48 frames per second
Here's a short blip about Peter Jackson & James Cameron shooting their upcoming films in 48 FPS to reduce eye-strain for the 3D experience.
Made me wonder if analog movie's have every been shot/projected at double speed such as this.
At Expo '86 in Vancouver, one of the provinces showed a film shot at a higher frame rate, and as I recall, it was indeed stunning.
I believe I read the film for E.T ride at universal was shot at, I think, 48 fps.
That's awesome... it seems like they used to do the coolest stuff at World Expos!
70 mm movies were often projected at 30 fps.
Most 35mm movies get projected at 24 fps in the US and some are projected in Europe at 25 fps.
Some IMAX movies are projected at 48 fps. In this case, we're talking about 70 mm film.
The frames are 69mm wide and 48mm tall.
To put this in perspective, the projector moves a strip of film as wide as your hand at a speed of over 3 meters per second!
Those projectors sound like freight trains! The booth has to be sound proofed and the projectionist has to wear hearing projection!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
it should be noted that these "films" are actually digital video and have no relevance on apug.
Originally Posted by holmburgers
I know what I want but I just don't know how to go about gettin' it.-Hendrix
I believe it was the Saskatchewan exhibit where the real life narrators interacted with the characters on the screen.
Originally Posted by Paul Cunningham
Yes, and further, there is nothing new in Peter Jackson's "new" finding. Indeed, it is called "video" or "television", and it was invented much before Jackson was born.
Originally Posted by wildbill
In USA, it ran at 60 FPS and later at 59.94 FPS and in Europe it runs at 50 FPS. OMG, more than 48 FPS.
Also, "video productions" have been made since the advent of usable VTRs. This dates back to 60's or 70's. This has also always been a prominent low-budget choice to make movies - "films" shot on video.
HD video has been around for decades, too. And, for about 5 years, every consumer has been able to buy a digital low-cost HD video camera capable to shoot at 50 or 59.94 FPS.
This "new look" is not new to anyone. We all have seen it for all our lives, probably tenfolds more than films, you just need to turn on that TV. It indeed is very smooth because of high frame rate. Every once in a while there has been trends to remove inbetween frames or "deinterlace" the video to try to mimic film look with low cost of video. Needless to say, this is mostly pathetic and will not look better. Video is video, it's a different world than film and it's good as it is.
So, Peter Jackson is making just another video production. Oh, but that doesn't sound cool does it!? The emperor needs to have new clothes.
As for the original question, isn't that a no-brainer? Film can be easily shot and projected at practically any speed, and you can be sure it has been done. It's just a question of cost etc. how wide-spread it can be. Shooting at up to 4000 FPS is quite normal for slow-motion, and even many of the "normal" (non-high speed) cameras go typically up to around 70-100 FPS. Projection, OTOH, at more than about 50-100 FPS is possible but not necessary because we could not see the difference.
Last edited by hrst; 04-14-2011 at 02:37 AM. Click to view previous post history.
The question is about film, and much of the interesting information on the thread is relative to film.
Originally Posted by wildbill
Douglass Trumbull ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Trumbull ) shot the effects for many Los Vegas and Florida theme rides at a frame rate higher than 60 fps IIRC. It was done both in digital and analog. He is also a marvelous speaker and was a keynote speaker on this subject here at a meeting in 2006.