Flash at 48p?

[KalMart]

Don't know if this has been discussed yet...but with Jackson shooting Hobbit at 48 frames per second (as opposed to 24), and Cameron doing Avatar sequels at that framerate...if there's to be a Flash movie, it could really benefit from this new 'standard'.

Aside from a higher perceived resolution due to more frames/less flicker per second, higher framerates also smooth out fast motion, with less motion blur and choppiness....could be just the thing that a character like Flash could benefit from...especially on very large screens like IMAX, where flicker and motoin-blur are even more exaggerated. This is particularly appealing to 3D-shot movies as it supposedly helps decrease eye strain, as well. The downside...and what has yet to be seen from 48p, is that it can feel more 'video-like' (a la 60 fps interlaced) for some....and since there are still a large number of regular 35mm projection theaters, many will still see it at 24 (converted/combined frames for those viewings).

Being in film myself, I'm still a bit divided on the whole 48p thing until I see some high-end examples. When we shoot at a higher frame rate for slo-mo using digital cinema cameras, it's viewed in 'real-time' on the playback monitors, and it does have a video-like quality if we're watching anything from 48-72 fps. So that kinda' makes one a bit shaky on it. But there might be firthur developments where certain things can be individually controlled to have more of a 'filmic' 24p feel, and other that take advantage of the higher info/per frame. I was just thinking that Flash could be a good candidate so that he's not always a complete blur or a choppy 'fast-motion' in the shots where they don' go slo-mo.

 

[Octoberist]

The problem with new stuff like this is like how 3D is visit problems. Not just higher ticket prices but adjusting the projectors for the right movie and most thwarted can't get that right with 3D (using dimmer bulbs to save money).

 

[KalMart]

The problem with new stuff like this is like how 3D is visit problems. Not just higher ticket prices but adjusting the projectors for the right movie and most thwarted can't get that right with 3D (using dimmer bulbs to save money).

That's what I alluded to with regular 35mm projection as an example, in that not every theater will be standardized to take full advantage of 48p. It would be a big help to 3D with the dimming problems because you'll have more images per second and less perceived flicker. But even given that...if more theaters are better geared to do it, there's still the concern of losing something artistically if it looks more like video. One way of looking at an example are those HDTV's that have '120Hz'. Put in a BluRay of a movie and watch it at its normal 24hz setting. Then turn on the higher Hz setting, and it makes the film look like it was shot on video. Granted, it's meant more for sports television, and it's a higher framerate than 48, but it's a noticeable difference.

So I think 48p might be reserved only for 3D-shot films, and perhaps another step of evolving 3D filmmaking away from just 2D sensibilities shot in 3D, if you will. Aside from better perceived fast-motion resolution, there might not be any worthwhile application of it for standard-shot films.

 

[storyteller]

Honestly let them push 24 fps first before they go into higher frame rates. The actor isn't actually running super fast so its all post anyway.

 

[KalMart]

Honestly let them push 24 fps first before they go into higher frame rates. The actor isn't actually running super fast so its all post anyway.

That's the thing, though....if it's projected at 24fps, you're limited to those intervals, along with flicker in theaters and more motion artifacting/blurring....especially on larger screens and IMAX. So whether you do practical effects in principle, or others in post, you're still doing them to the final projection rate. But with the growing proliferation of digital projection, it makes it much more feasible for higher framerates.

Technically it all adds up...it's just that 'look' of higher framerates, though...that moves it more towards 'video'. The inverse is what helped make these digital video cameras look more 'film-like'...going from the standard NTSC 60-interlaced fps, to 30-progressive, to 30p 3:2 pull-down to true 24p. With 48p, it's like we're going back again, so it's a tough call. It may just find a home with 3D only where it'll at least help maintain brighter picture projections.