Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

48fps... I've converted.

Just because we can do something doesn't mean that it's better. I'm just saying it's a matter of personal taste, not an objective thing, as some arguments try to relate this debate to.

Just a metaphor, but it would like knowing how to sculpt in marble automatically dismissed to sculpt in clay. Just saying it's a matter of personal taste. Thank God digital let us choose, right?
 
Finally got a chance to see Hobbit HFR 3D. During the first wide shots of the Shire I was half expecting the Teletubbies to jump out. Good God it looked like video. For me, the HFR look really detracted from the drama. It mostly bothered me on non-action straight dialogue scenes where I found some of the moments unintentionally more humorous due in some part to the frame rate. It looked somewhere between a soap opera and an old BBC drama shot on video to me. I'm sure that's what I'm conditioned for, having watched most believable dramatic content at 24fps and bad soap operas, home video, and news at 30fps. There were moments where the HFR made it seem sharper and I maybe preferred it in some of the wide helicopter shots and vistas. By the end of the movie I didn't notice it as much, maybe because I was (finally) engaged in the story. Still, it's a big miss for me and I'll likely stay away from it in the future. I'll probably see Avatar 2 in HFR to give it one more chance. On another note, I thought the first 30 minutes of day exteriors were overexposed. Maybe it was the projection...
 
IMAX. 3D. HFR. Its the only way to watch the Hobbit. If not, you might as well pop in a VHS tape. PJ truly is a visionary.
 
paulherrin said:
not saying that at all... merely commenting on the organic vs electronic and film vs digital discussion. kind of a side track from framerates, but obviously correlated.
Click to expand...

I was simply using some words to describe my reaction and perception to 24 frames versus video frame rates or 48 frames. Somehow that brought you to discussing how 24p originates from electronic devices because I described HFR as looking electronic.

I wasn't talking about shooting actual film stock over digital (or whatever point you were trying to make), just the look of the frame rates.

But yeah, to each their own.

Cheers.
 
I thought it looked amazing... best 3D experience ever as I was completely expecting video and didn't feel like that at all to me, but I have NO technical mumbo jumbo to back up my humble visceral viewing. I just really enjoyed the experience and totally get why PJ went for it with this particular film... what a ride the action scenes were and the EPIC resolution was wow.

FWIW I think VARIABLE frame rate is the future... and I believe Doug Trumbull has a patent on that coming to market... but I don't get all the drama over this decision. Its a FANTASY genre and Avatar will work just as welll with HFR imho
 
Does anyone know if 3D 48p DCP can be played in 2D 24p by any DCI compliant server?
Is 3D 25p a DCI standard?

Thanks

Ps: 3D technology is always decieving, because you can see 3D every day with your bare eyes! :-)
 
Jarek Zabczynski said:
I actually prefer VHS as it retains film grain much better.
Click to expand...

Hence, my suggestion for those who like that sort of thing. In all seriousness. I don't get the love for grain at all. No connection at all to cinematic. The Hobbit was nothing if not cinematic.
 
i think we can safely assume nikhil said that...
(unless there's plausible reason to believe his account was hacked or he's not using a real name?)
 
just because you say what he says isn't so doesn't mean it isn't so... wait, were we having an actual conversation about anything? we could go on like this forever, as much fun as that sounds like - count me out this round.

and nice poem, antonio... keep workin. :)
 
Eric Haase said:
Finally got a chance to see Hobbit HFR 3D. During the first wide shots of the Shire I was half expecting the Teletubbies to jump out. Good God it looked like video. For me, the HFR look really detracted from the drama. It mostly bothered me on non-action straight dialogue scenes where I found some of the moments unintentionally more humorous due in some part to the frame rate. It looked somewhere between a soap opera and an old BBC drama shot on video to me. I'm sure that's what I'm conditioned for, having watched most believable dramatic content at 24fps and bad soap operas, home video, and news at 30fps. There were moments where the HFR made it seem sharper and I maybe preferred it in some of the wide helicopter shots and vistas. By the end of the movie I didn't notice it as much, maybe because I was (finally) engaged in the story. Still, it's a big miss for me and I'll likely stay away from it in the future. I'll probably see Avatar 2 in HFR to give it one more chance. On another note, I thought the first 30 minutes of day exteriors were overexposed. Maybe it was the projection...
Click to expand...

That is because by the end of the movie, the images of what we are seeing are mostly CG/green screen. I would think perhaps in the future there should be a variable framerate within a movie .
 
Last I checked, 24 fps didn't cause so much flicker as it does judder. Slow pans don't flicker but the motion of them are uneven. This also very plainly falls into what you're watching the material on. Some (very few) TV's and projectors handle 24 fps extremely well and you won't really notice the jumps in the picture (obviously 48 fps will be smoother). Some TV's also flicker (inherent flaw in Plasmas for example), whereas others don't. Some people can see this flickering, others can't.

In my opinion, HFR on The Hobbit really helped push the 3D to new heights. Unfortunately it detracted as much from the general picture quality. It looked extremely synthetic and video-like (which is what most people expected). Some of my friends felt sick watching it. The problem, partly though, is that Life of Pi came out around the same time and blew The Hobbit out of the water when it came to 3D which once again makes us circle back to the ever-lasting question of how important the tech of it all really is.

Life of Pi was shot in 24 fps and had a very creative and artistic use of 3D. The Hobbit was the most high-tech film ever shot (camera-wise at least) but the story and characters felt compromised and crippled just to excuse scenes where they could go all out on 3D. Frankly, the 3D didn't impress me all that much. What did impress me was that it was very clean, and that's what HFR leant to the film.

To each his own I guess but I, for one, hope that HFR is just a fad in feature films. I like the way films look at 24 fps. It sets them apart from basically every other type of video production available. In documentaries, music videos, etc. I hope to continue seeing higher frame rates.
 
I think the Hobbit will be better judged in the future, much like American Presidents are evaluated based on the consequences of their actions while in office, in the future. My expectation is that future generations will watch the Hobbit and will review it favorably because it will look much like what they are seeing in their contemporary movies.
 
my 2 cents:

24fps is a visual style purposely involving motion blur, nothing more, like aspect ratio, intended perceived sharpness, bw/color, and so on...

having said that, I don't think I'd ever consider 30fps or more for anything else than documentaries, tv news, commercials, experimental visual art and 3d immersive live action video *INSIDE* video games.

unless I can KEEP the motion blur and DISCARD judder of course! ;)
 
I know this is an older discussion but I wanted to throw my 2 cents in..

For me, 24p serves as a barrier between reality and the world of the film. It allows the suspension of disbelief, almost a poetic form of movement. I wouldn't mind 48p documentaries or television, but cinema already has a motion cadence that has engrained itself into the minds of movie goers.

I can't even count the amount of times I've had family members ask me "Why do movies look fake on my new TV!" as a result of "trumotion" frame interpolation. Do they look fake? NO, in fact, they look even more real!

But, should movies "look real"? I guess that's a question that the next few generations of movie goers will answer .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top