48fps... I've converted.

[fALk Gärtner]

I have seen it yesterday. I am a video guy - have grown up with betacams around me. I wanted nothing more then get away from the evil video looks half my life without the need for expensive film cameras and developing processes and the arcane editing. Red gave me a cam to make this happen. Now half the world wants to go back to the video look - I totally do not understand. This looked awful from start to finish. It looked like the SoapOperas I saw in my TV youth. It looked like really badly made german costume dramas shot on betacam. This is 3 steps back and I really wanted to like it. I agree with earlier posters it has to do with the content of the film a bit - maybe a hightech space opera with lots of robots would be a different beast.

What I totally don´t understand was what has been dubbed the "Benny Hill" movements. Very very apparent in the live action scenes. It looked like the film was speed up. Anybody any explanation - this doesn´t happen in 50fps video. It was like "WTF! this can not be THAT bad."

As it stands right now - I will personally not give a Hobbit II 48fps another go. Maybe a different genre but as with 3D I have little hopes that this really is something that will revolutionize films but rather be a gimmik to some movies - a niche. I think studios should rather get a 4k post workflow in their movies. That actually makes a positive difference. (yes the hobbit had a 2k post and it shows).


PS: Besides there where a lot of other things remarkably bad - some of the VFX looked horrible especially the "white orc" with his plastik non elastic skin and really bad texturing on the face, the only really outstanding VFX was gollum - but I thought that was really over acted. I have been taken out of the movie so many times that I felt more out then in. Story wasn´t really engaging. I really liked LOTR I really wanted to like all of the Hobbit - I was really looking forward to be drawn into Middle Earth - i wasn´t - at all - I wanted to get out of the theater as fast as possible.

 

[Bob Minervini]

I'm hearing soo many people having the same reaction to 48fps that its not even funny. I hate 25fps for what is worth, why this obsession with high frame rates?

Hope this wave of disgust will bring people back to the essence of the industry: storytelling at 24fps.

I have seen it yesterday. I am a video guy - have grown up with betacams around me. I wanted nothing more then get away from the evil video looks half my life without the need for expensive film cameras and developing processes and the arcane editing. Red gave me a cam to make this happen. Now half the world wants to go back to the video look - I totally do not understand. This looked awful from start to finish. It looked like the SoapOperas I saw in my TV youth. It looked like really badly made german costume dramas shot on betacam. This is 3 steps back and I really wanted to like it. I agree with earlier posters it has to do with the content of the film a bit - maybe a hightech space opera with lots of robots would be a different beast.

What I totally don´t understand was what has been dubbed the "Benny Hill" movements. Very very apparent in the live action scenes. It looked like the film was speed up. Anybody any explanation - this doesn´t happen in 50fps video. It was like "WTF! this can not be THAT bad."

As it stands right now - I will personally not give a Hobbit II 48fps another go. Maybe a different genre but as with 3D I have little hopes that this really is something that will revolutionize films but rather be a gimmik to some movies - a niche. I think studios should rather get a 4k post workflow in their movies. That actually makes a positive difference. (yes the hobbit had a 2k post and it shows).


PS: Besides there where a lot of other things remarkably bad - some of the VFX looked horrible especially the "white orc" with his plastik non elastic skin and really bad texturing on the face, the only really outstanding VFX was gollum - but I thought that was really over acted. I have been taken out of the movie so many times that I felt more out then in. Story wasn´t really engaging. I really liked LOTR I really wanted to like all of the Hobbit - I was really looking forward to be drawn into Middle Earth - i wasn´t - at all - I wanted to get out of the theater as fast as possible.

 

[NEIL ANDREW BATES]

I'm guessing the 'Benny Hill' comparison look comes from the fact that the benny hill sequences were filmed with static subjects which still would have been in sharp focus even when played back faster than normal real time playback (as they were) and that the epics high resolution combined with the shorter 1/48 exposure is either producing a similar effect or at least evoking a similar reaction to those familiar with the T.V show

 

[Josh Snyder]

By the way, I agree that 48fps is magnificent. But after seeing 48, 60, 72, and 120fps it is no coincidence the higher the frame rate the more "alive" the picture becomes. As Doug always says It's like "looking through a window onto reality." Crazy awesome stuff!

You need to see Hobbit at live theater, it will blow your mind. It looks 100% like looking through a window.

Fantasy world should look what it is, fantasy. Not real.

 

[Michael J. Underwood]

Fantasy world should look what it is, fantasy. Not real.

I found it very interesting that I can feel totally immersed in Game of Thrones watching it on an ipad (often at 3am rocking an infant to sleep with a bottle), yet the HFR Hobbit would not let me forget that I'm watching actors on a set. It's a very wierd sensation. I'm glad I had the experience but it largerly re-enforced what I already believe - it's the story that pulls you in.

 

[Josh Snyder]

HFR will be the biggest flop ever.

 

[Craig Schober]

Saw it in IMAX 3D HFR. It's unfortunate that this is the first big venture into 48fps because it's really not a great movie by most narrative standards. So I think people are confusing the technical immersion with the story immersion. Yes there was an adjustment period for me (that explains the extra long first act Peter Jackson sets up to allow our eyes and brains to adjust) but I eventually got used to it and accepted it. The only problem was that outside of Gollum and a few other notable moments, this did not capture and deliver anything magical like the LOTR trilogy did. I was never invested in the dwarves, orcs, elves, etc. And that only leaves me to stare at the oddness that is 48fps and liken it to video game cut scenes and other strange mediums.

Let's hope the next 48fps release has a story so compelling that we're not even discussing the frame rate.

 

[Bing Bailey]

The Emperor has no clothes. 48fps doesn't look good. I don't give a damn what 15 year olds think is cool . I happen to like the dream like blurry quality of 24p. just because peter jackson and james cameron say its great doesn't make it so. hopefully this will be roundly rejected. if film was all about making everything super clear we would have stayed with 1/3 sensors and everything in focus.

 

[Dan Dumouchel]

I saw HFR s3D Hobbit finally and I disliked it. It distracted me so much and took me out of the picture. I liked the s3D tho. I'm looking fwd to my second viewing of this in 2D 24 and I will not see Hobbit 2 in HFR.

 

[James T Mather]

Haven't seen it yet but I suspect that it's a further extension of the issue I have been posting about lately with electronically photographed cinema - being constantly dragged out of the drama and being aware that it's all a "movie" because it feels too unreal and clean: The performances seem less believable, the sets look fake and overlit to me and the sensation of being "transported" by the film into a dreamy-yet-engaged state is absent. I couldn't forget whilst watching Total Recall, Ghost Rider, Drive Angry, Lockout and even Prometheus to some extent.

That said I didn't experience this sensation with Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or Social Network so it is possible to not have this effect. I'm not really sure why it occurs (I know Mr. Fincher shoots at 3k or so and uses the extra space to stabilise etc - maybe this has a bearing)

I can only imagine the addition of digibeta refresh rates is not going to reduce this sensation in me, however, I appreciate Mr. Jackson is pushing cinema storytelling and that is to be commended. Anything that challenges the accepted order is always divisive.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Haven't seen it yet but I suspect that it's a further extension of the issue I have been posting about lately with electronically photographed cinema - being constantly dragged out of the drama and being aware that it's all a "movie" because it feels too unreal and clean: The performances seem less believable, the sets look fake and overlit to me and the sensation of being "transported" by the film into a dreamy-yet-engaged state is absent.

If you want to read a long essay on this very phenomena, read David Denby's recent book Do the Movies Have a Future?, which makes some very sobering points on the issue of big blockbuster tentpole releases, the overabundance of CGI, the "plastic" look of a lot of recent films, and the lack of real human drama. I think Denby is overreacting to some degree, but I concede that some of what he says is regrettably true -- particularly the tendency of studios to concentrate on movies with sequel potential, comic book plots, and a lot of stereotypical action sequences.

I have had several discussions with DPs over the years, to the effect that "sharpness is not always our friend." This is particularly true for actors of a certain age, and also a case where you're trying to achieve a period look that's dark, gritty, and diffuse.

 

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

If you want to read a long essay on this very phenomena, read David Denby's recent book Do the Movies Have a Future?, which makes some very sobering points on the issue of big blockbuster tentpole releases, the overabundance of CGI, the "plastic" look of a lot of recent films, and the lack of real human drama. I think Denby is overreacting to some degree, but I concede that some of what he says is regrettably true -- particularly the tendency of studios to concentrate on movies with sequel potential, comic book plots, and a lot of stereotypical action sequences.

I have had several discussions with DPs over the years, to the effect that "sharpness is not always our friend." This is particularly true for actors of a certain age, and also a case where you're trying to achieve a period look that's dark, gritty, and diffuse.

In The Old World, we joke about how awful the features coming out of Hollywood are, and how fantastic the TV-series, coming from the same industry, are....

 

[Joseph Ward]

I've converted too... but not so easily.

Having seen the Hobbit twice in HFR and at different theaters, one in New York and another in California, it was two different experiences. First time, I didn't like it for the first 2/3 of the movie! Was hard to adjust to it at first. Though the 3D stereoscopic viewing was easier as far as headache and eye fatigue, didn't feel any, the movements felt too sped up and the movie looked overlit.

The second time for the first few minutes, the movements felt similar to the first time but didnt have the same speedy look to it. I kept on wanting it to feel like Lord of the Rings, LOTR, while also wanting it to be more engrossed in the movie. Thankfully I got over that fast because this presentation was way better and made it more enjoyable. The movement looked more natural and the lighting was better, not overlit like the first time.

Somethings I think might be related to why the descrepancies for me. First cinema projected the movie wrong while the latter was not. Second, I am more use to seeing LOTR in its own 2D planar 24fps format. Third I really like LOTR better!

A critical flaw for the movie on how its made might be that it was made for different presentations. Alot of compromises are made for how it is shown not only for theaters but for the home as well. I know this may never be solved because of advancements and no real standard or proper calibration. Every theater screen, home/mobile display, is going to look different. Though I love choices, I really believe if your going to make a movie, pick which way you really want it to be and make the most of it, then try if you want to make it look ok for the other formats. Peter Jackson said he would like it to be seen in 3D, 48fps and in Dolby Atmos. Im glad he shot it Stereoscopic but like most Stereocopic movies they tend to be made the same way non-stereoscopic movies are made. He said I didnt have to change the way we film for 3D, but that is my problem with most 3D films. Just because you can make it the same way as 2D doesn't mean you should. Also edit it in stereoscopic and at 48fps. This might help get the look you intended before it is seen in the theaters. Would of love to seen it been made to be delivered in 4K. I can't wait to see this in REDray Projector!

Overall I actually liked the movie in HFR, the second time around, and can't wait for the others. I will definitely see the others in HFR as well! Hopefully it will keep getting better. Thanks Red and Peter Jackson and teams for this achievement!

 

[Eric Cameron]

Also edit it in stereoscopic and at 48fps.

While I agree with this sentiment, I must play devil's advocate:
What is your NLE of choice for cutting stereo HFR? I am unaware of any good options. Avid has good stereo tools now but no HFR support (well, no such thing as a 48FPS project or mxf anyway). Mistika supports whatever you want, but it really isn't made for real editing. Same goes for most other "finishing" style systems, though even there only a handful have good support for stereo and hfr. So what else is out there that could be viable for actually cutting a feature in stereo HFR?

 

[Jeff J Daniels]

I have had several discussions with DPs over the years, to the effect that "sharpness is not always our friend." This is particularly true for actors of a certain age, and also a case where you're trying to achieve a period look that's dark, gritty, and diffuse.

I love where digital filmmaking is taking us. I mean, I'm a 26 yr old freelance filmmaker who OWNS the same tech as industry leading production companies!

That said, I have to agree with "sharpness is not always our friend." For some films, yes, you want it to feel as REAL as possible.

For period pieces especially, they have acquired a certain look and feel for viewers, and that's hard to replicate with digital. Not impossible, just an extra challenge that I think sticks out if it's not done just right.

The movie "42" coming out in April is a great example. We all know what that old footage of Jackie Robinson running the bases looks like, and how films from that time period look.
I think it looks beautiful, and seems to have a great cast. Should be a great film, and a great RED product.

But personally, I think the trailer just feels too sharp, defined. The look reminds me that it's modern actors/filmmakers portraying a period story.

 

[Joseph Ward]

While I agree with this sentiment, I must play devil's advocate:
What is your NLE of choice for cutting stereo HFR? I am unaware of any good options. Avid has good stereo tools now but no HFR support (well, no such thing as a 48FPS project or mxf anyway). Mistika supports whatever you want, but it really isn't made for real editing. Same goes for most other "finishing" style systems, though even there only a handful have good support for stereo and hfr. So what else is out there that could be viable for actually cutting a feature in stereo HFR?

That is a good question. Though I don't know what can be good for stereo HFR, some discussions for a good 3d editing tool can be found here. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92454-3D-Post-Production-Work-Flow

 

[Laurent AZEMA]

The Emperor has no clothes. 48fps doesn't look good. I don't give a damn what 15 year olds think is cool . I happen to like the dream like blurry quality of 24p. just because peter jackson and james cameron say its great doesn't make it so. hopefully this will be roundly rejected. if film was all about making everything super clear we would have stayed with 1/3 sensors and everything in focus.

Totally agree,
The 48's and 3d ruin my movies, really, I was out the story because everything seems fake and aggressive. Does the 48 fps trick immerse myself in the action? no. Does the 3D make me more close to the actors? Obviously no. So what's the point of wearing uggly galsses, have headache and eyes tiredness is you have no emotion? By the way, you DOPs and Directors, do you put lousy plastic pola filters in front of you sharp, crystal clear glasses? no? too bad that's exactly the filters we are wearing for the 3d screening.
I'm not a technology septic guy, I love Red and Alexa pictures but clearly for me Peter Jackson is running in a wrong direction. I had much more fun in the first trilogy.
Here is a link of Jean Renoir Interviewed by French New Wave director - Jaques Rivette - about the technical progress in art.

The point: The dangers of realism and perfectionism related to the the technical advances in cinema.

 

[Alec Morris]

Thomas Edison shot at 46fps and suggested that lower frame rates, such as 30fps, could be acceptable for some subjects. He even said you could go lower than that in certain situations. But 46 was to be used for the majority of situations. He also had plans for stereoscopic acquisition, but couldn't get it right so he gave up.

So many people watch HFR for a couple of hours and think they have a definitive opinion. I have shot HFR3D, and went through the entire first day unsure of what I thought. Day 2 was a completely different story. It was amazing. By day 6, I couldn't believe this wasn't the way every movie was done. How many of you have actually shot it?

I guess you can argue with Peter Jackson and James Cameron if you want (and their ludicrous collection of oscars and box office receipts).

But Thomas Edison? The guy who, uh.... invented motion photography? You are all willing to discount what, to him, was NormalFR? After he spent untold hours researching and developing this? (not to mention that he wanted to figure out how to do it in 3D) Keep in mind, this is similar to his untold hours that led to things like.... the lightbulb. And you are all so sure of yourselves after spending under three hours in a theater once?

 

[António Fagundes]

And you are all so sure of yourselves after spending under three hours in a theater once?

Yes.

Is there any other way?

Do you have to spend days trying to convince yourself that what you hate is actually good! Don't trust yourself, don't believe in yourself, what you know and like means nothing when someone else says its good? Does that even make any sense at all?

With all due respect, I really don't give two fucks what Thomas Edison thought was good. Neither PJ, James Cameron, you or my mother. I know what I like! I'm confident in my taste and knowledge but also eager to learn, to discover and to move forward, but I do so with my own personality, with my struggles, and with my successes, not with what other say or think. I do listen but I make my own decisions, thank you very much.

So, yes, HFR in The Hobbit it's as good as TV news. So, until someone with an actual taste and sense of aesthetics comes along and not give two flying fucks about what 15 year olds think is good and just tries to make HFR an actual better experience, I won't give a shit about it.

PJ should just pack it. He's an embarrassment.

 

[Paul Harb]

LOL, Edison....really???

Thats why I shouldnt trust my very good instincts about what works or doesnt work for fictional narrative?

Sorry, I might as well retire and find a different career since I spend all day every day looking and dissecting what works or doesnt work in story telling of this kind. I know for a fact that I have way more hours than Edison has with analyzing storytelling with film and now digital imagery and I live or die by trusting my instincts like any artist does...not listening to hyperbole from others that are trying so hard to convince me to NOT listen to my instincts.

HFR for fictional narrative doesnt work in most situations for most people...not all...but most...no matter what a bunch of tech nerds or salesmen tell you.

Ask Tesla how brilliant Edison was.