The Hobbit at 48fps...

[David Mullen ASC]

It is reasonable to expect those who are very experienced, deeply committed or entrenched in 24fps to be slow to adapt, but the law of nature is still adapt or die.

Goes both ways -- it can just as easily apply to technology, not just people (as for which tends to have shorter lifespans, people's attitudes or technical processes, you tell me). To believe that 48 fps would actually supplant 24 fps (so that filmmakers are forced to "adapt or die") not just be an optional format, would be to believe that it solves a fundamental problem that everyone agrees needs to be solved, or that it is so immensely popular that people start avoiding 24 fps in favor of 48 fps, or that it allows some huge increase in cost-savings or productivity in motion picture production. I don't see any of those three conditions being met. Maybe if we reached a point where 20% of all movies were shot in HFR but they accounted for 90% of all box office receipts over the course of a year, a studio might think "hey I better start making only HFR movies", but we haven't reached that point.

"Committed to 24 fps" is just an odd concept -- I would get work tomorrow if all movies switched from 24 fps to 48 fps, as would most workers in the motion picture industry. Being committed to a framerate would be like most Hollywood cameramen in the 1950's refusing to work once movies went from Academy to widescreen because they were committed to the 4x3 aspect ratio.

 

[Julien Deka]

Scott, I wanted to like the 48 fps. I didn't sit down for a 3-hour movie to not enjoy the experience. I could see how it improved the 3D and the fast motion technically, but it also still reminded me of interlaced-scan HD -- why shouldn't it? It's the only other example of high motion sampling rates that most of us have experienced. You seem to think it's a conscious choice whether to like or dislike the 48 fps look, not a gut reaction. At best, I got used to it, I tolerated it, but that's not the same thing as liking it. A few helicopter shots looked better though, made me think that this format may be better suited to IMAX-like nature documentaries.

Yes, very agree. My first reaction when coming out of the theater was thinking that it could be an amazing experience to watch purely visual movies like Samsara or Koyaanisquatsi in HFR 3D, but I sincerly hope that this 48FPS never becomes THE standard of modern Digital Cinema. Or at least that the industry will leave the freedom to filmamkers to shoot old good 24P.

I know 24FPS was at first a limitation, the very limite to trick the brain, to create the illusion of movement based on still images, and I was curious of seeing 48FPS, not expecting it to be that much looking like interlaced TV footage... Very disapointed.

For some reason, the more CGI in the composited shots, the better it worked. But every single medium close-up of talents constently throw me off the "magic" of the fiction.

HFR is probably good for sport, real TV and documentaries, but its over-real aspect kills the fiction. The dreamlike state. Maybe it is something to do with the way our brain reacts to alpha waves (and I have no clue of what I'm talking about, so please don't take it seriously).

Peter Jackson works with the best technicians of the planet. If they didn't manage to keep me in the fiction of Middle Earth at this frame rate, who will?

 

[Ben Scott]

I was watching a beautifully sharp, smooth, ultra high resolution, awesomely lit film, with spectacular costumes, great acting and story, fantastic roller coaster ride shots. How, in all of that, you managed to associate it with a daytime soap, is beyond me.

See, now I was watching a film with a very poor story, very poor characterisations and far too many 'fall down a mountain while cgi debris crashes around around us' setups and resolutions. I know this is a Red forum but HFR and 3D don't even make the top 5 problems with this movie.

 

[Ces Peynetti]

If they release Part II of The Hobbit in HFR (which I don't see why they wouldn't), then we will be able to really tell how well received HFR really is. This year we have a lot of curiosity about the format on the mix. I also wonder if we'll get a 4K finish, since there is a whole year to finish it, since most of it, if not all of it, has been filmed by now.

I for one have been racking my brain back and forth why 48fps seems to work in some parts of the movie, why it doesn't seem to work in others. Why people either hated it or loved it. Why some people see it as a BBC, why others see more than that. I've been writing a very long essay about it just for my own understanding/learning about the format. I wish I had the chance to sit with PJ and/or Andrew Lesnie to ask them a bunch of questions I have about the matter. These are two people who have incredible knowledge about their craft and would love to hear their take/approach on some questions I have, such as how many times did they have to compromise the look or feel of a shot so it would work both in 24fps and 48fps, because something tells me these type of compromises had to be done every once in a while.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Goes both ways -- it can just as easily apply to technology, not just people (as for which tends to have shorter lifespans, people's attitudes or technical processes, you tell me). To believe that 48 fps would actually supplant 24 fps (so that filmmakers are forced to "adapt or die") not just be an optional format, would be to believe that it solves a fundamental problem that everyone agrees needs to be solved, or that it is so immensely popular that people start avoiding 24 fps in favor of 48 fps, or that it allows some huge increase in cost-savings or productivity in motion picture production. I don't see any of those three conditions being met. Maybe if we reached a point where 20% of all movies were shot in HFR but they accounted for 90% of all box office receipts over the course of a year, a studio might think "hey I better start making only HFR movies", but we haven't reached that point.

"Committed to 24 fps" is just an odd concept -- I would get work tomorrow if all movies switched from 24 fps to 48 fps, as would most workers in the motion picture industry. Being committed to a framerate would be like most Hollywood cameramen in the 1950's refusing to work once movies went from Academy to widescreen because they were committed to the 4x3 aspect ratio.

Technology is only a tool in the hands of people, so in that way it is all about people. One technology will die off as another replaces it but it is a human choice. We adapt technology to serve our purposes.

I have no doubt that you would continue to be offered work if the demand were to shift to 48fps exclusively. The question then would be "Will you take it?" Will the cinematography of David Mullen survive going forward, or will you do a Tarrantino and choose to kill it off? Death by suicide is still a death. I don't mean that the mob will necessarily kill you.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Well, I've worked in Broadcast TV on and off since 1999, ranging from commercial editing, to Discovery Channel and NASA TV, and while I will agree with you that 60i and 48p are technically not similar in the least, and that I haven't seen either look in the editing room in almost 10 years (due to offine HD editing's typical nature of 24p and 30p playback), I strongly disagree about what: 60 fields per second on an interlaced monitor, 60 progressive frames per second, and 48 progressive frames per second; looks like.

They look very similar.

You know that there is a very different look between 30p and 60i, and I'm sure you know why. Assuming all of the frame rates we are talking about are natively captured that way with no pull down, or field blending; 30 progressive frames per second shows just 30 unique pictures per second which is just slightly more fluid looking than 24 unique pictures per second. 60i on the other hand, shows 60 half resolution unique pictures per second with a bit of blending happening between pictures that creates the illusion of full resolution; and it looks a lot like the motion in 720-60p, which also looks a lot like 2K-48p.

Maybe you're used to seeing your 1080-60i Broadcast TV with a 3:2 pulldown, or maybe you work in 720-60p with monitoring in 720-30p. I know that both of those have been the norm in stations I've worked in for the past 10 years, but surely you remember what 60i on a tube TV looked like. That's what 48p (and 60p for that matter) look like to me, and add to that, the hard clipping of highlights I saw in my HFR theater's projection, 48HFR looked like 1980's TV shows that were shot on video cameras.

Fair point Aaron, I guess I've never worked with true 60i then! Yeah most of the time I think we monitor in 30fps because we also...yawn..still lay off to SD at 29.97.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I think 48fps is here to stay, whether we all like it or not. But it will be another creative choice, like shooting in Black and White, 3D, or Imax.

Considering the amount of debate the HFR has generated on this forum alone, I can't imagine it supplanting 24fps anytime soon. No studio is going to want to invest 100's of millions on a format that has the public so divided...unless it's being pushed by a director/project that can guarantee an audience...and box office success (a small company of men that incude PJ, James Cameron, Nolan, JJ, etc).

But Peter Jackson has certainly made film history. HFR is here to stay, it's another addition to our film-making experience, and I have to imagine...whether we like it or not...it WILL get better with time.

 

[M Most]

When did you all get so stuck in your ways, that you can't even enjoy something truly revolutionary. .....Something revolutionary is happening, in our industry, in our lifetimes.... this is big.

Revolutionary? Really? Stereoscopic motion pictures have been around, in one form or another, since the 1950's, and stereoscopic still photography a lot longer than that (ask Brian May...). "High Frame Rate" was done by Doug Trumbull way back in the early 1980's, only then he called it Showscan and was using 60FPS rather than 48. And live video has always been "HFR" in both SD and HD forms, 60i or 60p in some countries, and 50i or 50p in others. The only real differences here are that stereoscopic techniques are now using digital technologies, and the HFR presentation is actually at a lower frame rate than was used almost 30 years ago.

Peter Jackson has said very directly that his reason for doing this picture at 48fps was to try and minimize some of the more uncomfortable (for many) characteristics of stereoscopic presentation. And that was basically the only reason. The other visual consequences that are typical of higher frame rates - the "video" look, the "hyper-reality" that exposes sets for what they are, and some other things as well - are not things he was striving for, and not necessarily things he wanted. He seems to have been hoping that those things would be overlooked in favor of the "more comfortable" stereoscopy. Except that for many of us, they're not. They're part and parcel of the technique that was chosen. You can't solve one problem and in doing so create a whole litany of other problems, and expect that nobody will notice.

 

[António Fagundes]

Technology is only a tool in the hands of people, so in that way it is all about people. One technology will die off as another replaces it but it is a human choice. We adapt technology to serve our purposes.

I have no doubt that you would continue to be offered work if the demand were to shift to 48fps exclusively. The question then would be "Will you take it?" Will the cinematography of David Mullen survive going forward, or will you do a Tarrantino and choose to kill it off? Death by suicide is still a death. I don't mean that the mob will necessarily kill you.

What on earth are you talking about?

Mr. Mullen was kind enough to let you know that he, as a predominant cinematographer in the industry, knows that if HFR would ever be the only option available, he would still be offered the same jobs for the same reasons and for the same purpose, even if he didn't like it, it would be completely up to him, his choice, not others.

But because that is such a fanatical idea, and its not how these things work! Since Avatar, 3D was suppose to be the end of 2D no matter what. Well, almost 4 years later, 2D is still the most profitable presentation. Fewer and fewer movies are being done in 3D. Technological advancements are not dictated by fanaticals like you, they live or die according to popular demand.

Why are you so high on telling others that they won't adapt and therefore will 'die'. Is that what happened to you? Do you actually think that's how artists make their choices? By fear?

Tarantino said he will stop making films once there is no more film PROJECTION, it's up to him. If that ever happens, which it won't, will only mean that he is in a good place. He rather turn the lights off rather than doing something that he doesn't like or by sheer fear. Because he doesn't give a shit of what people like you think. That's why he's at the top of his game and you are somewhere else...

 

[Gunleik Groven]

There are a couple of reasons us pd 150 guys wanted 25/24p...

But. I agree with David. Committing to "one thing" is about as silly as "only shooting at t 1.3" which I know a few DoP's claim to do, or "swearing to natural light as the only true lighting", or claiming that a high pixelcount is the only way to go (gee, I shoot and love a high pixelcount camera, what is this for shooting my own foot... ) ? ), or claiming that 65mm is the way to go and 16mm doesn't count, or taking away value from "any" esthetics. Doesn't really make more sense than insisting on ONLY eating 5 course french meals, or ONLY McDonalds or ONLY Thai food, and claiming that everything else is inferiour "because". Just leads to uniformity and boring movies. Diversity is good!

Fortunately there is a variety of choices, and we are all free to choose the tools that we think fit the story we tell, whether it is from a practical choice (as in: what we have access to) or a purely estethic choice (we can pick "anything" and go from there).

Anyone INSISTING on limiting their toolbox, is a fool to me. Harsh, but yes. UNLESS one do that to achieve something in particular. But when it is done as a general "this is better", I start wondering what the comparative capacity really is...

Open your mind, and be concious about your choices. At the same time.
For something, an old DV or 8mm might be right.
For other things, 65mm is.
For somethings, 48fps is right. gee I love those old movies at 18fps.
There is really no conflict, as I see it.
Things are only "better" on technical measurable levels. Of course I would prefer to key a 5k uncompressed image as opposed to a hdv 4:2:0 1440x1080 interlaced image.
But in the end, the resulting images are only "different".
Impact decides which is better.

I love silent movies.
And black and white 4:3 movies
And 70mm movies with optical effects
And
And
And

Thing is to make coherent storytelling with whatever tools you choose to use.
Sometimes/often limits are good, as they make the artist make clear decissions

Other times "unlimited" is good.

Anytime anyone says "this is the way to go from here" I get incredibly sceptical.
The same way I get sceptical when people say "the epic is noisy and cannot render skintones", or "the alexa is perfect even in prores".
Things aren't like that. Things are just "different" (and as to digital cameras, actually a lot more "alike" than people seem to think).

"Better than" is just such a huge disrespect to all the wonderfull art done by artist in hinsight.

Open your mind and adapt and learn.
Cinematography is still the youngest and most immature artform on earth, perhaps excluding videogames. We are in the early infancy of cinematography compared to music, theatre, opera, literature, or drawing. Let us just explore. Not conclude. Conclusions are boring. Exploring is fun.

 

[paulherrin]

very well said and balanced, gunleik.

all this do or die over a framerate choice is silliness. 48fps is not the assimilated future of cinema, nor is 24 - choices. no reason to get all worked up taking entrenched sides. do what you do.

think potentially.

 

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

3D/stereo is a niche just like black and white movies are a niche. HFR movies is also a niche. Niches are good, because choices are good. Everybody who think we can't have one thing because of another thing, in the regards of formats in the digital flexible era is a moron. Cheers.

 

[António Fagundes]

very well said and balanced, gunleik.

all this do or die over a framerate choice is silliness. 48fps is not the assimilated future of cinema, nor is 24 - choices. no reason to get all worked up taking entrenched sides. do what you do.

think potentially.

That's beautiful. My question is, why didn't you make the same statement BEFORE seeing The Hobbit?

Get it?

 

[Gunleik Groven]

That's beautiful. My question is, why didn't you make the same statement BEFORE seeing The Hobbit?

Get it?

Hahahahahaha!
Anobbishness in any way is so fun!

I have seen DoP's doing "too fast" pans in 25, kinda almost just to document that they shoot p and not I "when there is nothing else to distinguish the images..."

The artefact becomes a proof of quality.

I, as much as I have been involved in technical discussions the last 8-10 years, start to find them increasingly silly.
Things will only become better and of more choice. There's no reason to disregard any expression done up until now, because technical capacity increases.

I have yet to see any CG army making as much impact on me as the silly doll army in Kurosawas RAN. Not even today.

And I have yet to see anything with the emotional impact of the shakenly shot roof scene of "the kid".
That is not to say that those scenes are "ultimate". Just that the impact they made were beyond resolution and technical means. They just had an enormous emotional impact on me. And even my disney channel children, immediately start to relate to "the kid" extremely closely.

Does that take away value from any development since?
Imho: nope.

But let's not make impossible comparisons...

 

[paulherrin]

That's beautiful. My question is, why didn't you make the same statement BEFORE seeing The Hobbit?

Get it?

good question. perhaps my thoughts fluctuate with my experience. i'm certainly not taking anything to the grave.

 

[António Fagundes]

Gunleik, for as much as you like to say I'm a snob, you still didn't answer the question. Why wasn't this an option before The Hobbit, and why is it that all of the sudden is such an indispensable technical choice? I mean, no one has ever, ever asked Jim to make VFR available so they could shoot at 48. It wasn't a genius discovery, I mean higher frame rates have been with us for a long time.

Why now? What happened to the film industry since two weeks ago?

 

[paulherrin]

trumbull has been talking about this stuff for a long time. it has not really been economically feasible (capture/processing/post/projection/etc) up until this moment to capture and widely release anything cinematic at more than 24-30 fps, especially an effects-driven feature. framerates have always been with us, and since the beginning they've been fluctuating. digital technology and stereoscopic developments have pushed this to the surface and a few filmmakers have decided to take the front lines. this is not that different from slow-motion and time-lapse, which we're beginning to see a lot of... that doesn't mean it's all good, or all bad, it's just the realities of available tools and techniques put to work.

 

[António Fagundes]

trumbull has been talking about this stuff for a long time. it has not really been economically feasible up until this moment to capture and widely release anything cinematic at more than 24-30 fps, especially an effects-driven feature. framerates have always been with us, and since the beginning they've been fluctuating.

Again, Douglas Trumbull examined it, showed us all what it was, and still nobody seemed remotely interested. Peter Jackson says its the future and cinema as we know it will change forever, and now its what we all been waiting for... Adapt or die! Seriously?

I'm sorry but that is still not a very convincing or elegant explanation.

 

[paulherrin]

trumbull has been mired in the technical, just as peter jackson leans towards spectacle. hardly a full examination. if peter jackson wants to say it's the future, it will be - at least for him - that's how the future takes shape... or as gunleik has explained so elegantly "shut up and shoot"

 

[António Fagundes]

trumbull has been mired in the technical, just as peter jackson leans towards spectacle. hardly a full examination. if peter jackson wants to say it's the future, it will be - at least for him - that's how the future takes shape... or as gunleik has explained so elegantly "shut up and shoot"

You really don't know what you're saying anymore, do you?