Post & the DI

Posted on by

Back to Post & the DI...

1917 in 48fps (2 replies and 2 comments)

5 months ago
JackMin 5 months ago

Hi Roger,

I was deeply moved while watching 1917 and I really love your work on it.  A thought came across my mind - what if the entire film was shot on 48fps? Would that be more immersive? Or would that disrupt the film?

I decided I wanted to increase the frame rate on the climax of the film, and found ways to 'double' the frame rate by interloping frames using Artificial intelligence. After many failed tries and long hours of rendering, here is the result!


Google Drive»

At the moment when the smoke from the explosion covers the screen, it seems the AI wasn't sure how to interpret the sudden change of the image, so it left a few dropped frames on the resulting video.

I personally think it is interesting, but I am leaning more towards the original 24fps. It seems more 'cinematic' in a way...but what do you think?

5 months ago
rydarus 5 months ago

I think HFR is super hard to do for film. At HFR, every tiny operator bump and little imperfection that is part of what makes up film as a medium is magnified due to the additional frames. It can be vomit inducing when not accounted for.

As someone who works primarily in a high frame rate medium, it can be difficult and unforgiving, you have to plan camera movements and your shots differently and leverage the additional latitude you get. Complicated camera moves can become more legible, for example, at 48 or 60 fps, and it works great for sports, or videogames where clarity is important and accurate inputs are rewarded.

But even still, simple facial expressions / dialogue scenes can be uncanny or nauseating at 48 or 60 fps. Film isn't about having complete visual clarity, much of it is based around illusion, e.g. the illusion of motion. HFR takes away a lot of the things that sustain the illusion, and if you don't leverage any of the advantages, there's no point to it.

5 months ago

Jack in,
Very interesting experiment but permission to copy ‘1917’ in full or part was not sought, sometimes it is best to obtain copyright first before thinking about transmission to others.

5 months ago
Frank 5 months ago

I will never understand the motivation to alter or recreate somebody else's work and then present it to them.

5 months ago

Advice was for guidance only. There are some people who take copyright very seriously and will pursue anybody who they think are infringing their rights.
Just a cautious note that’s all.

Back to Post & the DI...