Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The Hobbit at 48fps...

But didn't they? I thought both were true. Here's a youtube link for the 3D red and blue concept drawings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gHF536TJ0iE#t=531s

Tehben Dean said:
Just read the article in Popular Mechanics about how they did the scale effects with Gandalf using green sets and a robotic dolly crane for the second set. Very interesting and pretty amazing!

However not so sure those guys did enough research before writing up some of the trivia, see images below ;)
Click to expand...
 
Elan Gunos said:
I thought both were true. Here's a youtube link for the 3D red and blue concept drawings:
Click to expand...

I believe it was said later that the painting of set pieces was done for the color loss through the mirror on the 3D rig. I also thought the red and blue drawings was actually a joke. ie they were pulling our leg.

On another note, I thought all of the helicopter footage looked like it was shot hyperstereo to get more depth, which made a lot of it look minature. That will go away when viewed in 2D.
 
Saw The Hobbit in 48fps Stereo. (High Framerate). I hated it for some of the reasons I thought I would and I loved it for many of the reasons I thought I would hate it for and I think some mistakes were made that can and hopefully were fixed as production continued on the 2nd and 3rd films.


Hmmmmmmm how to describe the effect in general... well, it makes things incredibly realistic. I really expected the CG to fall apart in 48fps stereo. It didn't it looked amazing and held its own--especially the goblin mountain.


I can't say the same for the real sets though. 3D already diminishes the cinematic quality of the movie going experience but 48fps 3D completely destroys all sense of 'photography'. The problem is that even the very best constructed sets on earth that are absolutely stunningly perfect just look like stunningly good sets. Hobbiton for instance felt spectacularly ordinary. That might partly be because I've actually been to Hobbiton now so I recognize what it should look like but I don't think that's it. If I closed one eye it would feel like I'm looking at something photographed. If I open both eyes it immediately pops into depth and I feel like I'm just standing in someone's living room who has hairy feet and is accompanied by a crowd of bearded men. You lose the magic because it's no longer a painting or a photograph which might be from a magical realm... you're just there. And since there is an ordinary looking place my mind rejected the notion that I was any where extraordinary. Even the big aerial cinematic shots just don't work. It's nice to see mountains but it doesn't feel like a photograph which is framed and composed--it feels like you've got your head stuck out the window of a helicopter and you're just watching mountains. It's a hard distinction to embody but how often have you been some place and taken a really great photograph but been in a pretty average ho-hum location. It's like standing in Yosemite. Yosemite is an amazing location but Ansel Adams by stripping away the depth and framing the subject creates an effect that is otherworldly.


When you're in a truly magical location like the orc mountain though it works phenomenally well in 3D and HFR--because even if you were actually there orcs are totally magical and a giant hollowed mountain is an incredible magical sight to behold. "OMG They actually found a giant goblin king!" The stereo HFR effect forces you to accept vfx, even average vfx, in my opinion since your senses can't deny its existence before your eyes. The hyper realism clobbers the uncanny valley since you don't feel like you're watching a movie. Imagine if even a poorly animated character just showed up in your living room. It doesn't matter how much you would want to reject its presence as "fake" your eyes "don't lie" and you would accept its presence.


There are some things though that I noticed that I think directors and cinematographers need to take into account if they want to create a HFR stereo movie.


- You need to move the camera less. Hyper realism does not work with traditional cinematography. At 24 fps and 2D these moves give depth to the scene. You travel through the scene and parallax creates a sense of space. With hyper realism you instantaneously get a perfect sense of space and camera moves just feel like unjustified wankery. Whatever move you were planning to do... do half of it. The really tiny subtle camera moves worked really well in the Hobbit. The big sweeping techno cranes or long dolly shots felt stupid. You feel like you're riding on a dolly. And even smooth hollywood quality dolly moves still have a little bit of bump and jiggle--that all gets amplified in 48fps. Every teeny tiny mistake by the camera operator and grips was jarring.


- Your lighting doesn't work anymore. What was "stylized" now looks boring.


- When actors walk around everything feels cheesy. When the camera has to follow them... it feels doubly stupid and cheesy. I think walking shorter distances would help.


There were also some outright mistakes made in The Hobbit. I think they accidentally shot some scenes in Bilbo's house at like 38 fps and sped them up. They didn't just look too smooth they looked jilted and sped up.


Also in Bilbo's house they had extraordinary trouble getting good sound. Bad sound feels like bad production values which is unacceptable in hyper-realism since the bar is so much higher to not suck already.


That all being said--by the end of the movie it started to really work. The camera work was getting tamed down. The setting was getting legitimately magical in of itself that it started feeling cinematic again and the CG quotient was high enough to make it feel like a movie again. The slow motion was amazing for instance. But ultimately it was like... I so thoroughly suspended disbelief that it just felt... boring and ordinary instead of magical and cinematic.
 
I agree mostly with the above comment. I felt like overall the 48fps+3D combination destroyed the 'magic' of Middle Earth. I never felt lost in the world. I felt like I was viewing it from afar. Seeing it 24+2D was better, but I couldn't un-see some of the props looking fake... the 48fps motion makes any "non hero" props look as light and wobbly as the plastic/polystyrene they were made of.... This was better at 24fps, but the lack of motion blur is still present... It made anything that wasn't hero/real look weak and in 2D its evident how many lighting compromises were made for the 3D version. When put up against any of the Rings films this one just doesn't cut the mustard photographically, and as a Scarlet owner and Epic user I know it's not the camera's fault... Bummer.
 
I saw it in HFR. I'm of the opinion that it looked bad in this film - but it didn't make me think 48fps is a mistake and should be dropped. I just think it needs more thought in lighting, and grading.

The clarity and the fluidity in movement I got used to quickly and ended up enjoying, but the lighting I disliked all the way through. It all seemed so high key... TV studio stuff, with what seemed like clipping in a lot of places. Even through my 3D shades I was wishing they'd dialed it back a lot.

So for me the jury's still out, and I'm hopeful because I see a lot of room for improvement.
 
Strange-looking frame rates are nothing new. I feel like most people complaining have forgotten what early films looked like. Films shouldn't all look the same. Orson Welles was one filmmaker who suffered for making films that looked "wrong". Call me crazy but I don't think this is much different. People have practically called PJ incompetent for choosing 48fps. Meanwhile, there are innovations he's made with this film we aren't even yet aware of.
 
FWIW I took two friends to see it in HFR without their knowledge and they absolutely loved it, asking why it looked so much better than other 3D movies they'd seen, why they didnt feel dizzy or sick. I thought I was going to hate HFR but I actually really liked it in the case of the hobbit. It didnt always worked but as soon as I stopped thinking about it I got lost in the movie and found it to be a great experience, the best theatrical experience I've had in a long time. I normally hate 3D but really enjoyed this one, and all tech talk aside I loved the movie.
 
The smoothness of the 3D was a welcome sight to me and some parts I really felt like I was in Middle-Earth. The problem was that the lighting and color-grading sorta didn't make Middle-Earth look like all that fantastic of a place. Don't get me wrong, I really did enjoy the film. I saw so much more in this movie than I have in most movies due to the clarity of the 3D. Like the way Gandalf put his hand on a table (I think it was Gandalf anyway..). It was like watching real people in front of me. Which is cool and all, but it's true that toward the end of the film was when I got into it the most and that was when the lighting was better.

Also, it was mentioned before that inside of Bilbo's house the audio sounded a bit bad. To me, it sounded like it would sound if you stood there listening in the room. It didn't sound like a studio overdub. It was different.

I can't really say that the technical side of The Hobbit was good or bad. It was simply DIFFERENT. I would absolutely love to see another movie in HFR 3D if they can just get the exposure, lighting, and color done in a better way. The clarity and smoothness of the 3D was amazing.
 
first - thank you, gavin, for writing a very thoughtful, concise, and helpful summary. great ideas.

alright. i just watched it, again.
this time: 2D 24 NO-MAX
first time: 3D 48 IMAX

and i have a great revelation for everyone.
make sure you're ready.
this is big.

sit down if you're standing up; stand up if you're sitting down.

alright.

i saw a movie.

it had actors in it. some of them were real people. some of them were computer generated.
they used sets. and props. and makeup. and digital color correction.

they even used... get this - cameras!

i couldn't believe it, it was blowing my mind.

all of this, i could see it in 2-D at 24 frames per second! what???!

okay, enough of that.


go see this movie in HFR 3D (IMAX, if you can) and get in it. look into, not at it. even better yet, let it look into you.

i had a dream once, where i was flying. best dream i've ever had. ever. and i like dreams.

never had that experience again... until i rode on the wings of the eagles and saw with the vision of the golden eagle.


welcome, gentlemen, to the world of dreams ;)
 
First and foremost I want to give Peter Jackson and his entire team a lot of credit for the enormous amount of effort that went into this movie. I sincerely respect how much work went into creating this world. I also want to give credit to Jim, jarred, and the rest of the RED team for their efforts to give Peter extraordinary tools to make this epic movie. No doubt the RED guys have probably been a bit anxious to see the movie and then see people's reaction to the movie. Here's my honest take on what unfolded before my eyes tonight.

I nearly walked out of the theater after 15 minutes. I was literally in shock that my sense of what movies are and should be was being relentlessly messed with. However, common sense came over me and I stuck with it and I'm glad I did because I walked away with an appreciation for the challenges filmmakers face with these new approaches. I present my Pros and Cons.

Pros

  • ​48fps and HFR in general showed it's potential during certain sequences, mainly action based sequences that sometimes are a struggle with 24fps.
  • Stunning clarity between the high resolution of the RED cams and the HFR.
  • Some of the CG, in particular Gollum, looked amazing.
  • There were some night scenes and overall darker scenes that worked much better for me.
Cons
  • What I have feared for a long time with high resolution imagery, and now combined with a HFR that captures more detail, more reality - It makes things look less real. In effect, we see things for what they are. Props, sets, costumes, etc. If you have ever been on a movie set, it's like when you see the actors parading around in full costume and it just looks kind of hokey but once captured by film becomes part of that world through the magic of lighting and the less than perfect capture medium that gives it texture and blends the elements into a believable world. I fear the combo here has really challenged the suspension of disbelief. However, I think there's a way to solve it, which I will discuss later.
  • Acting. A similar thing as mentioned above. When I see someone deliver a line while we're filming sometimes their acting might seem slightly over the top or even awkward in a sense but through the eyes of a camera at a rate of 24fps it can seem just right. I have been surprised many times by this. I felt there were some moments in the Hobbit that seemed like what I'm used to when I see an actor deliver a line live, except that's how it has been captured by the camera as well. I know people will take me to task on this and I don't really know how to defend it other than to say it's something that has to be seen I guess.
  • The lighting and exposure seemed wrong to me at several points in the movie. Several daytime exteriors just looked too bright, lacking richness that I would have expected to see with good exposure and then a great grade. I will need to see the movie again in 2D and see if anything is different in this regard.
  • There are many moments in the movie where it definitely felt like a video game to me. Not just the CG characters but the actors faces had that look of a video sequence in a video game.
  • Overall, it seemed to lack texture. The components within a shot were not always glued together perfectly. I wanted more grit, more earth. Which brings me to:
How to make this work


In my opinion, I think sticking to one frame rate is a mistake. The answer has to lie within a variable framerate approach that that gives each shot the framerate that works best for it.I don't think the combo of high resolution/HFR for every shot is the most effective way to make the world you are creating realistic. I could see the Hobbit being 60% 24fps, 180º shutter and 40% HFR. However, I do acknowledge that 3D is smoother with the HFR, so perhaps my numbers aren't the most accurate. I know common sense tells us that like many advances in cinema technology, HFR will take some time to get used to and eventually become the norm. I just think there's room to explore variable frame rate and adding back some of the texture that is being lost with ultra clean digital cinema. Make hyperreality seem more "real" in the movie world.



 
hehe... don't one-up me on textuality, steve. #where's sanjin?

thank you for your thoughts, you're right on the spot :)
 
paulherrin said:
hehe... don't one-up me on textuality, steve. #where's sanjin?

thank you for your thoughts, you're right on the spot :)
Click to expand...
:-)
The textuality is my way of organizing my thoughts. I'm getting old you know. Easy to lose my train of thought.
 
Variable framerates sounds about right. It could be displayed within a 48fps container.

I find that i have to do things to add or make sure that the epic image has enough texture. It can feel "too clean". Some is due to compression, i guess, but mostly it is just an extremely clean image. Which has its own challenges.
 
@Steve - hehe... you're pretty cool for an old cat.

Gunleik Groven said:
Variable framerates sounds about right. It could be displayed within a 48fps container.

I find that i have to do things to add or make sure that the epic image has enough texture. It can feel "too clean". Some is due to compression, i guess, but mostly it is just an extremely clean image. Which has its own challenges.
Click to expand...

yeah, trumbull and cameron and i think even jackson have all mentioned this... hard to say why that wasn't used, at least as a transitioning methodology for all us common-folk - much less the creative possibilities. start at 24 in bag end and end at 48... simple story stuff. it just makes sense all the way around.

sounds like a version that needs to be framed.

however, one day... 24fps is going to look strange and archaic. what are we going to be doing in year 3000? probably not doing movies the way we've been doing movies up until december 2012. i hope not at least. i mean, the basics are still the same... storytelling is the oldest art. but it's always been on a journey... always. usually unexpectedly ;) these guys have been looking into this stuff far longer than us, with lots of research and thoughtfulness. i'm deferring to the big dogs... at least until i see it in HFR again, which is definitely happening soon :)
 
People talk about intangibles, things like 'reality' and 'immersion'. I saw The Hobbit in 3d HFR (48fps) at Cinetopia Progress Ridge and it was very weird. Simple things like characters walking felt 'sped up', like I was watching a Charlie Chaplain movie. What's going on? Why did they feel like they were jitteringly fast while just walking? I'm not trying to be negative, just very confused. After the movie I turned to my brother and described a deeply personal feeling I'd never shared with anyone until then: that very rarely I feel like my brain is working 2x and the world feels jittery to me and I have to close my eyes until the feeling passes, it's a very unsettling freak occurrence that only happens rarely to me and then passes. This is exactly what 48fps felt like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top