48fps... I've converted.

[Peter Proniewicz-Brooks]

Also the LA times. Seems to be getting seriously mixed reviews for the 48fps all over the place. Maybe the 3d will make a difference but I'm personally sceptical. I haven't seen it in The Hobbit but any 48fps I've seen looks like some awful daytime soap opera bladder, disrupting the cinematic experience for me and constantly taking me out of the movie. Maybe I'll be proven wrong and it'll be amazing - interested to see.

Most of the HFR material I've seen has looked like video but the reason behind that has rarely been the HFR. The movie look is more than just 24p motion blur. The problem has been that those shots that have lacked 24p motion blur have lacked everything else look wise that sets a filmic movie look from a video look.

Nice to see you've avoided the classic anti-HFR mistake of using the word cheap, when promoting a frame rate chosen precisely to be as cheap as possible.

I've spoken to a couple of people who've seen parts of the hobbit in 48p and the opinion they've given is its vastly better for 3D movies with Pleanty of fast movement and action, but offers nothing really for 2D while detracting from the movie look.

Not helping the debate is high end TV is aping many of films looks, meaning many stylistic elements that may have been movies domain once are now much more common in TV. 24p is included in this......

 

[M Most]

I've spoken to a couple of people who've seen parts of the hobbit in 48p and the opinion they've given is its vastly better for 3D movies with Pleanty of fast movement and action, but offers nothing really for 2D while detracting from the movie look.......

And apparently others are saying that while its interesting, sitting through a feature length presentation can induce nausea and serious headaches.

Like just about all gimmicky presentation enhancements, my feeling is that this will be another choice in an arsenal of choices. Hopefully the industry has learned the lesson (from 3D over the last few years) that force feeding these kind of things to the general public rarely has positive long term results. Making it another choice is viable, albeit rather expensive unless there is a serious, measurable, ROI.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

And apparently others are saying that while its interesting, sitting through a feature length presentation can induce nausea and serious headaches.

Like just about all gimmicky presentation enhancements, my feeling is that this will be another choice in an arsenal of choices. Hopefully the industry has learned the lesson (from 3D over the last few years) that force feeding these kind of things to the general public rarely has positive long term results. Making it another choice is viable, albeit rather expensive unless there is a serious, measurable, ROI.

While others who attended the same screening raved... so it must be an individual thing... I fear Ill fall in the former category as I already get exhausted watching 3D.... I also wonder if the SIMULTANEOUS projection of BOTH eyes of the RED RAY projector will help this? ... the latter sure felt relaxing at NAB... still the best 3D I have ever seen...

I'm just curious of this nausea is being induced by the fact our brains still have to "stitch" the L and R eyes and at double the frame rate (more processing)... just logically makes sense that some would get sick from this. That said, I'm going to brave the HFR version and hope to hell I dont throw up

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

While others who attended the same screening raved... so it must be an individual thing... I fear Ill fall in the former category as I already get exhausted watching 3D.... I also wonder if the SIMULTANEOUS projection of BOTH eyes of the RED RAY projector will help this? ... the latter sure felt relaxing at NAB... still the best 3D I have ever seen...

I'm just curious of this nausea is being induced by the fact our brains still have to "stitch" the L and R eyes and at double the frame rate (more processing)... just logically makes sense that some would get sick from this. That said, I'm going to brave the HFR version and hope to hell I dont throw up

I think the distant between the separated cameras to give the illusion of depth have a great impact of a Stereoscopic movie. To much will be more tuff for your eyes.

 

[Peter Proniewicz-Brooks]

While others who attended the same screening raved... so it must be an individual thing... I fear Ill fall in the former category as I already get exhausted watching 3D.... I also wonder if the SIMULTANEOUS projection of BOTH eyes of the RED RAY projector will help this? ... the latter sure felt relaxing at NAB... still the best 3D I have ever seen...

I'm just curious of this nausea is being induced by the fact our brains still have to "stitch" the L and R eyes and at double the frame rate (more processing)... just logically makes sense that some would get sick from this. That said, I'm going to brave the HFR version and hope to hell I dont throw up

HFR should have quite the opposite effect, the higher rate reduces the strain on the eyes, as its closer to what you are used to seeing. (Remember that the brain cuurrently stiches a L and R image, flips them 180 degrees among other mental processing tricks. THe slower rate actually takes more processing as your eyse are trying harder to reconcile the fake images its seeing). Nasuea from video can be from a reverse seasickness, the eyes are saying you are moving, the ear is saying you arent.

 

[Maz Mawlawi]

48fps for 3D will be good. 3D looks "fake" either way so enhancing with 48fps will not detract too much and may make it a little better but won't make it look any "faker"....2D 48fps on the other hand just looks bad in my opinion....the look of it makes it look too much like a reality show...because well...it looks too real which also removes the whole fantasy aspect of movies AND by looking so real suddenly sets, costumes and other things start looking bad because you can suddenly see more of the flaws and "fakeness" of those elements.
I am def not a fan of 48fps for 2D projection... and I think it ruins the viewing experience and overall look and feel of the movie.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Nasuea from video can be from a reverse seasickness, the eyes are saying you are moving, the ear is saying you arent.

hmm very interesting and makes sense... I still wonder if simultaneous projection of LR (which again I found much easier to watch) will help this ... but given I get dizzy pretty easy on rides and such... Im probably going to get sick

 

[Ryan Farnes]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10851611

Another article that seems like its lifting its content from the Daily Mail one.

I wonder if some of it is just 3D and not the 48fps. People have been getting headaches from 3D since forever. Even good 3D, some people are just allergic. The "controversy" really has me curious to see this film in HFR3D. I suspect that I'll be bothered by the frame rate at times, but also fascinated by the new way of doing 3D and making it immersive and lifelike.

 

[M Most]

. I also wonder if the SIMULTANEOUS projection of BOTH eyes of the RED RAY projector will help this? ... the latter sure felt relaxing at NAB...

The Sony 4K projector also does simultaneous projection of both eyes (the imaging plane is split into 2 2K sections, both projected at the same time). The DLP Cinema devices (Barco, NEC, Christie) do sequential, multiply flashed stereoscopic projection, usually in concert with a Real D Z-screen attachment.

 

[M Most]

I think the distant between the separated cameras to give the illusion of depth have a great impact of a Stereoscopic movie. To much will be more tuff for your eyes.

Interocular distance on a stereoscopic production is typically changed regularly on a per shot basis depending on the shot. There isn't any consistency to it.

 

[M Most]

Nasuea from video can be from a reverse seasickness, the eyes are saying you are moving, the ear is saying you arent.

Which is one reason that some past experiments in HFR (Doug Trumbull's Showscan comes to mind) have often included a motion base component, like the Star Tours type of rides, so that the movement implied by the visuals on the screen is more closely matched by actual movement of the body. Without that, you are correct, the brain is getting conflicting signals, which will often lead to discomfort, different levels in different people.

 

[Peter Proniewicz-Brooks]

hmm very interesting and makes sense... I still wonder if simultaneous projection of LR (which again I found much easier to watch) will help this ... but given I get dizzy pretty easy on rides and such... Im probably going to get sick

To reduce the nausia from this i supect sitting further back so screen fills less of your view, preferably with a light source may help counter the effect (just extrapolating from standard sea sickness). Cineworlds d-box seats could help (as they'll add movement in) but equally likely to make it much worse.

Nausea is a problem in a few areas, video games have a lot, often linked to a simialr effect or curiously modified by the field of view of the camera (as with camera lenses you can modify the field of view). Most of the 3D isues I've herd of have been heaces, relatesd often eyestrain related.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Wetware conditioning

Wetware conditioning

I actually sat with Mike at a SMPTE meeting where they screened a short narrative piece about a boxer training for a match and some of the bout. It was shot twice, once at 24fps and once at 48fps, on Alexa BTW. During the piece there were various fast motion elements; doing sit ups, hitting the speed bag, moving around the ring, punches, etc. I liked the 48fps for some "rates" of movement and found it annoying for others, if I had to pick I'd take 48fps. Mike disliked the 48fps. What would be an interesting line of inquiry is to "train" a set of viewers by exposing them to many hours of 48fps material then showing them the 24/48 test clips.

To me this is like trying to deconstruct nature vs nurture by identifying the causal root. IF we had been watching 48fps in both the theater and the home for the last 20 years and then saw some 24fps material what would our reaction be? Add to that the idiosyncratic response of different people as Mike and others have noted. What correlations can be considered hard evidence and what are products of the suggestibility of the human mind?

The Hobbit release, at the very least, will be the largest scale ad hoc test of 48fps in history. I suspect at least 10% of viewers will hate it and some will be vocal about it. Should be interesting ;-)

NOTE: It is my belief that using the Tessive Time Filter when shooting such tests would change the dynamics of the blur characteristic in such a way as to make the 48fps material look much more natural to most viewers, and in the case of the fast motion boxing example, make the 24fps look nicer as well.

Cheers - #19

 

[Peter Proniewicz-Brooks]

I actually sat with Mike at a SMPTE meeting where they screened a short narrative piece about a boxer training for a match and some of the bout. It was shot twice, once at 24fps and once at 48fps, on Alexa BTW. During the piece there were various fast motion elements; doing sit ups, hitting the speed bag, moving around the ring, punches, etc. I liked the 48fps for some "rates" of movement and found it annoying for others, if I had to pick I'd take 48fps. Mike disliked the 48fps. What would be an interesting line of inquiry is to "train" a set of viewers by exposing them to many hours of 48fps material then showing them the 24/48 test clips.

To me this is like trying to deconstruct nature vs nurture by identifying the causal root. IF we had been watching 48fps in both the theater and the home for the last 20 years and then saw some 24fps material what would our reaction be? Add to that the idiosyncratic response of different people as Mike and others have noted. What correlations can be considered hard evidence and what are products of the suggestibility of the human mind?

The Hobbit release, at the very least, will be the largest scale ad hoc test of 48fps in history. I suspect at least 10% of viewers will hate it and some will be vocal about it. Should be interesting ;-)

NOTE: It is my belief that using the Tessive Time Filter when shooting such tests would change the dynamics of the blur characteristic in such a way as to make the 48fps material look much more natural to most viewers, and in the case of the fast motion boxing example, make the 24fps look nicer as well.

Cheers - #19

Undoubtly a fair protion of the issue is the expectation of motion blur, to a certain extent this can be countered by making stylistic choices more common in movies than TV/video in other areas, as all movies even those shot on film have them in varying amount.

If 48fps for 3D movies with loads of fast paced action, and of a good quality like the hobbit looks to be, gradually it'll likely trickle down, though if theres enough time (likely several decades at least) before other techniques appear.

I suspect in HFR screenings where people are unaware of its usage the number of those who hate the look will decrease heavily, and the number of people who love it will also fall.

 

[Onar Stangeland]

I believe 48 fps looks like television because it "IS" television. Television has allways been recorded at 50 (pal) or 60 (ntsc) fps, albeit every frame at half resolution! So this smooth motion is associated with gameshows, news, soaps and so on....

 

[Bill Anderson]

But that fps "love" is only skin deep. No one will go to see a movie just because it was shot at 48fps. And no one will refuse to see a movie just because it was shot at 24fps. That's all that matters to me.

 

[M Most]

Undoubtly a fair protion of the issue is the expectation of motion blur, to a certain extent this can be countered by making stylistic choices more common in movies than TV/video in other areas, as all movies even those shot on film have them in varying amount.

That is true, and it was one of the biggest problems I had with the screening Blair is referring to. Because of the lack of motion blur, some of the motion on the 48fps version took on the appearance of "trails," that is, multiple repeated images, rather than something that looked like it was in motion. On the 24fps material, there was a more expected and "natural" (to me, anyway) motion blur inherent in the image. Granted, this could have been mitigated somewhat by applying a post application of motion blur in software. But it did illustrate one of the problems of HFR recording.

That, and the fact that it looked like a soap opera......... :shocked:

 

[Ketch Rossi]

That is true, and it was one of the biggest problems I had with the screening Blair is referring to. Because of the lack of motion blur, some of the motion on the 48fps version took on the appearance of "trails," that is, multiple repeated images, rather than something that looked like it was in motion. On the 24fps material, there was a more expected and "natural" (to me, anyway) motion blur inherent in the image. Granted, this could have been mitigated somewhat by applying a post application of motion blur in software. But it did illustrate one of the problems of HFR recording.

That, and the fact that it looked like a soap opera......... :shocked:

While I completely agree with you, I possibly for the amount of viewing done in HFR and 3D, or for some other reason that has more to do with my medical condition and the way it has been affecting my Cornea and in turn my Visual Cortex, I get an almost immediate sick filling when viewing some of the 24fps related motion blur, so I gladly will do without it.

However till I see a fair amount of HFR in 2D as well, I don't know if this will also still be present, and instead of actually being an effect of the 24fps related motion blur that is making me sick, is actually my worsening condition not allowing me to properly process the Motion blur, but i sure hope it will not be so, and that HFR will take care of this acquired problem for me.

Either way, there is certainly an other important factor to keep in serious consideration, were I use it for when I want to pull Still Frames out of the Motion and not only I shoot 96fps but I also change the shutter speed, more so the actual shutter angle to increase or decrease motion blur from frame to frame, so it will still be the Directors' final choice of the combination how much Motion blur there is even in HFR capture, I sure know which will be mine...


Oh, forgot to say, that that is also exactly what I said the first time I sow a movie in HD, it was too weird, it looked like the soap operas I so much hated, especially the FX stuff, totally easy to make out... Then I got used to it, and now I can't stand to see old movies and or anything that is too scratched out and or not as sharp, it looks like SD video to me now, so it is only and only a matter of getting used to things...

 

[PatrickFaith]

...
However till I see a fair amount of HFR in 2D as well, I don't know if this will also still be present, and instead of actually being an effect of the 24fps related motion blur that is making me sick, is actually my worsening condition not allowing me to properly process the Motion blur, but i sure hope it will not be so, and that HFR will take care of this acquired problem for me.

Either way, there is certainly an other important factor to keep in serious consideration, were I use it for when I want to pull Still Frames out of the Motion and not only I shoot 96fps but I also change the shutter speed, more so the actual shutter angle to increase or decrease motion blur from frame to frame, so it will still be the Directors' final choice of the combination how much Motion blur there is even in HFR capture, I sure know which will be mine...

To support this, I'd really like a drop frame mode on the epic, where i could select to drop frames. For example, if i was shooting at 96 fps@360 shutter, with one drop frame, i could build a 24 fps @ 180 shutter or a 48 fps @ 180 shutter, and save some SSD space. A double drop frame would be nice at 96 fps where i'd get two frames in a row and then drop two frames, that way i could rebuild a 24 fps @ 180 or do some enhancements to get a smooth extra stop in the highlights (also i'd get better pixel tracking for vfx due to reduced motion blur, i would also get the extra stop with normal 180 shutter - which you can't do with hdrx). Long term I'm going to be thinking about fps "future proofing" more.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Very negative comments about the 48fps Hobbit in today's The Wrap:

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/hobbit-48fps-hey-what-happened-middle-earth-67706

and on Movieline:

http://movieline.com/2012/12/04/hob...ncolumn&utm_medium=carousel&utm_content=slot1

There will always be "haters" who dislike something that's new, but I wonder if maybe their concerns are valid. Me personally, I think 90% of most audiences aren't going to care or notice; technical people, film buffs, and other insiders will notice, and it's a good question whether they'll be entranced or annoyed by it. I personally look forward to seeing it in 48fps 3D and Dolby Atmos, but I'm expecting that the look will take a while to get used to. And I also don't think 48fps is desirable for all kinds of filmmaking.