Doug Trumbull Wants to Save the Movie Business

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, Sep 8, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Fascinating article about Oscar-winning special effects pioneer Doug Trumbull's efforts to push the film industry into 120-frames-per-second 4K images:

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/future-film-vfx-legend-douglas-729041

    I personally think the problem with shooting movies faster than 24fps is that they start looking a little too "real" and electronic to me. Quite a few critics complained that the first Hobbit movie, shown in some theaters at 48fps, "looked like a big-budget soap opera." I saw Trumbull's demo of his Showscan 60fps system in 1980 and felt the same way -- very "videoish."

    I'm not sure I agree with his 120fps idea, but I admire the fact that he's trying something different and has a dream of changing technology for the better. Trumbull is a scrappy guy, and a hell of an innovator.
     
  2. The Wanderer

    The Wanderer Seeker of Truth

    Location:
    NYC
    Images can become too 'real' and unlifelike.
     
  3. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    Complaining about films being to real seems a but surreal to me.
     
    Shawn, townsend and eddiel like this.
  4. EddieVanHalen

    EddieVanHalen Forum Resident

    I go to the cinema in the first place to feel an experience that is far from my today's reality, I do, I really do.
     
    PH416156, Daniel Plainview and crispi like this.
  5. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    I would have thought a film's narrative would fit that purpose.
     
  6. Chris DeVoe

    Chris DeVoe RIP Vickie Mapes Williams (aka Equipoise)

    I'll never understand the love for 24 fps. It was barely enough when it was the only option, and it should have been dumped as soon as possible.
     
  7. balzac

    balzac Senior Member

    When something is at a higher framerate, I always just say it "looks like videotape" or "looks like live video." I think "too real" implies someone wants the picture to look worse at 24 fps. It's just an aesthetic thing that we're all used to. To me, 24 fps "film-like" look doesn't looks less or more "real" than 60 fps video or 48, etc. It just looks like "a movie" while higher frame rates "look like TV", because that's how it has been in a lot of cases in the past.

    I think many (not all, but many) of the reviews I read of "The Hobbit" 48 fps screenings accurately described the conundrum. The higher frame rate provides higher resolution, etc. But because we've watched live TV and videotape at higher framerates over the years, it still can look sort of "cheap" even when it's more expensive and higher resolution.

    But even in the age of everything being shot on HD cameras, directors and other filmmakers are still making all sorts of aesthetic decisions. If one of those is shooting at 24 fps so it "looks like a movie", then that's okay.

    I think the different "looks" have their place. For instance, I prefer the 1080i/60 fps "video" look of live concert blu-rays, as opposed to something shot at 24 fps to "look like film."

    I'm not sure if there's any way they can somehow display 48 or 60 or 120 fps to the human eye and still make it "look like film."
     
    Old Rusty likes this.
  8. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member

    I notice they don't refer to it as Showscan Digital in the article. I wonder if that fell through. The article doesn't mention that Doug's latest work can combine 24/60/12o fps in a single frame hopefully giving a cinematic look when needed and high frame rates when called for.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2014
    Deesky likes this.
  9. Bryan

    Bryan Starman Jr.

    Location:
    Berkeley, CA
    No thanks. 24fps gives movies a "dream-like" look that I feel is appropriate.
     
  10. I have not seen anything higher than 24 fps that I liked - I agree that it takes on a "video" appearance that reminds me of the Soaps.

    No clue if 120 fps would change my POV. It would be interesting to see a Demo.
     
  11. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member

    I like 24 fps most of the time, but it falls apart for me when things start moving fast across the screen. The bigger the screen, the more nauseating it can become.
     
  12. And to me, the videotape look - for obvious reasons I suppose - just looks cheap. It's funny how it can look more realistic while also seeming more déclassé. Maybe that would change with new digital technology, but colour me skeptical whether it'll catch on...
     
  13. tommy-thewho

    tommy-thewho Senior Member

    Location:
    detroit, mi
    What frame speed is IMAX?

    that looks good to me..
     
  14. Chris DeVoe

    Chris DeVoe RIP Vickie Mapes Williams (aka Equipoise)

    48
     
  15. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member

    Actually, standard IMAX is done at 24 fps. There was an IMAX HD, that ran at 48 fps, but it only ran in a couple of locations that I ever read about. In 70mm, that's a lot of film. To me, real IMAX makes big beautiful images, but it can be tough to watch when there's fast motion on screen.
     
  16. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member

    P.S. More places could show it, but only one real film was made in it. With IMAX going digital, they can probably up the frame rate if they desire. From Wikipedia:

    IMAX HD
    Variations on IMAX included the 48 frames per second IMAX HD process, which sought to produce smoother, more lifelike motion, while also reducing the blurring of moving objects, by doubling the normal film rate. The IMAX HD system was tested in 1992 at the Canada Pavilion of the Seville Expo '92 with the film Momentum.[18] Higher production costs, and the high "wear-and-tear" on the prints and projectors, doomed the IMAX HD system, but, not before many theatres had been retrofitted to project at 48 frames, especially in Canada, in order to play Momentum.[19] In the 1990s theme parks in Thailand, Germany, and Las Vegas used IMAX HD for their Motion Simulator rides.[20] The Disney parks attraction Soarin' Over California features a modification of both IMAX HD and IMAX Dome, projecting in 48 frames per second.

    Production issues
    The doubled IMAX HD frame rate means that each IMAX HD reel lasts half as long, and the logistical implications of this reach throughout the film production chain. IMAX production by default is at least 3 to 5 times more expensive than common 35mm production. The further increase in IMAX HD has prevented significant adoption.
     
  17. mj_patrick

    mj_patrick Senior Member

    Location:
    Elkhart, IN, USA
    I have a great amount of respect for Douglas Trumbull's work, he did great movie FX before CGI. The guy worked on 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner, 'nuff said. I even like the film he directed (Silent Running). I had NO idea his father worked on The Wizard of Oz until now, although it makes perfect sense and I think that's really cool.

    He's having a hard time selling me on this for mainstream film. I might go for "special edition" film versions a la IMAX, but I don't want this for everything. We may have moved away from analog film, but I'm not really fond of the idea of getting away from 24fps because it has a majestic dreamlike look to it that I like. I've always liked film looking different from television broadcast and video, that's part of what makes film "film", imo. That said, I respect the man's ideas and I'd still like to see UFOTOG!
     
  18. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    For this kind of stuff it's fine. But for moving watching, I'm not a fan. I did get a kick out of seeing The Hobbit projected this way, but it wasn't entirely pleasant. Outdoor actions shots were nice, but indoor shots were very soap opera-looking.
     
  19. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member

    Do you think if Peter Jackson had done the intimate indoor scenes in 24p, and used 48 for action and outdoor stuff, it would have been less objectionable?
     
  20. npc145

    npc145 music junkie

    Nothing can save the movie business more than a good script.
     
  21. mj_patrick

    mj_patrick Senior Member

    Location:
    Elkhart, IN, USA
    Preferably more than just one! Otherwise they'll just keep remaking it...
     
    npc145 likes this.
  22. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    Definitely
     
  23. RandyO

    RandyO Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kent, Wa, USA
    Trumbull was at the Seattle Cinerama in May, I still have my free pass to see UFOTOG but I couldn't make it that day, argh! At least I got to see Brainstorm and 2001 with him in person.
     
  24. jojopuppyfish

    jojopuppyfish Senior Member

    Location:
    Maryland
    I like the Hobbit movies in 48 but what's the point if you can't show it on Bluray.......
    Its really good for motion
     
  25. Now that would be cool.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine