PDA

View Full Version : The Hobbit 48fps



Tim Hole
12-05-2012, 08:28 PM
So has anyone else managed to see any stuff from The Hobbit in 48fps yet?

I saw a test burn-in today for the first time, and I am on the fence. I will have to watch the film in its entirety before I judge it but there are several pros and cons to it. I love the cadence solution in wide sweeping pans but the character elements (ie The story) its gonna take a while to get used to it, or not. I'm on the fence. Its part way between cinematic and high quality TV. It looks strange. But I did find it to be quite engaging. I found myself being drawn in...the 3D helped.

wreck2
12-05-2012, 08:55 PM
I can agree with Quentin Tarantino saying the industry is turning into "TV in Public". I have downloaded some 24 vs. 48fps clips, and it looks disgusting! It makes me rage! How can people say that 48fps looks cinematic? It's like watching a movie on a 120+Hz TV. It completely ruins the look, and more importantly, the feel of the movie. My film school is making me film in 60i instead of 24p because "it's where they're going." But I shoot in 30p since 60i converts to 30fps anyway, and all the students wonder why my stuff looks more crisp and clear with the same camera.

Now I'm babbling, but as you can tell, I hate it. Lol.

nickjbedford
12-05-2012, 09:16 PM
I could probably say that I have a preconditioning to the phenomenon myself. When I was living with my dad, we left the Samsung MotionPlus or whatever it was called on. I honestly didn't mind it. Going back to 24fps non-smoothed felt so jagged it's not funny. You instantly notice it. I mean, everything's relative. 95% of people are conditioned to expect the "not smooth" cinematic frame rate of 24 and that's where the initial shock will come from.

"Cinematic" is a cultural muscle memory. 24fps, long crops, roughly 2.4:1 aspect ratio, high end image qualities (DR, detail etc). People don't like change.

I'm curious myself, though I can completely understand why it will be a love or hate (or love and hate) thing.

Jglucks
12-05-2012, 09:27 PM
120+Hz TV makes me want to throw the most childish temper tantrum. And 48 FPS 3D? Like an eleventh finger or third nipple: Who asked for this?

Liam
12-05-2012, 09:28 PM
I am just trying to figure out how much of the film was 'shot for 3d' as I genuinely cannot watch 3d, it gives me chronic headaches, I hope watching the 24fps 2d version isn't a let down because of how much it was purposely shot for 3d.

wreck2
12-05-2012, 09:38 PM
The whole movie was shot in 3D, but that just means he used 2 RED Epics side by side in 5K. 2D is still a RED Epic in 5K. I'm going to watch it in 3D, but in 24fps. I do want to see what 48fps looks like, but giving the studio my money for curiosity will make them think I want it cause I paid for it.

Andrew_HD
12-05-2012, 09:46 PM
24p is what we are ALL use to see, as there was nothing else until now. It's not better in any aspect than 48fps+ 48fps can simulate 24p look if needed. All "older" directors, cinematographers will hate 48fps, but so what?
24p was NOT CHOSEN because it was looking "the best"- it was the lowest acceptable fsp and chosen because of costs of film etc- actual look did not have much to do with it. It's different story now and saying that 48fps is crap only because "respected directors" say so is not very wise. 48fps has its + and - like everything on this planet and can't be crossed because of opinion people, who WATCHED 24p for 50+ years of their life and they got use to it a lot.
It was the same story with digital cameras- they could not imagine it and now more movies are shot digitally than on film (my guess).

Liam
12-05-2012, 09:48 PM
The whole movie was shot in 3D, but that just means he used 2 RED Epics side by side in 5K. 2D is still a RED Epic in 5K. I'm going to watch it in 3D, but in 24fps. I do want to see what 48fps looks like, but giving the studio my money for curiosity will make them think I want it cause I paid for it.

I know that, I meant how much of the film was shot FOR 3d, meaning how many things are going to happen in the film that only 3d viewers are going to experience and in 2d it'll just look odd, or will they eliminate all these type of things and make the 2d film different?

wreck2
12-05-2012, 10:02 PM
High frame rate for a drama just looks cheesy and fake. James Cameron says it makes it more "real" but watch a soap opera on ABC for 5min and tell me how high budget that feels.

Jglucks
12-05-2012, 10:23 PM
High frame rate for a drama just looks cheesy and fake. James Cameron says it makes it more "real" but watch a soap opera on ABC for 5min and tell me how high budget that feels.

Agree 100% It destroys suspension of disbelief.

Roman
12-05-2012, 10:31 PM
Yeah not a fan of the whole 48fps thing... I realize as the generations come and go this might end up being the norm, but it's gonna be one helleva transition. Film to digital was rather quick, since it was only recently that digital even became a good enough replacement for use in feature films. A 30fps, 48fps option etc, has been on the table for a long, long time. There hasn't been some technological barrier to breech in order to make it happen. It works for the 3D world; there's an actual NEED for it, not because it's stylistically something that people are out there yearning to see. Unless there's a real need for it in a production, I honestly can't see why people will even care to use it, there's just no real advantage to be gained. Especially in the VFX world, double the work for the same pay... ugh. It's simply a thing that will arise and stick around because of necessity, nothing more.

24fps is around for good, not because it's better or worse than 48fps, or that it will somehow get "outdated", it has nothing to do with that.

mbeck
12-06-2012, 12:11 AM
I am skeptical about the whole 48fps thing. I am going to watch it in 24fps first, then 48fps 3D. I am also curious to see if the 24fps looks good as well. I wonder if they did any added motion blur to compensate for 24fps not being 180 degrees shutter after being converted from the 48fps.

Jorge De Silva
12-06-2012, 03:08 AM
Regular projection still be 24fps from the 48FPS master. It's the same thing... people forgot about 180° rule of shutter angle? He shoot at 48fps but using the same rule... so.. 48fps at 96 shutter speed! So same Motion blur as always! only more frames! 48FPS will be to the 3D projection. 24 from the 48fps will be the regular (2D) projection. No problem... :)
About the internet Trailer download, people should remember that the refresh rate of PC monitors can LIE... 60 to 120... even so the trailer is at 59.94fps! So... again... in cinema it will be completely different...

Frank Glencairn
12-06-2012, 04:47 AM
So the future of cinema is the old TV news look and framerates?

From what I saw so far (trailer in theater at 48/3D) it totally looks like a soap.
Even the 24/2D version isn't much better.
And even worse, the set looks like a set, false beards look like false beards and all the magic is gone.

I hear folks saying "you need to get used to it".
Excuse me, but I'm already used to it form TV since 40 years. Doesn't make it any better. So WTF?

Jorge De Silva
12-06-2012, 05:02 AM
I hate 3D projections... so I will watch the 24 fps versions... let's see in 2 weeks. But I have good hopes... If you shoot at 50P with 1/100 shutter... the difference it's not so huge in motion... same shutter angle... i already tried. looks fine.

Jorge De Silva
12-06-2012, 05:15 AM
So the future of cinema is the old TV news look and framerates?

From what I saw so far (trailer in theater at 48/3D) it totally looks like a soap.
Even the 24/2D version isn't much better.
And even worse, the set looks like a set, false beards look like false beards and all the magic is gone.

I hear folks saying "you need to get used to it".
Excuse me, but I'm already used to it form TV since 40 years. Doesn't make it any better. So WTF?

The big problem is there: "I'm already used to it form TV since 40 years." we are so much used to the look, that know it's difficul to change... for that i have to agree! :)

Deggen
12-06-2012, 05:47 AM
I think 24fps can be thought of as impressionist motion. It's below our perceptual threshold, leaving our imagination to interpolate between frames. It helps in action for example by allowing our brain to see a punch that never connected. We see a fist fly towards a face in one frame and a fist leaving the face in the next, so our brain puts the "hit" frame in between for us. If you fake a punch at 48fps... the audience will see the fake. Which I think is where the more realistic feel of high fps gets its un-dramatic look. Turns film into theatre/TV if you ask me. It'll work for some stuff - immersive docs and especially the games industry. Fantasy action not so much.

3D and 48fps might be a bit smoothed out, but with 13 stops of latitude and 5k res it's not going to look like video. It's still Red Epic! It'll probably just look like its right in front of you. Makes sense for 3D to do that. 2D 48fps can fuck right off when it comes to dramatic cinema.

As for the "smooth motion" modes some TVs do (mine included) -- that is sacrilege as far as I'm concerned. An utter waste of processing power. For sport, perfect. For drama, hell no.

Soeren Mueller
12-06-2012, 08:57 AM
I'm with the "anti 48fps" crowd.. at least for "real" cinematic movies where it's all part of the otherworldly dreamy feel of it.
48fps and higher is like watching TV on the big screen. It amazingly (to me) looks nearly as bad as the artificial motion estimation of these stupid "100+ Hz" TVs where some software interpolates new frames in between a la Twixtor. Of course you don't have some of the artifacts as it's native high framerate.. but it's simple "to real".

For me clearly the only place of that is for documentaries or Cinéma vérité stuff...

As Frank said - you suddenly realize the "fakeness" of it all, the sets, the makeup.. and it totally takes you out of the experience. It's like watching some BTS stuff...

And I hope that it'll fail.. like the high framerate "experiments" of the 70ies... my worst nightmare would be that it really becomes the norm... like when you talk to younger kids nowadays about Star Wars.. a few years ago it was already bad when some of them thought you were talking about the notorious prequels and didn't know the classics... now it's even worse because some of them think you're talking about the animated TV series sh*t... aaaah :rolleyes:

Frank Glencairn
12-06-2012, 10:00 AM
And I hope that it'll fail..

I second that - together with 3D.




my worst nightmare would be that it really becomes the norm...

My gut feeling says that exactly this will happen, cause

1. Higher numbers are always better to the average Joe Shmuck
2. The kids gonna love it, when a film looks like their high framerate first person shooters
3. The industry is gonna push it cause they hope, they can make more money out of it.

And in a few years, we can see 24p films only in arthouse cinemas.

mbeck
12-06-2012, 10:26 AM
Regular projection still be 24fps from the 48FPS master. It's the same thing... people forgot about 180° rule of shutter angle? He shoot at 48fps but using the same rule... so.. 48fps at 96 shutter speed! So same Motion blur as always! only more frames! 48FPS will be to the 3D projection. 24 from the 48fps will be the regular (2D) projection. No problem... :)
About the internet Trailer download, people should remember that the refresh rate of PC monitors can LIE... 60 to 120... even so the trailer is at 59.94fps! So... again... in cinema it will be completely different...

I am not sure I get what you are saying.. Are you saying that shooting at 48fps at 1/96th will give you 180° at 24fps? This does not seem correct to me.

Jason M.
12-06-2012, 11:45 AM
I am not sure I get what you are saying.. Are you saying that shooting at 48fps at 1/96th will give you 180° at 24fps? This does not seem correct to me.

Motion blur is a function of shutter speed only. The overall motion characteristic depends on both shutter speed and frames/second (as well as things like read-reset time on the shutter, etc). So 48 FPS @ 1/96th will be a 180° shutter, but it will have much less motion blur than 24 FPS with a 180° shutter, which is 1/48th of a second.

Jackson shot The Hobbit at 48 FPS with a 270° shutter, which gives a shutter speed of 1/64th of a second. This was apparently to allow for 24 FPS versions to have a closer to normal motion blur characteristic without overly compromising the motion of the 48 FPS version.

mbeck
12-06-2012, 11:53 AM
Motion blur is a function of shutter speed only. The overall motion characteristic depends on both shutter speed and frames/second (as well as things like read-reset time on the shutter, etc). So 48 FPS @ 1/96th will be a 180° shutter, but it will have much less motion blur than 24 FPS with a 180° shutter, which is 1/48th of a second.

Jackson shot The Hobbit at 48 FPS with a 270° shutter, which gives a shutter speed of 1/64th of a second. This was apparently to allow for 24 FPS versions to have a closer to normal motion blur characteristic without overly compromising the motion of the 48 FPS version.

Ahh.. I didn't realize that he shot at 270°. I wonder why they did that.. you would think that if they were going all in on the whole 48fps.. they would choose what was best for that.. now if people don't like 48fps, they are going to blame the 270° lol...

David
12-06-2012, 12:59 PM
I prefer 24fps over 48fps for aesthetic reasons not technical ones. Technically 48fps is superior but I still prefer the technically inferior look of 24fps. Maybe it's conditioning, maybe not. I have no good explanation as to why I prefer 24fps other than it just feels right to me when I look at it. Call it a life time of being brain washed by watching movies, but I think 24fps with each frame being flashed twice or four times is the look I like best.

mbeck
12-06-2012, 01:50 PM
Ahh.. I didn't realize that he shot at 270°. I wonder why they did that.. you would think that if they were going all in on the whole 48fps.. they would choose what was best for that.. now if people don't like 48fps, they are going to blame the 270° lol...

Wait.. 270° @ 48fps is 1/64th. 1/64th @ 24fps is 135°..... so.. really strange. Where did you see that they shot at 270°?

Jason M.
12-06-2012, 02:01 PM
Wait.. 270° @ 48fps is 1/64th. 1/64th @ 24fps is 135°..... so.. really strange. Where did you see that they shot at 270°?

http://www.filmbuffonline.com/FBOLNewsreel/wordpress/2011/04/26/jackson-addresses-concerns-over-48-fps-shooting-for-hobbit/

Here's a link to one of Jackson's statements about shooting 48 FPS @ 270°. Basically, since more theaters have 24 FPS capability than 48, I think the idea was to split the difference, and master the 24 FPS from the 48 FPS.

mbeck
12-06-2012, 02:07 PM
In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master.

LOL... we will see... but you would expect that from the DP that is shooting 48fps :)

so, they picked 270° because they liked it in 24fps.. I am more worried than ever! o_0

Soeren Mueller
12-06-2012, 02:09 PM
http://www.filmbuffonline.com/FBOLNewsreel/wordpress/2011/04/26/jackson-addresses-concerns-over-48-fps-shooting-for-hobbit/

Here's a link to one of Jackson's statements about shooting 48 FPS @ 270°. Basically, since more theaters have 24 FPS capability than 48, I think the idea was to split the difference, and master the 24 FPS from the 48 FPS.

Interesting... so the 24fps will have a slightly faster shutter than normal so pans etc. will look a little "worse" to people who are sensitive in that regard. And the 48fps will have a slightly slower shutter so it will look a little more "soapy"... seems like they opened a little pandoras box there ;)

refocusedmedia
12-06-2012, 02:47 PM
120+Hz TV makes me want to throw the most childish temper tantrum.

120 Hz is actually good spec to have, and has nothing to do with the "soap opera" look. That is caused by motion processing & interpolation.

Jason M.
12-06-2012, 02:48 PM
Interesting... so the 24fps will have a slightly faster shutter than normal so pans etc. will look a little "worse" to people who are sensitive in that regard. And the 48fps will have a slightly slower shutter so it will look a little more "soapy"... seems like they opened a little pandoras box there ;)

Yeah, I understand that more people are going to see it in 24 FPS, so it's a potential problem to run with 180° at 48 FPS, but the approach does seem somewhat problematic for precisely the reasons you mention. It does seem like the conversion to 24 will involve adding some blur, which is what I assume he's referring to with "digital processes in post."

I suppose I am cautiously optimistic about the 48 FPS. I am of course used to 24, and absolutely love the look of silent films projected at 16-18 FPS, but I'm interested to see how the higher frame rates turn out. I remember thinking that the ghosting in Avatar was pretty bad at 24, and that a higher sample rate could really help.

Also, would love to see this on a laser projector, where both eyes are projected simultaneously, but those aren't really out yet.

Tim Hole
12-06-2012, 10:21 PM
The kind of reaction I was expecting to be fair. I'm willing to give it a go, but I don't know if I will get used to the hybrid look. I just really hate the cadence of 24fps.

Brandon
12-07-2012, 01:19 AM
Peter Jackson is very passionate about 3D. He's mentioned many times before that if he had the ability, he would have filmed all his previous films in 3D as well. 48 fps is the solution to one of the biggest issues people have with 3D and one of the main reasons I don't see movies in 3D anymore. 24 fps 3D is simply not enough. You must have at least 24 fps per eye.

48 fps for 2D might catch on but I suspect it will be the director's individual choice and simply another stylistic decision. 1.85 or 2.35 framing? Anamorphic or spherical? 24p or 48p?

I myself am not terribly excited about 48 fps 2D, but what's awesome is that thanks to technology, we have choices.

Jason M.
12-07-2012, 07:45 AM
One of the more interesting applications of HFR is Douglas Trumbull's Showscan Digital technology, which allows practically for multiple framerates in a single project. The downside is that you have to capture at 120 FPS, which does present some technical hurdles. Still, lots of potential there. Would love to see it used in a feature or even a test short.

funwithstuff
12-07-2012, 08:57 AM
Frame rates are odd. Before Blu-ray and HD, for example, those in the US had no option to see films on TVs at anything like the correct frame rate. The 3:2:2:3 pulldown that turns 24 frames into 60 fields is certainly noticeable to anyone used to PAL's 4% speedup, where one frame just turns into two fields. Worse, if you're in PAL land, and watch a Blu-ray on a TV that doesn't support 24p, you'll be subjected to the same ridiculous pulldown issue and its weird cadence problems; the player will show 24p in 60i and won't simply speed it up to 25p/50i.

(Pre Blu-ray, and assuming the 4% speed-up doesn't bother you, PAL DVDs are much better value: 25% more resolution, no pulldown issue, and they take less time to watch. :) )

When the TV manufacturers introduced their MotionFlow™, 200Hz etc. technology, it seemed like another case of useless larger numbers being used to sell technology, but defaults are what sticks. A study showed that 95% of MS Word users stuck with the default preferences they were given (http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2011/09/14/do-users-change-their-settings/), and you can imagine that the TV watching audience is much the same. The percentage of widescreen TVs that still (still!) show stretched 4:3 images bear this out.

The vast majority of viewers with new TVs are now used to super-smooth, faked-up images. Frames are now routinely morphed from one to the next to create fake frames, and you can see the artifacts quite clearly if you're looking for them — most easily around the edges of moving objects.

Personally, I hate it, and I suspect most film fans will too. Thing is, it's largely an association with poorer quality productions that's putting us off. Many people won't care. Yes, there are artifacts (with the faked high frame rates) but they aren't *such* a big deal. It's the feel of the image that's the problem. We can suspend our disbelief when it's different from real life, but we don't want to see the image so clearly that we can see the fake beards.

So sure, I'd like to think that 3D is a fad, that 48fps is a fad, but I'm not so certain. Some cameras today from Panasonic and Sony don't even have the option to shoot 25p or 30p — they shoot 50p or 60p instead. I wish we could ease into this with 30p; maybe it would make it all a little easier. Not least because the BMCC doesn't shoot any higher just yet, but also because I don't want the default to be something I don't like.

And no, I haven't seen The Hobbit yet. I'll see it with an open mind, in 3D @ 48 fps, as the director intended. I hope it's good. But I don't have high hopes.

Paul Stephen Edwards
12-19-2012, 09:22 PM
OK, here goes: Saw "Hobbit" on Sunday. Regular 2D 24fps. Just got back from seeing the 3D 48fps.

It surprised the hell out of me, but I preferred the 3D 48fps version.

Generally, I'm not a 3D fan. Gives me a headache & makes the image too dark. "The Hobbit" had the clearest, brightest 3D that I've ever seen. Don't know if it was a result of the 48fps, but I also came away with no headache or eyestrain.

In 2D, the motion blur on most of the cranes & action sequences obscured a great deal of detail. Everything was crystal clear in 48fps. Action feels different in 48fps... more immediate & real time. And it makes digital performances like Gollum seem absolutely real. 48fps isn't for every movie, but I think that it's perfect for effects heavy stories.

Does it feel like a traditional movie? Absolutely not. It's almost like seeing a choreographed and edited stage play. Did it bother me? Not at all.

I did not expect to enjoy it, but I did.

mbeck
12-19-2012, 09:49 PM
I just say it in 24fps 2D. It wasn't horrible... But I think it hurt the effects. All the CG looked about 80% there. The motion blur was a little weird, but it was slightly distracting. I will be seeing it in 48 3D at some point and will most likely prefer it over the 2D. And I think that it's because it was shot that way. If they had done alternate takes @ 24fps 180 degree I would have preferred that version.

randyman
12-19-2012, 09:49 PM
I saw it opening night in IMAX 3D, which was 24FPS. Enjoyed it immensely. Thought that at times it was graded a little hot (Rivendell), but believe it was the look PJ was going for - kind of self-luminous. Fine by me.

Some think it fat, but I LOVE EVERY MINUTE of being in Middle Earth; I could have watched 3 or 6 more hours. No difficulty making out details because of 3D, which was nearly always fairly subtle, and unobtrusive.

I plan on returning to see the 3D HFR version this weekend; I'm eager to experience the tech. Paul, what you said about "seeing a choreographed and edited stage play" makes a lot of sense to me; I was imagining that might be the impression the tech would give. We'll see...

Frank Glencairn
12-20-2012, 04:13 AM
Vincent LaForet made a good point: http://t.co/Hjz5be9E

nickjbedford
12-20-2012, 06:57 AM
I'm a Tolkien fan so I'll enjoy it regardless, but I agree with Laforet's theories.

daveswan
12-20-2012, 07:23 AM
Well I'll be going to see it this evening (7.30-10.50pm) in 4K 48fps 3D at my local Vue cinema. If I survive I'll report back:).

TBH I wasn't expecting my local to be so hi-tech.

Jglucks
12-20-2012, 11:59 AM
Vincent LaForet made a good point: http://t.co/Hjz5be9E

Couldn't have been said any better. Great article.

Andrew
12-20-2012, 01:08 PM
Saw it in HFR 3D last night and I have mixed feelings about it. Like others have said, it did feel real like watching a play which was totally different than a standard film experience. Some scenes I was distracted by it and thought it looked too real/video. Other scenes it was really amazing and pulled me in.

I think there is definitely a future for this, but it will need to fit the material and possibly only be used in some parts of a film while other scenes are still displayed in 24fps.

Why did I love it in the scene with Gollum, but then sometimes when the camera cut back to Bilbo I'd dislike it? Do you think it has something to do with the Red Epic? I can't figure that out.

For me, cinema is all about having an experience and an emotional experience at that. I want to be sad, happy, scared, in awe, etc. This new tool needs to be applied in a way that will enhance the emotional experience of cinema, and unfortunately in many scenes of this film it took the emotion out of it for me.

Kholi
12-20-2012, 01:25 PM
Agree with Andrew and adding to that... Wasn't a fan of the movie. Too much fighting, and the HFR made all of the serious moments almost laughable.

However, every single time there was CGI on the screen it reconfirmed why HFR is important, that stuff looked otherworldly, but believable as heck. When it's Pixar's turn to utilize this tech, you will change your mind about HFR.

Also, I will definitely be investing in an HFR television for Video Games.

Paul Stephen Edwards
12-20-2012, 01:34 PM
I think there is definitely a future for this, but it will need to fit the material and possibly only be used in some parts of a film while other scenes are still displayed in 24fps.
...
For me, cinema is all about having an experience and an emotional experience at that. I want to be sad, happy, scared, in awe, etc. This new tool needs to be applied in a way that will enhance the emotional experience of cinema, and unfortunately in many scenes of this film it took the emotion out of it for me.

I think that the hybrid 24p/48p idea is a winner.

Honestly, the emotion came through in both versions for me. I was more aware of the performance in the HFR version, but that didn't remove me from the film. I'm the guy who has to fight getting choked up on set during intense performances, though. ;)

Andrew
12-20-2012, 03:01 PM
When it's Pixar's turn to utilize this tech, you will change your mind about HFR.



I thought this exactly while watching the Hobbit last night!




I was more aware of the performance in the HFR version,

That's exactly the feeling I got. You we so much more aware of the performances.

daveswan
12-21-2012, 04:56 AM
To save time I'll copy what I posted on DVXuser.

I went to see it last evening for the 7.30pm showing, there were a bare double handful of people around, which at least meant there weren't hoards of teenagers texting and chatting.

It wasn't boring to me, the "preamble" was IMHO necessary at it's length, as it's not setting up a 2-3 hour movie, but a 8-9 hour one, just as LOTR is a 10+ hour movie depending on whether you watch the theatrical or extended cut. We need to see *why* Thorin et al are trying to regain Erebor. I did look at my watch, but only to see if my now ageing bladder would hold out and was astonished to see it was 10.30 already!

I didn't mind the hyper clarity at all since that was what PJ was after, an immersive reality, rather than a dream, what did tend to take me out of the story was that the 3D looked "fake", now I have to admit to being a 3D novice, as nothing that's been shot in 3D has interested my enough to go and see it, but the depth looked like layers of 2D which especially occurred with deep backgrounds. I you *look* at real landscapes (eg mountains) they still look deep even though they may be miles away, whereas these looked like 2D plates. On a positive note I didn't get a headache or even worse vertigo which I was afraid of as I have somewhat wonky eyes (And may be why the 3D didn't look right)

But then perhaps I'm just a Tolkein geek

wreck2
12-21-2012, 11:00 AM
This post on reduser is exactly how I feel on this matter.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?90770-The-Hobbit-at-48fps&p=1122409&viewfull=1#post1122409

"Why the HFR debate is not really a debate at all.

I guess I don't understand why some people are calling the look of 48fps HFR a new aesthetic. If you've seen a television, you've seen high frame rates. Make no mistake, 60i is 60 discrete pictures per second, albeit with half the vertical resolution (interlacing isn't that relevant to this discussion).

Granted, we've not seen it at quite this frame rate, progressively, at this resolution but the image has far more in common with what we're used to calling video than it does to what we're used to calling film (at 24fps).

I saw The Hobbit in 3D at 48fps because that's how the director intended it to be exhibited.

I felt like I was watching a PBS show on a gigantic television, shot on the best looking ENG camera ever made. I really wanted to like the look (or, not mind it) but I didn't.

The answer for some is to simply get used to it. Why? Because it's becoming more prevalent due to the higher refresh rates on TVs? Should I also get used to bad storytelling? That seems to be pretty popular, too.

Others say we're too used to 24fps and need to be more open to change. Except, this isn't change. It's video for crying out loud.

Film and video are contemporaries. Motion picture film predates video (television) by a few years, but video has been around (publicly) for the last 60 years or so in the US.

If video were going to replace film as the preferred choice for narrative storytelling, it would've done it by now. Why didn't it? Because people prefer the film aesthetic to the video aesthetic for the vast majority of projects. Video got its ass kicked.

Which is why there's no debate. Filmmakers and viewers declared the look of 24fps film more appealing for narrative work years ago.

If you think the only things that kept filmmakers from shooting on video instead of film was the smaller sensor, interlacing and dynamic range, you're sadly mistaken. If technical specs were the only thing holding video back from shooting films like The Godfather, When Harry Met Sally, Pulp Fiction or Harry Potter, the camera companies would've bowed to the demands of the industry and made bigger sensors and increased dynamic range long ago.

People don't flock to the Alexa, Epic or BMCC because they look more like video.

There's a reason why they didn't shoot The West Wing on video. They could've. HBO's The Wire, on 24fps film, is a gritty exposé of the problems besieging Baltimore. The Wire, on video, is Cops or 20/20.

Not liking HFR because you're a purist who thinks films should only be a certain thing is just as bad as liking it because you think it somehow means you're a forward thinker.

Preferring the look of 24fps doesn't necessarily mean you're stuck and can't embrace the future. It means, given the choice, you prefer what you think looks better.

Video doesn't actually look like reality (at least, it never has to me). It's what we associate with live, as-it-happens events due to how it's primarily been used since its inception. But, there's a huge distinction.

I didn't watch The Hobbit at 48fps and feel like I was actually there. Instead, it looked more like somebody sent a news crew to document the events in Middle Earth.

As several people pointed out, the darker scenes faired better and weren't as disengaging. However, those sweeping helicopter shots of mountain ranges and huge vistas lost the epic (pun intended) scope from the first three movies and instead made me feel like I was watching a travel video for New Zealand.

48fps addresses some of the inherit flaws of 24fps when it comes to motion. However, it does so (in its current state) at the expense of an aesthetic (24fps) that simply looks better to me.

I look at 48fps like wearing a terrycloth suit. You could do it and it would be different but that doesn't mean it will look better than wool gaberdine, if it looks good at all.

It's ironic, RED went through all this trouble to make their cameras a suitable replacement for film. Double the capture/playback rate and they're right back at having they're cameras look like video. Great looking video, but video nonetheless."

Andrew
12-21-2012, 01:14 PM
I've been thinking about the movie since I saw it. It's stuck with me in a way that I can't remember another movie doing. It's not even so much that I'm thinking about specific scenes or plot details, but kind of like I'm remembering a vivid dream that's starting to fade away.

If I do stop to think about specific scenes that feeling goes away and I just kind of see the BBC drama style it had.

I think there is something to this technology, but feel it almost requires a whole new type of movie. Something more experiential than spectator. It's different enough to require totally different filmmaking and story-telling techniques to fully utilize.

In contrast, I've also being going around with the thought that I think I'd like to see the Hobbit remade someday with an overall more real-world feel. Less sets and wiz-bang effects and more raw nature and a strong foot in reality. I know that's blasphemy because PJ is really an amazing director, but it's how I feel.

When I read the books I feel like I'm reading about a very real and very old version of our earth where fantastical things were possible and nature was very real and alive either helping you along the way or acting as an evil force. I don't see scenes from the latest and greatest fantasy video game while reading the books.

Kholi
12-21-2012, 01:44 PM
I agree, Andrew. I'm curious to see how Found Footage pictures play out in a large theater, and a few other types of movies. As against it as I had been, yet always in favor of it for CGi and video games, I'm open to the idea of seeing very niche types of productions this way.

I hope they won't all be EPIC, though. The core image just did not look good at all to me.

Sage
12-21-2012, 02:03 PM
The core image just did not look good at all to me.

+

dop16mm
12-21-2012, 03:05 PM
As most people here I have completely mixed feelings about it. Yes absolutely it looked like video, very good video, but video, and real. The problem with this is that anything that isn't real looks totally Fake, which is a problem in a fantasy film where everything is fake. Perhaps it comes from the odd shutter angle that resulted in close to 60hz which we in ntsc land associate with video. It has been rightly pointed out that 60i is always shot at 60Hz not 120.

The flip side of the argument is that it was the best live action 3D experience I've had to date, it had depth and volume, not paper cutouts comped into a background, which live action 3D has always looked to me, CGI has always looked more seemless, and I'm not sure why. I was astounded by how well the CGI characters occupied the same space as the actors, and felt real, (not real as in realistic, but in the sense that Muppets are 'real') That I liked very much.

But, and here is the big But... If 3D has to look like Masterpiece Theatre to achieve that quality, I want no part of it. I know there is a lot of money on the line, but if this is the way the industry wants to go it should be all or nothing, no protecting for 24p, no simultanious releases in multiple formats. Have the Balls to go all in and if it fails so be it. I really hope they are tracking the statistics of the various screening formats, and not just opening weekend, but throughout the run.

Andrew
12-21-2012, 03:07 PM
I hope they won't all be EPIC, though. The core image just did not look good at all to me.

I agree.

It wouldn't have worked with the film they had in mind at all, but I would have loved to have seen some scenes shot in 70mm film. Film still has that organic feel that I think would have complimented middle earth better. Of course 3d and 48 would have been a huge challenge in that case.

Frank Glencairn
12-21-2012, 06:30 PM
I found this very interesting:


Another lesser-known result of these tests which I learned from fellow content creator Kevin Dole was that Edison supposedly discovered 48 fps was a second magic number: Below this frame rate, the brain perceived the images as being dream-like (or at the very least, not real); at this rate and above, the brain perceived the motion to be a representation of reality.


Which strengthens my theory, that dreams are in 24fps (or at least under 48fps)

Great article at PVC

http://provideocoalition.com/cmg_keyframes/story/48-fps-a-bridge-too-near

Andrew
12-21-2012, 06:52 PM
I found this very interesting:



Which strengthens my theory, that dreams are in 24fps (or at least under 48fps)

Great article at PVC

http://provideocoalition.com/cmg_keyframes/story/48-fps-a-bridge-too-near


Interesting article. I don't really agree with his "just split the difference" conclusion though. You ought to be bold enough to choose one way or the other. He's also using wisdom written by Carlos Castaneda, a complete fraud imo, to come to his conclusion. That doesn't help. :)

I just don't see where 30p fits in for cinema. Is he just trying to say that it's a new format for theatrical distribution we SHOULD go to or actually saying you should shoot your current project in 30p now?

Roman
12-21-2012, 09:46 PM
I think everything has its place. 24p for whatever reason adds "legitimacy" to dialog scenes that make you suspend disbelief; for whatever reason I chuckle when I see actors deliver dramatic lines in 48p / 60p... it's just so cheesy I can't help it. Live theater performances however do not feel like this at all, and I can really get into that as opposed to HFR video.

Visually arresting scenes that combine either cgi / special effects or grand sweeping panoramas of action... look incredible in 48p / 60p. I totally endorse films that go this route... a combined 24p / 48p production that just simply uses both appropriately and where they are best suited.

Liam
12-27-2012, 01:47 AM
Well it came out in Australia yesterday and I managed to see it today, 2d, 24fps.... And what a horrible movie. I didn't enjoy it one bit, the look first of all looked like REALLY GOOD animation, so fake, basically. The lighting was good in some parts and then threw me off in other bits, you could clearly see where something had been green screened, the outlines where horrendously noticeable, I could go on about the LOOK of the film and what not, but that wasn't the worst part.

For me it just lacked as a movie, with or without the 40fps/3d mumbo jumbo. The movie is stretched out over 3 films, where I don't think it warrants that, what so ever, every scene was just too long. and if that Thorin character continues to deliver lines by doing epic-head-lifts for every line, then I'm going to neck someone.

Not a fan for now but the rest of the films will probably tie me in, although I still think this should all be done in 1 or at a push, 2 films.

Frank Glencairn
12-27-2012, 03:25 AM
Besides all technical stuff, I was also disappointed from it as a movie.
Maybe because the Hobbit is a childrens book, but I found it too slapstickish (regarding directing and acting) to grab me.
LOTR was dark, mystic epic, but those 3 camping trolls where just like the Three Stooges and the dwarfs and goblins like from the Muppet show (I was just waiting for a tap dance number), let alone that guy with the bunny sled.

Jackson lost me for the next two. And it's not because of 24/48 3D or not.
So for the moment, my preferred Hobbit frame rate is zero fps.

teh
12-27-2012, 08:44 AM
I was imagining many people being disappointed of the movie because they are having LOTR in their mind. And yes Hobbit is a prequel but like you said a completely different kind of story. It's a children's book.

Never the less I was also disappointed. I loved the book and some part of it were ment to be funny but in the movie these scenes were often exaggerating this. It seemed so frantically, they tried to be funny a bit to hard imo (especially the dwarfs and also Bilbo). I would also have preferred a movie more exclusively from Bilbos POV, just like the book.

Jglucks
12-27-2012, 01:01 PM
Jackson lost me after the Lovely Bones. A film so epically misguided, only a talented person who has gone completely irreversibly insane could have made it. I mean, Colonel Kurtz at the end of Apocalypse Now insane. Almost positive he directed it from the shadows of the set, speaking gibberish and referring to PA's as 'errand boys' and 'grocery clerks.' I'd rather revisit Heavenly Creatures, Braindead, and Meet the Feebles -- and remember one of my favorite directors growing up.

Liam
12-27-2012, 05:34 PM
Someone over at DVX made a good point about the movie (comparing it to LOTR/Star Wars), each individual LOTR or Star Wars film can stand on it's own as a film, not needing it's prequels/sequels to achieve an overall story, but The Hobbit is a movie that seems to heavily rely on the other 2 films to be anything. This first hobbit film reminds me of Deathly Hallows Part 1, and I don't think I'm going to rush to watch it again.

Another user made a good point about Jackson, given that he wasn't even supposed to make these Hobbit films. This will most likely be his last 'visit' to Middle Earth and therefore he is exploring all these characters who really have nothing to actually do with the story, (or making them seem like they do, when the book says otherwise).

Did the look and attitude of the film remind anyone of The Chronicles Of Narnia?

Frank Glencairn
12-27-2012, 06:39 PM
Reminded me more of the totally artificial, streamlined advertising look of "300".
Sometimes the faces look like they have a overdose of digital makeup with RedGiant/MagicBullet's Cosmo plug-in on them.

1857

And there was a ton of bad greenscreen stuff.
They could as well have made it completely in 3D without any actors - even TinTin looked better.

CaptainHook
12-28-2012, 01:30 AM
Jackson lost me after the Lovely Bones. A film so epically misguided, only a talented person who has gone completely irreversibly insane could have made it. I mean, Colonel Kurtz at the end of Apocalypse Now insane. Almost positive he directed it from the shadows of the set, speaking gibberish and referring to PA's as 'errand boys' and 'grocery clerks.' I'd rather revisit Heavenly Creatures, Braindead, and Meet the Feebles -- and remember one of my favorite directors growing up.

My opinion doesn't go down well here in NZ, but it's pretty similar to yours. I feel the only actor to 'survive' his "directing" is Michael J. Fox in The Frighteners. Any other actor i've seen in his films tends to give IMHO the worst performance that actor has given. I can only assume it's the director as many of them are generally great actors in other films.

I also fell asleep after half an hour in the first LOTR at the cinema. The only time i've fallen asleep in a theatre ever. Can't please everyone i guess. :P

nickjbedford
12-28-2012, 05:01 AM
I just saw 24fps 3D version. The 3D was well done (few 3D movies are shot properly) and the CG was a LOT more seamless than Lord Of The Rings. I thought it was too saturated and had a little too much of a "bloom" look, but otherwise it was very well done in my eyes.

It was definitely a different movie than the original Lord Of The Rings with ten years or more in between them. I'm a fan of Tolkien so I enjoyed the detailed reproduction of the story. They left a lot of the original material in and from distant memory, didn't seem to butcher it as much as they did with the LOTR, though I haven't read it for a while.

That's my first impression though. I'm going to subject myself to 3D 48fps and see how I react.

rick.lang
12-28-2012, 10:59 AM
Nick, I hope when you see the 48fps 3D it will also be the brighter version (Ultra something or other) that Peter Jackson says corrects a major problem with most 3D in which the image is too dark or lacking clarity. Looking forward to your findings before I go next week with a small group.

nickjbedford
12-28-2012, 05:18 PM
Gollum showed 10 years of motion capture technology. Very, very lifelike. I felt like I was watching the book unfold on screen from my memory of the scenes (chapters). I'm sure there is content they pulled or changed for the purpose of movification.

It's as if they're doing an extended edition in cinemas. Worth seeing if you enjoyed the book.

I'm interested to see how the HFR version looks on the bigger screens. They're only showing 24fps 3D on the small screens.

Liam
12-28-2012, 05:51 PM
I'm a fan of Tolkien so I enjoyed the detailed reproduction of the story. They left a lot of the original material in and from distant memory, didn't seem to butcher it as much as they did with the LOTR, though I haven't read it for a while.

Apart from Radagast not being apart of The Hobbit at all, haha.

And the scene where Bilbo get's away with the ring is, completely different from how it was in LOTR?

Also, my local cinema (a Village Cinema) is only showing 2d,24fps & 3d,48fps.. which is disappointing as I want to see 2d,48fps.

nickjbedford
12-28-2012, 05:57 PM
Apart from Radagast not being apart of The Hobbit at all, haha.

And the scene where Bilbo get's away with the ring is, completely different from how it was in LOTR?

Also, my local cinema (a Village Cinema) is only showing 2d,24fps & 3d,48fps.. which is disappointing as I want to see 2d,48fps.

It was more like The Hobbit. I'm not really worried about that though. The Radagast scenes of course were new, but that is a consequence of them telling the other part of the story that Gandalf was on.

Ryan Paige
12-28-2012, 06:30 PM
I got 40 minutes (so far) into the awards screener DVD Warner Bros sent me.

Once I started wondering when they were going to get to the fireworks factory, I figured it was best to turn it off.

sksprocket
12-28-2012, 06:40 PM
i've hear of a story that in the late 30's or so the major cinematographers did a test comparing 24fps to 30fps and most of them though that 30fps was better. the push to 30fps was squashed by the studios due to the increase in cost in film usage.

Roman
12-29-2012, 12:41 AM
Reminded me more of the totally artificial, streamlined advertising look of "300".
Sometimes the faces look like they have a overdose of digital makeup with RedGiant/MagicBullet's Cosmo plug-in on them.

1857
.

THIS right here.

I forgot to mention this aspect when I reviewed the film earlier this month, WTF was up with the skin? It looked like this picture you have here Frank, but even more pronounced in many scenes if I may be honest. So many shots with up-close skin tones had this white hot waxy glow to them... so frustrating to look at. This for me, was probably the only "technical" downside to the film, the skin tones throughout looked atrocious.

Does anybody know if this is mostly a RED thing? Or perhaps just a byproduct of grading only... because I've seen this similar look on many RED productions and it's hideous.

@THEGRENCH
12-29-2012, 09:22 AM
Where can I find a comparison of the 2 (The Hobbit clips in 24 and 48 fps). I have shot at both frame rates. I have to say that 48 will not yield the same classic effect, but at the end of the day IMO if the story is a good 1 and it's told well we should forget about what the frame rate is by the 3rd to 4th scene.

daveswan
12-29-2012, 09:30 AM
THIS right here.

I forgot to mention this aspect when I reviewed the film earlier this month, WTF was up with the skin? It looked like this picture you have here Frank, but even more pronounced in many scenes if I may be honest. So many shots with up-close skin tones had this white hot waxy glow to them... so frustrating to look at. This for me, was probably the only "technical" downside to the film, the skin tones throughout looked atrocious.

Does anybody know if this is mostly a RED thing? Or perhaps just a byproduct of grading only... because I've seen this similar look on many RED productions and it's hideous.

As I recall from the production videos, they had to do some pretty funky make-up and scene painting to compenste for the 3D system eating red.

Hey don't flame me, I'm only reporting what the team posted on their BTS video :D

I *was* going to see it this week in 2D 24FPS, but as I brewed up a stinking cold over Christmas I'll have to wait.

He he due to the keyboard I'm using when I first typed 3D, it came out as £D. A moral there somewhere:D