-generation disc format is out ;)

[Sparktank]

I found myself questioning the overall validity of his choosing 48fps.

There's a some theaters in my area that have 48fps support.
I really don't see there being too many options for home viewers to see it in 48fps when it reaches home entertainment sales.

I thought maybe they would have 48fps videos on a separate disc available, but I don't think that would work out too well, would it?
I think it's quite foolhearty to limit the format to just theaters.
Although the idea is really great for 3D movies, it's just going to be a small and limited market for now.

[SeeMoreDigital]

For anyone who's interested...

Most if not all new (Sigma and Realtek chip-set based) network hardware media players are already able to play 1920x1080 resolution sources encoded at 48p, 50p and even 60p ;)

[sneaker_ger]

1080i25 (http://www.x264bluray.com/home/1080i) would be possible though.

What frame rates are allowed for 3D Blu-Ray?

[dukey]

How do they produce a 24fps version? Decimation won't be great, as the motion blur will be wrong.

[Mole]

I hope they'll release it as 1920x1080 48i. This is the closest way to be able to show the movie at it's 48fps.

I'm also worried about the motion blur if they simply decimate every other frames to get 24fps. It'll definitely not look smooth.

I think BD at 1920x1080 only allows up to 30p or 60i. 60p is only supported at 1280x720.

[nevcairiel]

How do they produce a 24fps version? Decimation won't be great, as the motion blur will be wrong.

I dont know how they produced it, but i saw the 24p 2D version in the cinema, and it looked fine. Apparently 48p is only available in 3D, at least around here.

[sneaker_ger]

Correct. (http://www.digitaleleinwand.de/hfr-3d/)

[kolak]

How do they produce a 24fps version? Decimation won't be great, as the motion blur will be wrong.

Not really- it was shot with wide shutter angle (270 degrees), so there is quite a lot of blur in original 48fps recording. It will look more strobing than typical 24p, but not that bad. You can also add motion blur in the post production. Reading PJ comments sounds like they are adding motion blur in the post.

[Ghitulescu]

Instead of 48i/p issue I would be more concerned about
Aspect ratio
1.44 : 1 (IMAX 3-D version)
1.85 : 1 (3-D version)
2.35 : 1

[wonkey_monkey]

I really don't see there being too many options for home viewers to see it in 48fps when it reaches home entertainment sales.

Probably all part of the plan - although it didn't take long for 3D to become ubiquitous in the home.

[Overdrive80]

The version of 48 fps is only for screening in cinemas, for DVD/BD will be 24 fps

[G_M_C]

Isnt the 48 fps more of a marketing gimmick ?

Since it's only for 3D, it means that there are, in fact, 2 reels that play 24fps right? One for each eye. So it not exactly 48 fps in my book.

[Sparktank]

3D to become ubiquitous in the home.

It's not entirely ubiquitous. None of my friends or family invested in 3D home entertainment. Nor do they have plans to.
It's still not that relatively cheap either. Everyone I know is only starting to switch to Blu-Ray but at a very slow pace.
I imagine HFR for home use will be quite expensive for the first while.

[nevcairiel]

Since it's only for 3D, it means that there are, in fact, 2 reels that play 24fps right? One for each eye. So it not exactly 48 fps in my book.

"Reels"?
You do know, we live in the digital era now? :)

HFR 3D is not available in analog, only in digital. And "normal" 3D is not 12 fps per eye, its 24 fps per eye. So HFR 3D is 48p per eye.
It is true 48p.

[zambelli]

Instead of 48i/p issue I would be more concerned about
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company, the Red Epic camera (which Jackson used to shoot The Hobbit) has a maximum resolution of 5120x2700 (1.9:1). So there really isn't a "perfect" aspect ratio of The Hobbit as all 3 releases are cropped versions of the full raw frame.

BTW, are you sure about 1.85:1 for 3D? It looked scope to me when I saw it in 3D.

[AndreaMG]

Why did he adopted the 48fps format and not the 60fps one? Is there a technical reason for the new standard being 2x the previous one? :)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Why did he adopted the 48fps format and not the 60fps one? Is there a technical reason for the new standard being 2x the previous one? :)Most probably because there's little perceivable improvement from 48fps to 60fps.

Plus it's easier to work with 48fps when adding the CGI elements. It's also easier to convert 48fps to 23.976/24fps or 25fps (for the old PAL countries)...

[paradoxical]

Because the way it is shot it can still be easily put onto BluRay at 1080p24. BluRay doesn't support 1080p60.

[AndreaMG]

Most probably because there's little perceivable improvement from 48fps to 60fps.

Plus it's easier to work with 48fps when adding the CGI elements. It's also easier to convert 48fps to 23.976/24fps or 25fps
Thanks for the clarification:thanks:It makes sense, not so sure with the fact of the improvement from 48 to 60 being that little, actually (while interpolating with SVP) I notice the difference between 50 and 60fps (the second one is more smooth) and I know people who watch movies on their 120hz monitors interpolated to 120 fps and they do notice the difference :)

[Mug Funky]

60fps in 4k would be a royale PITA to do post on...

48fps is not much better. i take my hat off to the guys who had to wrangle that much data, and push it through on time when nobody has ever done this before.

48fps, 4k (5k rushes IIRC), 2 views, 10 bits per channel (at least - the sensor delivers 14 bits)... that spells nightmare in my books.

[nevcairiel]

Thanks for the clarification:thanks:It makes sense, not so sure with the fact of the improvement from 48 to 60 being that little, actually (while interpolating with SVP) I notice the difference between 50 and 60fps (the second one is more smooth) and I know people who watch movies on their 120hz monitors interpolated to 120 fps and they do notice the difference :)

There is quite a big difference between 48 actual images and interpolated images.
Interpolation benefits from more frames much more then actually increasing the source frames would (especially if it has to do a "odd" interpolation from 24 to 50/60, and not a clear integer multiple)

[wonkey_monkey]

Because the way it is shot it can still be easily put onto BluRay at 1080p24. BluRay doesn't support 1080p60.

It does support 1080i29.97 though, which would at least mean we could experience the smoother frame rate if he'd shot it at 60. PAL conversions would be rubbish, though.

David

[TheSkiller]

PAL conversions would be rubbish, though.
Rubbish? All that would be needed to put it on PAL DVD and BluRay would be the regular speed-up (24->25 fps, and in this case the numbers are doubled but the ratio is the same) which results in 50 fps which would be interlaced into 25 interlaced frames per second (50i) to put it on DVD/BluRay. I'd call that a good solution.

[wonkey_monkey]

I meant if he'd shot it at 60 :D

[paradoxical]

It does support 1080i29.97 though, which would at least mean we could experience the smoother frame rate if he'd shot it at 60. PAL conversions would be rubbish, though.

David

And you'd be at the mercy of the player's deinterlacer which means for most people they'd be trading somewhat smoother motion for deinterlacing artefacts. No thanks.

[kolak]

And you'd be at the mercy of the player's deinterlacer which means for most people they'd be trading somewhat smoother motion for deinterlacing artefacts. No thanks.

Not really- even cheap players will detect that source is progressive and won't even try to deinterlaces it. BD players are way better in this aspect than DVD ones.
There are loads of 25p BDs in Europe and there are no problem with them even on cheap players. Same applies to 29.97p.

[dukey]

i finally got to see the hobbit in stereo 3d, 48fps. The frame rate was real nice, you could really notice it in the panning scenes.

[Chetwood]

I didn't notice any improvement cause the 3D sucked so bad.

[Mole]

Is 48fps only available in 3D?

Sht, I wanna watch 48fps, but not in freaking 3D....

[Sparktank]

Is 48fps only available in 3D?

Yes, it's only for 3D. I believe it's not available for IMAX3D as well.
Just the regular 3D.

[JackNF]

Actually no, Sparktank, the only screen in my area playing the HFR version IS the IMAX3D.

[Biggiesized]

They'll have to create a new spec to show it off in 1080p48 per eye. Also, the movie was finished at 2K despite being shot at 5K.

[zambelli]

The BluRay limitation actually raises an interesting question: when they release The Hobbit on BluRay, will we only get to see a 24p version, or will they employ some clever pulldown pattern to encode 48p into 60i?

[nevcairiel]

My guess is that you'll only get 24p.
Personally, i would prefer that to the loss of spatial resolution from interlacing. With ordinary telecine pulldown, you get 24p in 60i, or 25p in 50i, there is just not enough space to store 48 full progressive frames in 60 fields, so some fields have to be truely interlaced, sacrificing spatial resolution for temporal resolution..

[kevinsert]

They'll have to create a new spec to show it off in 1080p48 per eye. Also, the movie was finished at 2K despite being shot at 5K.

yes only few movies finished @4K especially which has few CGI scenes in it like The Girl with Dragon Tattoo,Samsara,Timescapes etc.
shooting in 4K/5K is easy way but finishing is very pricey even top notch studios cant afford it...

[zambelli]

Do you guys realize that 1080p23.976 H.264 trailers are already available since a few months now, over there for example:


Yes, I'm aware. The movie was also released in traditional 24 fps on 35mm to many theaters, so 24 fps will be the default choice for BluRay. My question was: will the studios attempt 48 fps on Bluray too by using a combination of interlacing and pulldown to achieve 50/60 Hz?

[paradoxical]

Why would they? That sounds horrible.

[TheSkiller]

I don't think it would be any more "terrible" than any other native interlaced content on DVD and Blu-ray. :) So yeah, I would like to watch it that way.

[Sparktank]

Wouldn't they be able to make the "digital copy" in 48fps for PC?

[kolak]

Yes, I'm aware. The movie was also released in traditional 24 fps on 35mm to many theaters, so 24 fps will be the default choice for BluRay. My question was: will the studios attempt 48 fps on Bluray too by using a combination of interlacing and pulldown to achieve 50/60 Hz?

Don't think so- can't see any Hollywood authoring house doing it.
BD will be 23.976p.

[paradoxical]

I don't think it would be any more "terrible" than any other native interlaced content on DVD and Blu-ray. :)

But this isn't native interlaced content.

So yeah, I would like to watch it that way.

Why? It wouldn't look anywhere as good as real 48fps. It would sort of defeat the whole point of shooting at 48fps to have smoother motion when you've introduced pulldown jerkiness.

[kolak]

Doing 50i version would not be that difficult- speed up (which is always present for PAL releases)+encoding as 50i. 60i is a different story.

[paradoxical]

Yeah, I was really only referring to a 60i pulled down version. Unless it can be cleanly restored to 48p upon playback it seems you're just trading in the less smooth 24p for pulldown jerkiness. Doesn't really seem to be that great an idea.

[TheSkiller]

But this isn't native interlaced content.
I know, what I meant to say was, I don't think it would look any worse than native interlaced content even though it is not natively interlaced since it's film (well, not really, it's all digital).



I understand your point of view, paradoxical. I wouldn't want to trade motion smoothness for pulldown jerkiness either. Putting 48p in 60i/29.97 via pulldown would be a jerky mess, most likely unwatchable. I suspect it would be possible only via motion compensated frame rate interpolation.

However, I was imagining it in 50i/25 via speed-up because that's what I'd get in Europe. ;) And I'm quite certrain that would look absolutely fine.

[nevcairiel]

(which is always present for PAL releases).

Luckily with Blu-ray, we don't have such "PAL releases" anymore and get the original 24p. :p