Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

The Hobbit at 48fps...

Micah Brown said:
Another problem with 3D that makes people sick is the fact that in the real world you can focus on whatever you want, whereas in the film world you can only focus on what the director has in focus. So if you try to look at the background in 3D your brain will try to focus and resolve it and it can't. This one is less noticeable of an issue because our brains have been trained from years and years of film and tv to not really pay attention to what is out of focus but wouldn't it be interesting in the future to have HFR 3D with an added technology of something like a Lytro camera where the viewer gets to decide what is in focus?
Click to expand...

I was under the impression the issue is less the focus and more the convergence since whatever happens we are still actually only focusing on the screen plane. In real life, our eyes pretty much always focus and converge to the same point/distance, whereas that is not always the case when watching 3D images projected on a flat screen. Our eyes are always focused on the screen but often forced to converge elsewhere depending on what we are looking at in the frame and how the convergence was set on-set/in-post.
 
L. Langer said:
All evidence and statements from those with ties to the production say it's a 2K finish. The HFR IMAX 3D is the same as the HFR3D presentation with a slightly larger screen area in the digital IMAX commercial venues.
Click to expand...

I asked Ted at the RED Short Film Festival if The Hobbit was in 4K or not. He said it was mastered in 2k because the VFX were rendered in 2k.

It is plausible that somewhere down the line, after CES, when 4K is in the consumer mindset, maybe they could release a special edition 4k
 
So Peter Jackson has exploited a particular frame rate look (and a great deal of other things) in order to perfect his vision of the Hobbit. And yet the more I read about it, the more surprised I am by the negative comments made by some of the most dedicated proponents of digital acquisition. What happened to the brave new world? I thought we were going to burn the rule book. One very talented filmmaker deviates from the norm and the "revolutionaries" drop to their knees like it was the end of the earth. It's not. I'm pretty certain it's not even the end of middle earth.
 
Bill Anderson said:
So Peter Jackson has exploited a particular frame rate look (and a great deal of other things) in order to perfect his vision of the Hobbit. And yet the more I read about it, the more surprised I am by the negative comments made by some of the most dedicated proponents of digital acquisition. What happened to the brave new world? I thought we were going to burn the rule book. One very talented filmmaker deviates from the norm and the "revolutionaries" drop to their knees like it was the end of the earth. It's not. I'm pretty certain it's not even the end of middle earth.
Click to expand...

New doesn't always equal good. Doing something "different" doesn't automatically make it better. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. The negative reactions to 48fps aren't necessarily based on some slavish devotion to the "norm." it just means that there are many who simply don't like it, for whatever reason.
 
Ch-ch-ch-changes

Ch-ch-ch-changes

If there was some way we could have fed half the population 48fps theatrical and 60fps TV for 20 years, while the other half was watching the 24/25(PAL)/30 rates. Then swapped them. What do you think would be the reaction? What percentage of each group would prefer the frame rates they were used to? Etc...

My point is that since we don't have my theoretical control group, how can we know how much of the aversion to HFR is due to adjustment challenges vs actual human visual system processing metrics?

I would even raise the question of whether some of the "looks like a soap opera" responses are more about how humans rapidly categorize input to suit pre-existing schema (closest known descriptor) vs a more holistic construct.

Yes Mike, content perception is always an interplay between creator and audience, just pointing out that even if 48fps was the physiological sweet spot for the fat part of the bell curve of human subjects age 18-49 it might still require an adjustment period longer than 3 hours.

Cheers - #19
 
M Most said:
New doesn't always equal good. Doing something "different" doesn't automatically make it better. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. The negative reactions to 48fps aren't necessarily based on some slavish devotion to the "norm." it just means that there are many who simply don't like it, for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt about that, M. And yet much of the reasoning behind the negative comments has more to do with the norm than anything else, giving the impression that some tradition has been sullied. One viewing of one step over the line and it's mayhem. Again, it all seems a bit odd to me, particularly in these times. Surely there is much more to be gotten out of PJ's approach than all of this.
 
PS.
This won't be the first time I've seen something that is not exactly to my taste and yet has still resounded with the energy that promises to pave the way to a beautifully broader future.
 
I wonder what wold be the reaction with many of the "pro-48fps -people" (particularly in this forum) if it wasn't Peter Jacson and Red cameras that started the hfr issue. What if it was woody allen with an Alexa or Sony camera?
 
Onar Stangeland said:
I wonder what wold be the reaction with many of the "pro-48fps -people" (particularly in this forum) if it wasn't Peter Jacson and Red cameras that started the hfr issue. What if it was woody allen with an Alexa or Sony camera?
Click to expand...


Actually... considering the RED cameras capacity (if it had indeed been the same), I guess it would be embraced, possibly with a bit of "I told you".


RED is about testing new ground. Usually successfully, but also quick on giving up on stuff that doesn't really work/fit.

As I see them, it isn't really a politically/religious "mission", on other levels than trying to go where others haven't, and accepting success and failure.
With the intellectual and economical backbone to take a few hits and do a few mistakes, and not having to rush something like the REDRAY out the door before the infrastructure is in place.

Unpatiently patient...
 
I've just come back from a screening and though I've been skeptical I kinda liked it, for the most part it kind of looked like I expected it to look and was very jarring at first but I think a few people have said this, you just get used to it.
It's not perfect though, every once in a while you catch a shot that doesn't quite work but their usually cut aways and it seems like the strength of 48fps are big swooping crane shots.
I guess the real test would be what would it look like in the home on a smaller monitor, there is something about the size of the cinema screen that makes things work, I remember thinking the f900 looked pretty nice on the big screen but when you watched the DVD it looked like video again.
 
Onar Stangeland said:
I wonder what wold be the reaction with many of the "pro-48fps -people" (particularly in this forum) if it wasn't Peter Jacson and Red cameras that started the hfr issue. What if it was woody allen with an Alexa or Sony camera?
Click to expand...

Remember "Public Enemies?" That was Michael Mann and a Sony camera (the F23). Similar approach, in terms of making a theatrical release with a more "video-y" look Also roundly panned for using that aesthetic.

Its not the people, companies, or project that prompt these responses. Nor is it some belief shaped by years of visual force feeding. There is a generally held notion that narrative entertainment such as theatrical motion picture need not, and should not, look like "reality," because it isn't. Especially in the case of fantasy stories, such as the Hobbit. And that the closer it gets to looking like "reality", the more it detracts from the storytelling and its ability to connect with and transport the viewer into that fantasy world. And the more difficult it becomes to create those worlds, because sets and visual effects are much more quickly revealed as what they actually are. The "magic," whatever that is, is lost, at least in adult viewers. That's probably one reason why Jackson's comment about "anyone under the age of 20 likes the HFR version" probably has some validity.

Unfortunately, most of the world, and a very large percentage of the worldwide moviegoing audience, is not under 20.
 
M Most said:
Remember "Public Enemies?" That was Michael Mann and a Sony camera (the F23). Similar approach, in terms of making a theatrical release with a more "video-y" look Also roundly panned for using that aesthetic.
Click to expand...

Fundamentally though Public Enemies removed information (increased blur), whereas The Hobbit adds information (reduces blur, adds frames). Public enemies looked awful because it made it harder to follow action and movement. The Hobbit presumably does the opposite.
 
Well, I had a chance to watch the move with HFR last night. At the moment I'm writing a long review of the movie, including some of my thoughts about HFR as well, but I decided to take a break and come here instead. In a nutshell I'm a huge Hobbit / Tolkien geek. And anything that would have gotten in the way of telling that narrative as I think it deserves, would have been seen as useless to me, even if it comes from RED, which I'm a big fan of as well.

So how do I feel about HFR?

I really do think that a lot of critics are blowing it out of proportion. Yes I do think that we can somewhat compare it to home video, or soap operas, or smooth-o-matic tru-motion video, or whatever crap they are putting on TV's these days. We can compare it to these things because it's the closest type of image we can compare it to, but IT IS NOT the same. There is a huge visual difference when you see 48 FULL frames captured and projected, instead of them being interpolated, or inter-created. The amount of visual information, clarity, and beauty of each frame is noticeable. At least it was to me. The 3D judder is almost gone, and it gives this very unique depth to the frame even in fast-paced action scenes. I find these comparisons very similar to the whole 2k vs 4k debacle. A lot of people, even professionals, are going to the theater and watching a movie like The Avengers or Skyfall and saying that they look beautiful enough, or good enough. That 4k is not that big of a deal. What I will predict will happen to these people however, is once the 4k future is here, and we have been exposed to plenty of true 4k acquisition and projection, we are going to look back and say "It was good enough then, and even if it still is, I can notice the big difference now." I've had the privilege to be exposed to a lot of 4K projection by now, and when I go to a 2k movie "sadly" I do notice the big difference (ignorance can be bliss sometimes I guess). I think that if we were exposed to more true HFR 3D footage, we would be able to tell the difference between the 'soap opera" look.

I do think the brain plays tricks with you as you are watching it however, this particularly happened to me during close-ups. It almost feels like the video is sped-up. Halfway through the movie however, this didn't happen anymore, or not as much. My hope is that the more we watch this technology, those things will be corrected by our brain. In fact, I plan on watching this movie several times in all of it's formats just so I can make the best judgement out of it. (I did love the movie, so this won't be a chore to me, I will rather enjoy this experiment).

Bare in mind that HFR is intended to be used in 3D projection. Not 2D. If it was used for 2D I could see the case being made that it is useless, but not this time around. I think the use of 3D HFR was good if not great, and I think I can see why they decided to take such a big risk with it. It did bring something unique to the table, though many argue it's a step backwards. I really don't think it is. I can't imagine the battle scenes or the stone giants scene as incredible as it was watching them in 3D HFR. I have never seen anything like it. Which make me very excited about the battle of the Five Armies in the third movie.
 
Public Enemies also had horrendous sound, though. Just awful (way worse than the visuals, which didn't really bug me even at 1/24th.)

Lots of people (critics, advance audiences) are saying it looks so real that you can see just how fake it is. Oh the irony. I think no one is safe from that unless you're under 10 years old (not 20) and have a hard time telling the difference between a fake nose (or set) and a real one. Unfortunately 10 year olds don't pay to see movies... Actually, according to hollywood, everyone under 20 pirates this stuff anyway, so even that's a bad target market.

Honestly, the biggest problem I suspect is the price. Toronto has a 4k/48fps 3D (which apparently is only 2k, since that's what it was finished in) showing at the Paramount, and they want $18.50 per seat... HOLY frig HOLIES. They're making they audience pay for the "privilege" of being a guinea pig? Do they tell you to go f*** yourself when you buy a ticket, too? What if the 48fps *does* ruin the experience for people (particularly fans); then they gotta shell out another "$14" (the regular 3D price) to see it at 24fps? I have a feeling a lot of people are going to say, "Thanks, but no thanks."

Truth be told, there are so many more "regular" 24fps cinemas that will be screening the movie, it will probably be difficult to tell just how well (or how poorly) received the 48fps version is... And at least with Avatar 2, all the characters are CG, so you won't see how fake the props/noses/sets look (cause it's all fake, and there are no seams).
 
Last edited:
Is that the same theater where they have the Star Trek models hanging from the ceiling?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top