This actually might be a back door into making 48fps more palatable to the general public. As people get used to movies with higher fps (real or interpolated), they might start demanding higher-fps movies in the theaters. Even with my reservations after seeing The Hobbit, I'd much rather see 48fps (or better yet, 60fps) get a hold than gimmicky 3D.
I agree with not liking 3d. It just bothers me in most cases, though I thought Avatar really used it well.
48fps, I understand that's the new standard for 3d based movies. Not wild about it, but then again I don't watch many 3d movies.
My thing about 30fps vs 25 for pal broadcast or 24 progressive for movies is when we go into editorial with 24fps source material, titles scrolling left to right or right to left look a little jerky on a computer or pad.
On a broadcast monitor their fine, but broadcast monitors usually switch the frame rate so everything is smoother.
Personally I think being able to throw focus is a great tool when used well, not always necessary when there is not a reason. Not everything can be painted with a broad brush and I know that a lot of times I'd swear something was shot digital due to smoothness (The Lone Ranger) when it was shot film, or something was shot in film when in reality they shot 2k arri, or 4k red.
I do know at the theatre I was worried about losing the feeling of film when they project digital, but now I feel the opposite. There are still a few film projectors left in every city and if I go into a theatre and see jumping on the sides of the frame, I know it's film and I know it probably will be a degraded print with old bulbs, which is true 90% of the time.
Really, there is no standard if it's good. I've heard people say video was awful and I've seen some very interesting video shoots, especially with the old tube cameras that streaked highlights. They're cool for a 30 second spot, but I don't think you'd want to watch 90 minutes of them.
Anyway, if 4k becomes the rage or a magic number that people want, the camera, software and computer companies are more than happy to oblige, because they'll just sell more stuff and more stuff makes the world spin.
I personally don't think anyone will notice the difference if the production values are good, but people love to get caught up in catch phrases. They did it with stills talking and selling megapixels, they'll do it in movies saying the same. Sooner or later motion imagery will be like digital stills, where almost every camera is so good that nobody cares anymore. The 24p thing I believe is a catch phrase. I know, I know people swear by it, but on a computer where 99.999999% of all video is viewed I really don't think there is a lick of difference, but as I mentioned before I gave in, shoot 24 progressive and let it rip.
But speaking of catch phrases, this evening I had a client's european agency want a take from a shoot we did about 3 weeks ago. Edited down to a 1 minute cut and he asked for uncompressed quicktime in 4:2:2 10 bit. I did a primary grade in cinex, secondary in fcp and burned it out made a zip and it's going on line as I write this. Just looked and in one hour only 477 mb is up. At this rate it will be 14 hours before it makes it on the server, if it makes it on the server. I asked why they wanted uncompressed and never got an answer, other than that's what they want. I played in on a huge monitor and honestly can't see a bit of difference between the proezz version and the uncompressed version.
Those catch phrases.
For stills I can shoot a 30mpx phase, a 18mpx Canon or a 16 mpx gh3 and OMD and nobody in the still business will bat an eyelash, because they all resolve as well if not better than what goes on paper and post production that is done well evens the score to the point it's non discernible.
BTW: In TLR the DP said they shot film, pulled in processing to hold more detail. I guess, but you know I kind of wonder because 10 days ago we shot a scene of a family getting out of a mercedes suv, running under the tailgate to unload and back. It was a quick cutaway on a day in Malibu when there was no moisture or dust in the air to diffuse the light and it was the hardest light I've seen in LA in a long time.
We didn't have much time or I would have flown a 12x with two shiny boards shot through for a soft fill, so instead we shot it tight and wide, thinking the wide shot would never hold up with the subjects under full shade and 14 stops of hot sun blowing all around them, but when I put it into cinex and pulled it down there was detail in the white, pulled it up and there was nice texture in the faces. I processed twice, did a quick key and wa-la a nice 14 stop or more image, so I kind of wonder if on a 200 million dollar film like TLR that has 36k of fill light minimum, that they really needed to shoot film pulled down to 25iso, but what they did worked so what the heck.
Maybe I'm just jealous that they had 200 million to spend.
Now that would be fun.
IMO
BC
P.S. In regards to shooting 4k, I'm all for it. My only experience is with the RED's and I love the look of the files, I mean really love them. I haven't shot a million ft. of motion film stock, but have shot a billion hours of sd, hd in all flavors and nothing to me looks like the RED and nothing to me that is cmos looks as good as the red files. They're not perfect, but man I do see a difference from the 4k capture down to the 2k edit.
P.S. 2 In regards to the blackmagic, I really hope they get there. Seriously get there because the more good cameras the better. I talked to a IATSE guy that worked with us the other day and he's only used the first blackmagic and said it just wouldn't go past low iso without a lot of ugly noise and I just saw some test footage of the pocket blackmagic that had black holes in the specular highlights and some blooming so I hope they fix it, hope the 4k version gives everyone a run for their money, but I'd sure wait a while until they get the bugs worked out.
