x404.co.uk http://x404.co.uk/forum/ |
|
48 Frames Per Second http://x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13372 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | pcernie [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:16 pm ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | 48 Frames Per Second | |||||||||
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_ ... 2861171558 ![]() |
Author: | ProfessorF [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:18 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 48 Frames Per Second |
48fps? Double your footage allowances, double your storage space. Ouch. I'm sure it'll look lovely though. ![]() |
Author: | l3v1ck [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:33 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 48 Frames Per Second |
A much better idea than 3D IMO. ![]() |
Author: | timark_uk [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 48 Frames Per Second |
I suspect it's also linked to the reduced light of 3D too. Upping the frame rate to 48fps should eliminate the reduction in brightness between 24fps 3D and 2D projection. Will the increased frame rate have any detrimental impact on TV broadcasts or DVD playback? Mark |
Author: | l3v1ck [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:43 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 48 Frames Per Second |
Doubt it. Even old TV can do 50Hz, new ones can do 100Hz. Neither should have issues with 48Hz filming. Though having said that, would existing DVD players need a firmware update to play 48Hz or not? |
Author: | pcernie [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:45 pm ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | Re: 48 Frames Per Second | |||||||||
I was wondering about that sort of thing too, alongside the likes of streaming services etc... |
Author: | ProfessorF [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:48 pm ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | Re: 48 Frames Per Second | |||||||||
Well, neither of those will look as nice as the cinema version. It's a clever move. You're halving the frame rate, so you're discarding frames, unless you want to watch it at half speed. It didn't used to be much of a hassle going from 24fps in the cinema to 25fps for PAL broadcast - you're film just ended up with a tiny slightly shorter running time. For an HD broadcast at 50i, I suppose you'd have much the same affair, but you're looking at 2 'lost' frames per second. |
Author: | timark_uk [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:05 pm ] | ||||||||||||||||||
Post subject: | Re: 48 Frames Per Second | ||||||||||||||||||
I suspect the often touted increased storage capacity of BD discs has just been gobbled up by this. Buy stocks in hard drive manufacturers now. (8+) Mark |
Author: | paulzolo [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:14 pm ] |
Post subject: | 48 Frames Per Second |
I suspect in the short term, they will downsample and interpolated. Long term - you'll be streaming them, so your STB will handle the frame rate. |
Author: | cloaked_wolf [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:52 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 48 Frames Per Second |
Quick read of wiki showed that BR discs can handle 50+ fps but only at 720p - at 1080p it drops down to 24fps. As above, I suspect TV tuners will need to be updated to handle this. |
Author: | l3v1ck [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:53 pm ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | Re: 48 Frames Per Second | |||||||||
|
Author: | ProfessorF [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 4:24 pm ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | Re: 48 Frames Per Second | |||||||||
You could go to the cinema, watch it in much more than 1080 at 48fps. ![]() |
Author: | finlay666 [ Sun Apr 17, 2011 3:16 pm ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | Re: 48 Frames Per Second | |||||||||
Not really, it'll be close to double but not quite there Shooting at 24fps usually only has a P frame (full picture frame) every second or 2, the rest are just vector transformations The P frame is the most substantial part of the image. Take the size of an average 1920x1080 image and times it by 8640 (1 hour at 24fps) at a 1/4mb image it's roughly 2gb just on video in compressed image only, no sound tracks or anything like that. A film encoded for quality to cut down the frames to say 2 P frames per second is 180mb + the size of the vector transformations 48fps could potentially have another 24 vector transformations so there is not much of an increase in size I'm surprised they didnt go for 50/60fps to be honest, given that those are required refresh rates of 720p/1080p televisions and would avoid any judders from refreshing mid frame or in the wrong part of a frame. It's the logical conclusion given that a lot of console games aim to run at at least 30fps, games like Halo 3 run at 60fps (30fps double buffered) |
Author: | ProfessorF [ Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:11 pm ] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Post subject: | Re: 48 Frames Per Second | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Only if you're shooting digitally, like Jackson. If you're using film (and it's far from dead), then you're getting a full frame every 1/24th of a second. ![]()
A Red One camera recording to CF will give you about 8 minutes of 4K footage or 34 minutes of 2K footage on a 16GB card, or about 4-5 minutes (depending on resolution) on an 8GB card, so I guess they're doing something a little different?
Yeah good point, wonder if it's to do with the projection capabilities of the cinemas? |
Author: | finlay666 [ Sun Apr 17, 2011 6:53 pm ] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Post subject: | Re: 48 Frames Per Second | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
That is a given of digital vs analogue ![]()
Not really, when it comes down to recording and storing, it's all about how quickly they can write it to the card, this is how quickly they can take the raw image, possibly apply a compression algorithm to it from lossy RAW to JPG/PNG and then add it to the frames, you can't apply a vector frame to a camera shooting in real time, it's quite a slow process to determine the change im image then generate a vector to represent that change (done badly can lead to smearing of the image on some bad recordings/copies as in terms of time/reward the time exponentially increases) a quick and dirty calculation... 4k is 4096x2048 so that image would be 4x bigger than a 1080p image, so 1mb per image, that is 24mb/s or 1440mb/minute, so 16 minutes would be roughly 12gb, before any sound input and differences in image sizes Depends how the camera shoots the images and saves them, I very much doubt they would give up that kind of info ![]() Don't forget, as I'm sure as a photographer you know, most shoot in RAW lossy formats and apply their compression later, no image quality lost, control sample etc. It's much better to record lossy then apply the compression algorithms later to the image streams
I think it possibly is, given that for a projector a fast response time is pretty unheard of compared to the speed of an LCD which is typically capable of ~500hz (based on a 15ms response time and 5ms grey-to-grey being rather generous with other things causing delay) Either that or the cost of new equipment in general across the board is prohibitive (I suspect even HDMI 1.4 would struggle with a 4k 48fps film bandwidth requirements)... but you will always get those purists that feel it is justified ![]() Don't forget 4k itself isn't new, Serenity the film (from Firefly) was the first film shot in 4K and that came out many years ago |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |