Sunday, December 23, 2012

Face it... you are not a Filmmaker, 48fps 3D

I have decided to write this in English in order to make it easier for non-Spanish readers to enjoy in this fountain of knowledge.



I have been working with digital moving images since I was 11 years old. Of course, I dabbled in analogue video for a few years, before having an entirely digital workflow in 2001 at the age of 18. From the CG debate, to digital cinematography, to stereoscopic 3D, and now 48 frames per second. I have seen so many "filmmakers" choke on their own words, it's almost sad really how they vow never to adopt a new technology, and a few years later they discreetly get with the times and even admit to have more freedom or control thanks to that new technology.

I live in Mexico, it's important to stress this, because it's been really frustrating trying to work with know-it-all's that only repeat what they have been taught at a seminar, course or more recently, film school without ever doing the proper research to find out why they're being taught what they're being taught. It's no secret that Hollywood is usually the trendsetter for new technologies or anything that's innovative in movies. Of course, not all technologies come from the U.S., but unlike any other country, the U.S. has been keen on trying new things since the dawn of film making, and unfortunately, Mexico has this wait and see attitude. I'm very familiar with hate-bandwagons and their inevitable contradictions.

Just try to imagine how frustrating it was for young filmmakers back when movies were adopting color, or anamorphic lenses for widescreen, or stereophonic sound, heck, even from silent to sound. Just imagine! these poor filmmakers were barely getting a foothold in the industry and after spending so much time and money learning the craft, suddenly the whole world was changed overnight, it must be really frustrating to be so lazy and think that you've reached a threshold of knowledge at 21 and that you can live on it for the rest of your life.

Film making is not acting, it's not singing, it's not even painting, it's not like you have a human limit in the performance, the human body has a limit to it's singing abilities, acting and stroke abilities. Movie making is as cold and as distant as a calculator. The illusion of movement IS the ultimate appeal, the conditions in which the illusion is created has always varied and whoever resisted to change has been lost to history. Just look at the great Melies, he was a real innovator for doing things that had never been done before, he was criticized and lauded... but as time went on and others imitated, mastered and improved on his craft, he didn't lift a single finger to evolve, that's why he spent his later years selling candy at train stations.

Film making shouldn't even be a term when referring to movies, there's little to no film involved anyways, it's not something that's recent, since the late 1980's we have seen more and more pixels printed on to 35mm film at theaters. Digital cinema got the middleman out of the way and rebelled against counter-intuitive logic, by putting an end to bending over backwards to calm the urge to use celluloid "just because the greats used it too". Even hardcore purists like Spielberg and Nolan use a tremendous amount of digital tinkering with their films.

Moving on to more contemporary issues, the meat of the matter, 48fps and 3D are seen as the death of cinema and as a cash grab for power hungry studios. I find it really offensive that you think the studios are trying to hide the fact that movies are a business, if people are willing to pay for it, then the debate should be over. I don't recall any outcry for LCD, Plasma and LED TV's for their sharpness and their frame multiplying features that gave that "soap opera" look to movies filmed in 24p. Few filmmakers (who weren't even IN the business) complained about this.

Let's not pretend that Roger Ebert never proposed 48 frames per second many years before James Cameron ever mentioned Avatar. Now everyone hushes that cold reality. Let's not pretend that the Harry Potter franchise wasn't already doing post-3D conversion for their 5th film in 2006 for a 2007 release. Let's not pretend that George Lucas wasn't announcing the entire Star Wars saga in 3D since 2005. Let's not pretend Steven Spielberg didn't patent a glassless 3D projection system since 2004. Let's not pretend Martin Scorsese wasn't interested in filming Little Shop of Horrors in 3D for the 80's remake. Let's not pretend Forrest Gump didn't have any digital tweaking. Let's not pretend the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park weren't mostly digital.Where were you guys back then? Why didn't you make such a fuss over those things?

There's so many things you've got wrong when arguing against 3D and specially 48fps. Whenever anyone says it eliminates motionblur... you are dead wrong, I couldn't even begin to tell you how utterly misinformed and oblivious to reality you really are. 48 fps are 24 new frames filling in the gaps that the original 24 frames didn't fill in. If you ACTUALLY know how the movie-look works (or cameras at the very least) you'd know that you don't get 24 twentyfourths of a second of movement in a second, you actually get: 24 fortyeighths of a second each second.

It looks like this:

1/48  1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48

they're 24 instances where you see 1/48th of a second in each. That means, that you're missing half the action. For you veterans, that's the 180 degree shutter angle.

48fps fills that other half, so you actually get:

1/48  1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48  1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48 1/48

now they're 48 instances of 1/48th of a second in each. That means you get full registry of motion, and each instance is as blurry as the original 24 samples.

Get it????

Can you guys please stop pretending you know what you're talking about and claiming that 24 frames per second is a God Send? It's really obsolete, I even remember audience members complaining "this new digital projection system isn't smooth, when the camera pans you see a lot of judder", there's your 24 frames per second at 1/48 shutter speed, same standard as Gone with the Wind, it has inherent strobe, it's just that 35mm projection was so grainy, shaky and dim that your brain was too busy solving those issues and didn't have time to notice the judder. Ask any 12 year old and they'll tell you how Movies (even modern ones) look dated and Videogames or Blurays played on HDTVs with frame multipliers look so much more awesome and new and whatever adjectives 12 year olds might use.

I even know "film makers" that drool over VHS and even DVD, criticizing Bluray for taking that magic out of the movies they grew up with... Can you imagine the faces of Flemming, Chaplin, or DeMille if they ever found out their visions were reduced to such unimpressive presentations like VHS AND DVD?? So presenting a movie in VHS is ok, but on a digital projector isn't? Selective discrimination if you ask me.

Today's 12 year olds have grown up on 3D movies and HFR way before you even knew those things existed because you were too busy looking back and discrediting anything that was new just because you didn't get to grow up with it. Those 12 year olds will be your future audience, and they will expect a better product, they will frown on stop motion trying to pass off as a realistic creature, they will ignore any black and white revival, they will pay lip service to "artistic films" but their wallets will pay somewhere else.

There is so much to be said about all the myths regarding 3D and 48fps. But to clarify a few, here's a list.

* 3D does NOT cause headaches. If you get headaches from watching 3D, see a doctor. If you get headaches or get dizzy, it's a sign of poor health, kind of like an obese man trying to go out sprinting.

* Anyone who has studied film making can attest to the objective of a movie: To tell a story. How it's told is the appeal, so get off your high horse and instead of becoming enamored with long silent takes with oddly framed shots, remember that what got you into film was a movie that took you to another place and made you fall in love with the characters.

* 48 fps will not make you sick, you've been watching 60i videos since the dawn of television and conveniently you've never had any nausea.

* 3D does not make you sick (AGAIN), you've been seeing 3D all your life, it's pretty convenient that now you jump on the hate bandwagon.

So people... stop talking about things you don't even take the time to research.

If you must know, I'm a freelance visual effects artist and 3D animator, I've done work you've probably seen and didn't realize it was a visual effect. I HAVE to know all the parameters of all the cameras I work with to blend in the effect as convincingly as possible, I've worked with footage and cameras ranging from digital8, to RED Epic, to 35mm to Canon 5D. I've had my short films (digital by the way) being accepted to film festivals where they only accept Super8 and 16mm films. One even openened with my digital short film, the festival's page even states there are only two rules: 1) 15 minutes or less, 2) Must originate on film (8mm, 16mm). Yet the poster child for traditional celluloid film making was a digitally shot short film... for which I have 35mm copies by the way.

Movies are stories told by visual trickery. Being selective about what tricks you use limits your palette.

2 comments:

mo said...

Saw your link to this article on facebook.

Quickly flew through this and just wanted to let you know that 48fps doesnt "fill in the gaps", at least not in The Hobbit, which was shot with 2 Red Epics (Stereo Rig). So you still are limited to your shutter angle.

The Hobbit was shot at 1/64 with a shutter of 270°, which gives a bit more motion blur and light than shooting at 1/96 with 180°.

please get your facts right, thanks :)

Greetings, mo

Alvaro Zendejas said...

Hello Moritz,

At no time did I ever mention the Hobbit in that short explanation of shutter speeds. True, the shutter was at 1/64 and contrary to your statement, it's LESS motion blur.

I know you may be better informed about the specifics in the hobbit, but it's not like you can't shoot 1/48 in a 48fps movie (kinda like Collateral or 2012 being filmed in 1/24 or 360degree).

No doubt you work on this full time, but please spare any condescension, you proved my point anyway, there's more motion blur than critics are pointing out. If you like I can quote you: "which gives a bit more motion blur and light than shooting at 1/96"

At no time did I ever mention that filming at 48 fps was with 180 degrees.

1/48 @ 24p is 180 degrees
1/48 @ 48p is 360 degrees <<<<

I was wrong by about 90 degrees. I am sooooo deeeply sorry about that mistake, but you still tried to prove me wrong while proving me right. THERE IS MORE MOTION BLUR, contrary to what critics say.

The ultimate point to this is that you CAN shoot 48fps with a 360degree angle THUS 1/48, making it 100% compatible with the traditional 24p with 1/48 shutter we're all accustomed to. So yes... it DOES FILL IN THE GAPS.

Next time don't "quickly fly" through articles. Specially ones that try to defend your side of the debate.