Tech Column

H H igh igh Frame Frame Rate Rate

Technology Stakes Technology Stakes Out Its ClaimOut Its Claim

Depending on who you talk to, High Frame Rate cinematography (HFR) is either the next big thing or just a disastrous novelty that detracts from the real art of cinema. So far we have only one example of a feature, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, that arrived in theatres in mid-December 2012.

HFR has been around for decades, most notably championed by Douglas Trumbull in the 1970s with the 60 fps/70 mm Showscan format. But in the analogue world of cellulose and sprockets, it was too expensive to shoot and exhibit in an industry where critical mass was stuck at 24 fps, which consumed less film.

“Also, projectors at the time couldn’t run that fast without blowing up,” says Bert Dunk csc, asc, the Technology Supervisor at Sheridan’s Screen Industries Research and Training Centre (SIRT).

Demand for a workable 3D solution and digital has opened the doors to make going to the theatre a more attractive value proposition, says Paul Salvini, chief technology officer, Christie Digital Systems. For theatres with late model projection units, HFR is a simple software shift, says Salvini, but for more widespread adoption some exhibitors will have to upgrade their hardware.

Still from The Hobbit.

It’s a prudent investment, he insists: “Audiences can experience it the way it was meant to be seen. HFR is just one more tool for creative professional cinematographers.” As it stands with 24 fps, creative compromises have to be made, he says.

Credit: ©2012 Warner Bros. E nt. All Rights Reserved

The possibility of HFR opens up options, especially for sports sequences, chases and action scenes, which of course drive box office sales. Instead of a wide shot to avoid blur, HFR opens up choices to longer lenses. And it’s not an either-or solution. Projectors can shift seamlessly from 24 to 48 and back again, Salvini says.

Technically, though, HFR seems to make sense. At 24 fps the capture misses half the action of 48 fps. Theoretically, then, at 60 or 120 fps, movement is captured more sharply.

SIRT has an HFR research and development lab and is working with Christie to develop and better understand the limitation and innovations offered from both the capture and audience aspect, looking at issues like shutter angles and frame rates. But from a training point of view, the decision to jump the frame rate is a simple one and requires no additional crew training, says Dunk. We’re ready, it’s as simple as that, he says, though the devil is in the details.

Twice the data may be more synchronous to the human eye and render a more comfortable and lifelike experience, but double data means errors – or the “smoke and mirrors” of movie making – are more easily exposed, he warns.

The most attractive aspect of HFR – aside from the creative advantage – is that there’s virtually nothing to do to jump in, except add more lighting. “It’s just the frame rate, nothing else changes really,” he said, though he cautions it is not as forgiving in sloppy and low-budget productions where attention to detail lags. “You’re not going to use this on a $500,000 film. And you need another stop. 3D was always a light hog, with the mirrors and everything, it just gobbles up light, but with HFR you need even more light.”

Here’s the math: at 48 fps, x 360 degrees divided by (shutter angle) 270 degrees, the exposure is 1/64 th of a second. James Cameron, who is shooting the Avatar sequel at 60 fps and 180 degrees, arrives at 1/120 th of a second, almost twice as fast an exposure.

Finding the sweet spot between shutter angle and creative vision is what Dunk and colleagues at SIRT will be working at this year. “I think you’ll see different shutter angles in the same film,” he says. “Forty-eight, 60, 120. The projectors can handle it, and HFR is fantastic in that way. It’s one more tool to work with as a storyteller.”

Meanwhile, the debate rages. Dunk’s only quibble with The Joe Sunday, longtime CSC treasurer and a technophile, says regardless of the doors it opens, from a technical perspective it also comes down to what additional restrictions are placed on the cinematographer to capture in terms of light and noise.

“How much more light do you need? What are the highlights and low light restrictions? Post? And then in exhibition? Are there limitations there?” he says. “Still, we went through something like this learning curve with HD.”

With 3D somewhat less prevalent than a few years ago, HFR can’t be just a way to breathe new life into that technology. It has to add something. The nascent technology will spark heated debate among cinematographers, many of whom have been dismissive of the 3D HFR version, saying it is “too much like a video game” or “theme park ride” or “Monday Night Football-ish” and destroys the beauty of the cinema experience.

Still, says Sunday, it is audiences who will ultimately cast their votes at the box office.

Ian Harvey is a veteran Toronto-based journalist who writes for a variety of publications and covers the technology sector. He welcomes feedback and eagerly solicits subject matter ideas at ian@pitbullmedia.ca.