The Hobbit at 48fps...

[António Fagundes]

I thought exactly the same thing. What was wrong with the fire?


As for the betacam argument...it was noticably more sharp than any tv experience, but I personally don't think the added expense and trouble of the 48fps workflow helped the story enough to make it more than a curio.

It was super sharp, I understand some people dislike Red's sharpness, but I like it a lot. But that's the one thing that was making me sad when watching the movie, we all know how good an image/experience can be achieved with today's technology and with Red's wonderful imagery. But when I see none of that on the screen, especially on a film that should have kicked ass, it's just sad.

I also feel bad for downing the movie, I'm sure no one got into Thew Hobbit to make it look half good (although a lot of people love it as is), but on this kind of film and with Peter Jackson at the helm, you expect something unique, powerful and with no bullshit, just pure awesomeness. And it kills me when none of that is up there on the screen as it was on all three LOTR.

 

[Josh Snyder]

although a lot of people love it as is

There were over 10,000 10/10 votes on imdb days/week(s) before the movie was even released anywhere in the world. Retarded fan will vote 10/10 on the websites and say it's perfect and best movie ever without even seeing it. Not to forget the people who are hired by the studios to vote and give 10/10 reviews.

 

[Sergio Perez]

While I didn't like the 48fps effect, I did like the storytelling and the performances. Some said the film was too long, I didn't feel this at all. As someone that never really got into the original trilogy- never read the books while young, wasn't into the Middle earth mythology and felt the 3 original films just average, telling a story that was told before in other films (yes, other films where inspired by Tolkien, but as a cinema lover and not a Fantasy book reader, I "lived" the LOTR story through its cinematic "inspirations" like Star Wars), felt it was too targeted to the LOTR book fanbase (felt many things where unexplained, locations didn't make sense, characters "disappeared" without reason- DVD releases don't count in my book- some parts felt "empty", which some readers of the book explained to me)- I felt the Hobbit was actually a pretty decent film storytelling wise. Loved the adventure feel of the film, felt connected with the lead character... Bottom line, loved the whole journey until the end credits, in fact (Gandalf excessive intervention withstanding). I have to say I hate films that end with a "to be continued" vibe stuck to them- it makes me feel like I'm watching a TV Series- but the whole Hobbit journey was a fun ride with great performances from the cast. When we talk The Hobbit its nowhere near the disaster of films like Clash of The Titans, or a "Narnia" film. Its definitely a step above. However, the 48fps presentation just worked, in my humble opinion, against the whole "immersion" to the cinematic/fantasy world of Tolkien/Jackson. The Red Epic Detail, the fantasy look Color Grading in my view was spectacular and showcased the Epic's "Raw" strengths beautifully. I'm more than sure that this will be reference Blu-ray (Red Ray?) material, and I can't wait to get a copy of this film in 3D...24p. Its a fantastic 3D Film, and this coming from the mouth of a 3D Sceptic. But count me out on the 48fps!

 

[Stefan Antonescu]

Saw it tonight in 3D HFR (48 fps).

Didn't like it. The magic was gone. This is definitely not for everyone.

Will see it again in 2D at 24 fps in a few days.

Other than the frame rate - and the 3D which I'm not a fan of - the movie was beautiful.

Can't wait to rediscover it in 2D !

Saw it again today in 2D (24fps).

Loved it. The magic worked. What a great movie.

One thing that I felt though was that 2K clearly isn't enough any more for these kind of movies. I don't like 48fps and I hate 3D - these are not the future (for me). But a greater resolution is. The next step from sound and color is 4K exhibition (for me).

 

[Sergio Perez]

Saw it again today in 2D (24fps).

Loved it. The magic worked. What a great movie.

One thing that I felt though was that 2K clearly isn't enough any more for these kind of movies. I don't like 48fps and I hate 3D - these are not the future (for me). But a greater resolution is. The next step from sound and color is 4K exhibition (for me).

I would say 8K Exhibition to be the next big step. Having seen 4K in a 4K Projection I was impressed, but I was much more impressed when i saw 4K in a 84 LCD (Jaw dropping 3D like detail, in fact- much more impressive and immersive than current stereoscopic 3D). I imagine that in a giant screen, 8K will create the same jaw dropping effect. With the introduction of 4K TV's and content, I think Cinema needs to one up TV Content by going 8K. That, however, will absolutely KILL Digital Effect companies. But its the way to go, I think!

 

[Emanuel A.]

I can't wait to get a copy of this film in 3D...24p. Its a fantastic 3D Film, and this coming from the mouth of a 3D Sceptic. But count me out on the 48fps!

Funny Sérgio, we both know each other face to face, we have something in common, same culture, etc and even if we never traded opinions for this matter, we share exactly the same POV at distance. Nice to see

Abraço de Moscovo,

Emanuel

 

[Sergio Perez]

Funny Sérgio, we both know each other face to face, we have something in common, same culture, etc and even if we never traded opinions for this matter, we share exactly the same POV at distance. Nice to see

Abraço de Moscovo,

Emanuel

Abraço e boas festas, Emanuel!

 

[Aaron Shirley]

...someone with a very bad taste is calling the shots up there...

Ha! Did you realize Peter Jackson's first feature film is called "Bad Taste" when you wrote that? So that being said, I've been a huge Peter Jackson fan from Bad Taste to the final LotR's installment. Why am I leaving out his last two/three directorial efforts? Well, I'm just not sure what he's doing now. King Kong was entertaining, but seemed extremely tongue in cheek, I mean, to the point where it seemed like he was making fun of the source material (and the audience) by showing these epic, mind blowingly real tyrannosaurus cliff battles, and then showing the actors running away on a tread mill in front of what looked like rear projection. And anyone who's seen Forgotten Silver, knows he's capable of making fun of cinematic classics and history. So with that in mind, what if 'the man who can do no wrong', decided to make a version of 'the film that could not fail', that used 'the highest tech and future of film', but it looked like 1980's Dr Who.

If this sounds far fetched, watch Forgotten Silver and tell me Peter Jackson isn't capable of that. He's a mad man!

 

[Max Nguyen]

I arranged to watch the the HFR 3d 2k version with 6 people. Myself and another were curious about how it looked and the technology involved. The others were just your average audience members. The most jarring were the first shots and the Hobbit hole scenes. I think I and the other tech watcher were wary of it, but in time, we were just watching the film and noticing it less and less. Sometimes, this observance popped up again, but not as distracting.

I think the lighting in the first Hobbit hole scenes were what sort of made it stick out too much. "Soap Opera" lighting, if you will. However, I noticed it looked 10 times better in the pantry raiding shots because they were not trying to over light it and there was much contrast and depth.

The rest of the movie worked out fine because I became accustomed to it and it was more dynamic in every way.

Guess what? The other 4 friends did not even notice the HFR. All this crying and screaming about it taking you out of the film moment, it all looks fake, etc may be a bit too subjective. I can't say much more now because I am gonna check it out on IMAX in 2d next and see how it goes.

 

[Max Nguyen]

Ha! Did you realize Peter Jackson's first feature film is called "Bad Taste" when you wrote that?

LOL. Speaking of his older works, I remember Dead Alive. One of the biggest laughing fits I had in a theater.

 

[Sverker Hahn]

What about the shutter angles in the Hobbit?
Normal shutter angle of 180° at 48 fps would give a stuttering effekt if 24 fps version is created by using each second frame, wouldn´t it?

 

[Kyle Wright]

Saw it in IMAX 3D HFR (AMC Burbank 16) on opening day and didn't care to much for it. It looked sort of like a cross between a BBC made-for-TV movie and a video broadcast of a theatrical production. Sure, Gollum looked fantastic, the battle scenes crisp and detailed, and the Goblin chase/fight nice and clear. But I found the look very distracting overall and didn't get sucked into the film as I normally do.

Well, I followed that up with a 24 fps 2D showing yesterday at the Pasadena ArcLight and, despite a flickery bulb in their projector, thoroughly enjoyed the experience and was immediately immersed in the film. So I guess that's a vote for 24 fps.

On a non-framerate note, I thought the smoke effects (from the pipes) and many of the fire effects (especially Bilbo's fireplace when he's conversing with Gandalf) were terrible! They looked like pre-vis renders that did not blend in at all. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie and will probably go see it a third time, but some of those effects were jarringly poor. Would it have been that hard to use a practical for the fireplace?

 

[Mitch Fillion]

Saw the film first in 2D 24fps and was pretty bored by the experience to be honest. I almost didn't want to go see it in 48fps 3D the following night, but I had already bought tickets. I figured it would just be worse in HFR since that's what the majority of people were saying. Lots of people asking for their money back and warning others not to see it in 48fps. A lot of you said the magic was lost in HFR, but I felt the magic was only there for me in 48fps. I thought it gave a unique feel to the characters movement and created a whole new world I'm not used to seeing in theatres. I liked that the characters seemed to be moving slightly faster, after all they are not humans and are in a fantasy world, so why not? Our brains are so used to associating high frame rate with a video / TV / cheap look and we really can't get passed that. I went in with an open mind, which I'm sure many people tried to do but couldn't let themselves. Being able to see way more detail in the quick pans and fast sweeping / flying camera shots was actually what kept my attention and kept me in the world of the film, way more than in 24fps when so much of the detail and action was blurred. Don't you think it makes more sense that that would be something to take you out of the film opposed to being able to see it so clearly in HFR?

Also... Peter was viewing in 48fps on set when filming/directing and also when they were cutting the film. I felt the pacing/directing of the film was way better in 48fps.

I know for certain I wouldn't like this high frame rate for dramatic films that take place in the real world, say like The Master or Lincoln. It would be the worst technical choice ever. But I think it has it's place. I liked it for this high action fantasy world. I think it'd be great for 3D animated movies and also really nice for wild life documentaries such as Planet Earth (being able to see way more detail in animals / insects movements) Perhaps even slapstick comedies, I think the high frame rate might even double the hilarity.

Anyway, just saying you can't always believe what you read. To each his own. Check it out for yourself.

 

[Marc Wielage]

What about the shutter angles in the Hobbit? Normal shutter angle of 180° at 48 fps would give a stuttering effekt if 24 fps version is created by using each second frame, wouldn´t it?

270 degrees at 48fps, which works out to about 135 degrees at 24fps:

http://www.videocandycompany.com/?p=224

I saw no issues with blurring or stuttering at 48fps. I think all the to-do and bluster about the 48fps look is overblown, and I was able to get used to it without that much effort. I'd fall in with Peter Jackson's opinion that it takes about 10-20 minutes to get used to it, but I had no real issues with getting used to it and getting into the story.

I felt the day exteriors could have used a little more contrast (lower mids), but 90% of the movie looked terrific to me. I know people have raved about the big spectacular set pieces, the massive effects on the killer flying wide shots with trolls and dwarves doing battle on half a dozen levels of wooden walkways in a giant underground cavern. But I think I was most impressed with the back-and-forth dialogue scene between Gollum and Bilbo, which to me was damn near flawless. (Though Gollum's voice was a little indecipherable on at least one of the riddles, which I noted Bilbo had to restate for the audience.) Gollum was 100% believable as a real character, and I doubt that I questioned him as being real for more than about 10 seconds.

None of the technical issues overwhelmed the story and characters for me, and I found it much more enjoyable than I was fearing. And the Dolby Atmos 64-channel mix was pretty spectacular as well. To me, the success of the movie is going to live or die on its content, not the 4K/2K cameras, not the 48fps/24fps presentation, and not even the 3D. From my perspective, the audience enjoyed it very much, and most of them stayed right through the end credits.

I get why the film is doing so well: to me, it's simply the right film (fantasy action/adventure epic) at the right time, giving audiences what they want to see. I felt like it took me to a world I'd never seen before and convinced me it was real for more than 2 hours (with occasional "huh?" moments when the 48fps motion effects got a little overpowering), but it was still pretty enjoyable overall. And I'm speaking as a "seen it all" cynical viewer.

 

[Josh Snyder]

A lot of people mention bad lighting and set design for HFR and so sharp picture. Maybe Jackson and his team should take a lesson from guys at Discovery Channel how to shoot HFR (50/60p) and sharp very realistic looking picture. Discovery shows look even more real than Hobbit.

Saw the film first in 2D 24fps and was pretty bored by the experience to be honest. I almost didn't want to go see it in 48fps 3D the following night, but I had already bought tickets. I figured it would just be worse in HFR since that's what the majority of people were saying. Lots of people asking for their money back and warning others not to see it in 48fps. A lot of you said the magic was lost in HFR, but I felt the magic was only there for me in 48fps. I thought it gave a unique feel to the characters movement and created a whole new world I'm not used to seeing in theatres. I liked that the characters seemed to be moving slightly faster, after all they are not humans and are in a fantasy world, so why not? Our brains are so used to associating high frame rate with a video / TV / cheap look and we really can't get passed that. I went in with an open mind, which I'm sure many people tried to do but couldn't let themselves. Being able to see way more detail in the quick pans and fast sweeping / flying camera shots was actually what kept my attention and kept me in the world of the film, way more than in 24fps when so much of the detail and action was blurred. Don't you think it makes more sense that that would be something to take you out of the film opposed to being able to see it so clearly in HFR?

Also... Peter was viewing in 48fps on set when filming/directing and also when they were cutting the film. I felt the pacing/directing of the film was way better in 48fps.

I know for certain I wouldn't like this high frame rate for dramatic films that take place in the real world, say like The Master or Lincoln. It would be the worst technical choice ever. But I think it has it's place. I liked it for this high action fantasy world. I think it'd be great for 3D animated movies and also really nice for wild life documentaries such as Planet Earth (being able to see way more detail in animals / insects movements) Perhaps even slapstick comedies, I think the high frame rate might even double the hilarity.

Anyway, just saying you can't always believe what you read. To each his own. Check it out for yourself.

You don't want HFR for dramatic films that take place in real world but you want HFR for fantasy films because HFR looks unreal? That's the exact opposite everyone else is saying and exact opposite what is true. HFR looks obviously more realistic that 24p.

 

[António Fagundes]

Ha! Did you realize Peter Jackson's first feature film is called "Bad Taste" when you wrote that? So that being said, I've been a huge Peter Jackson fan from Bad Taste to the final LotR's installment. Why am I leaving out his last two/three directorial efforts? Well, I'm just not sure what he's doing now. King Kong was entertaining, but seemed extremely tongue in cheek, I mean, to the point where it seemed like he was making fun of the source material (and the audience) by showing these epic, mind blowingly real tyrannosaurus cliff battles, and then showing the actors running away on a tread mill in front of what looked like rear projection. And anyone who's seen Forgotten Silver, knows he's capable of making fun of cinematic classics and history. So with that in mind, what if 'the man who can do no wrong', decided to make a version of 'the film that could not fail', that used 'the highest tech and future of film', but it looked like 1980's Dr Who.

If this sounds far fetched, watch Forgotten Silver and tell me Peter Jackson isn't capable of that. He's a mad man!

Forgotten Silver has got to be my favorite 'documentary' of all time! And maybe you're right about your assessment on Peter Jackson playing this aesthetic/cinematic game on us, but for the very reason that I admire him so much was the main reason I was let down by The Hobbit's hfr, this time, the game didn't play on me...

24h have passed since I saw it, and now I have a clearer vision of the actual film, regardless of the hfr, it's a spectacular adventure film, wonderful performances and top noch visual effects. I still think that the film could have presented us with something new, its still sad to me that that something new was the hfr, I still believe its a too cheap a gimmick for such a gifted film maker and such a wonderful film.

Avatar brought back 3D with a vengeance and an amazingly powerful character creation mixed with a wonderful alien world. Avatar was big, it kicked ass. I thought The Hobbit was going to give us the next step, but in my personal opinion it didn't, it felt rather a step back... I just hope Peter Jackson is still as crazy as he always was, and realize fast that there's a lot to be improved for the next film. I remember that when Avatar came out, the film was talked about with such hype about its technical and spectacular achievements that it was impossible to ignore. Not with The Hobbit. Peter Jackson has to make a film that creates the same kind of noise. Otherwise its just another adventure Christmas film. And in my book that's not what Peter Jackson does!

 

[Brian Ferguson]

Wow I am glad I didn't read this thread before I saw the movie! I saw it in Irvine CA at the Spectrum in the Real D HFR late show. I picked that one so I could wear my Oakley 3D glasses. I frickin loved this film! It did take me a little bit to get used to the effect, mainly because the early scenes had lots of action and quick cuts. I have to say having the optically correct 3D glasses makes watching stereo way easier, I don't see the frames of the glasses either. My initial impression was it looked like a Viewmaster still type stereo which I don't think is a bad thing. I couldn't believe some of the scenes, I get woosy with heights sometimes and there were scenes that made my hands sweaty. My only criticism was some of the captions for the Elfish and Orcs were too far forward from the people talking, like I had to change my focus on the type to read it and I sort of missed the actors at those times. I thought it was awesome and I really like the 48 FPS!

 

[Igor Ridanovic]

I saw the HFR stereo version at Pasadena Arclight yesterday. It was very interesting. Others have elaborated well so I will leave it at that.

The major disappointment is that the sync was very rubbery. I never seen that with a release DCP. At times audio was delayed as much as 6-8 frames (expressed in 48 base). Why is that? Something to do with the server not knowing what to do with higher frame rate?

 

[Jonathan LeDuc]

Has anyone done an objective comparison of various shutter angles & frame rates that is available online? I'd love to see what 48/180° and other shutter angles looks like compared to 48/270° and the perhaps 24fps extracted from them as well. It'd be great to see how & why PJ & AL finally decided on 48/270°.

 

[James McLellan]

180 shutter at 24fps = 1/48
180 shutter at 48fps = 1/96

They split the difference and went 1/72 so as to improve on the image blur at hfr but maintain an image that can stand up to 24p projection as well. This is my understanding. Not sure why people are refering to shutter degrees on a CMOS chip.