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...

Vadim Bobkovsky said:
I'm not gonna bother with 3D at 24. Too many bad memories, to be honest. It's 2D or 3D HFR, oh yeah.
Click to expand...

I think you are really onto something there! I think if you are going to see it in 3D you might as well get the full experience and see it in HFR.

I assume the 2d screenings are at good old 24fps? That would make sense to me. 3d at 24fps seems kind of like neither fowl nor fish tho!

Freya
 
Saw The Hobbit's HFR 3D version earlier today. I have to say I absolutely loved the look of HFR. And I'm one who hates what interpolation does to 24fps sourced content on modern flat panel TVs with a burning passion.
 
Petri Teittinen said:
Saw The Hobbit's HFR 3D version earlier today. I have to say I absolutely loved the look of HFR. And I'm one who hates what interpolation does to 24fps sourced content on modern flat panel TVs with a burning passion.
Click to expand...
that's good to know. now only if someone could tell me where i could see 4K HFR3D. i saw a 2D 24fps screening in LA and loved the scale of this film.
 
Sulekh Suman said:
that's good to know. now only if someone could tell me where i could see 4K HFR3D. i saw a 2D 24fps screening in LA and loved the scale of this film.
Click to expand...

You can't see it in 4K as there is no 4K version of the film since it was finished at 2K.
 
Petri Teittinen said:
Saw The Hobbit's HFR 3D version earlier today. I have to say I absolutely loved the look of HFR. And I'm one who hates what interpolation does to 24fps sourced content on modern flat panel TVs with a burning passion.
Click to expand...

sweet. that's good news for me. as much as i hate it, i was actually forcing myself to watch some bad interpolation just to try to get my brain used to the speed. i'll report back in a couple days :)
 
Lee Saxon said:
I would love to see 48fps 2D but I will not be putting on any stupid glasses and having a seizure.
Click to expand...
I totally see where you're coming from. The screening I attended was interrupted several times as the medical staff had to rush in and take care of seizing viewers.

Oh hang on, NO IT WASN'T!
 
I´ll hold my judgment until after I see it, heading out for 3D HFR.
(Just realized I´m wearing glasses today, got to remember to change to contact lenses before I go. (Watching Avatar with 3D glasses on top of my regular glasses kind of spoiled it for me)
 
Petri Teittinen said:
Saw The Hobbit's HFR 3D version earlier today. I have to say I absolutely loved the look of HFR. And I'm one who hates what interpolation does to 24fps sourced content on modern flat panel TVs with a burning passion.
Click to expand...

Conversion of 24 fps material to 60i ntsc standard usually looks just like 24 fps (the film-look on tv)! :-) What a shitty TV does because of motion smoothing and/or other built in functions, is another matter....
 
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...

HAHAHAHAHHA, someone post that in favorite reduser quotes... I dare you ;)
 
Since a few month I own a LG 47" LM47LM620S passive 3D enabled TV. It has motion smoothing with 400Hz.

When I first switched it on, I wasn't aware of the menus and all settings, so just set up cabling and enjoyed the larger screen. Then I saw a old movie (with Denzel Washington, don't remember the name), which I knew before. It felt totally strange, uncommon. After a while of research I found that this motion smoothing was enabled and that this actually caused this strange behavior. When switching it off, the movie was the movie I knew.

So now you may think: "Hey, this guy doesn't like 48fps! Me too!"

No, I am sorry, thats absolutely not the point!

I then bought "Hugo Cabret" as 3D BluRay. I hadn't seen it on the big screen anyway, and given its said to be one of if not the best 3D movie yet, I thought this would be a good shot for testing the 3D capabilities with the family.
We watched it with motion smoothing ENABLED. And it looked superb. It was more like being in a theater and watching the live actors than watching a movie. It was breaking the emotional boarder and distance we may otherwise have experienced. It sucked us way more into the storyline.

Later I tried to watch Hugo Cabret in 3D and 2D, both with motion smoothing disabled. I was disappointed, it did not look as good for me.

So the point is:
We like what we are used too, how we knew things are.
So if you know a movie from watching before, being 24p and now see it with "true" smooth motion (does it 400p? Would be interesting to find out THAT truth...) you may have the feelings I had. If you always saw a black & white movie, that was hand colored, and then one day you see the original black & white - you may be disappointed too.

But when we see something for the first time, open minded, we might get into quite the opposite situation (like I actually did).

Like resolution, color, sound, 3d, grain, framerate is just another tool in a filmmakers toolset. To be used when adequate.

Another point:
I was at the RED Demo last IBC. In that context some material from "Streetdance3D" (or one of its nameless sequels) was shown. The images where extremely sharp, short exposure, nearly no motion blur. Like one should do with 3D - when doing high frame rate. But they did 24p. That was only stackato on-screen. One if not the worsed examples for 3D I can imagine. If I would every watch this again, then please with an interpolating device like my TV set. Only then it could be acceptable for me. Btw, this rules exactly for the 2D version too!

Again, 48fps is not bad perse, but 24p isn't either...
 
I don't remember where i first read this, but I will repeat it: "it doesn't pull me in to the world of Middle earth when I can se Gandalfs contact lenses..." ...or something like that!

I think HFR is just another tool in the filmmakers toolbox. Sooner or later it will turn out where it is apropriate to use it. Peronally I think it is perfect for anything where you want to show the reality of the moment! Like documentaries, talkshows, sports, reality shows, event videography and filmed theater/stage plays an so on!
 
My guess is that for some scenes like fighting/action, it can be a good thing. (Haven't seen it yet, just interpolating).

Graeme has been advocating the possibility to display things at different framerates within the same movie.

Sounds clever.

Than again, Graeme is clever...
 
Maybe this video has been posted before on this thread, dunno. But here's Stu Maschwitz take on it. I think he makes a good point about "taking information out of the picture", and not making everything look as real as possible. Ulitmatly this is why 48fps, 3D and frameblending sucks :)

The second part of the interview is the most interesting part.

http://www.macvideo.tv/camera-technology/interviews/?articleId=3213230
 
48 fps hfr, I'll pass on this if you don't mind

48 fps hfr, I'll pass on this if you don't mind

I'm almost scared to post my "verdict" here, after seeing The Hobbit in 3D HFR this morning - because you'll probably all disagree.

I thought it looked horrible. Very disappointing. It looked like video many times, including the video-like blown out highlights.
The camerawork looked haphazard and even sloppy and the fight scenes were stroboscopic.
Many shots out of focus, probably because of shallow DOF and lenses wide open.I must say, all more or less as expected...

If this is the future of cinema (all hail the video look), i definitely don't want to be part of that future...

Martin.
 
Last edited:
Martin Beek said:
I'm almost scared to post my "verdict" here, after seeing The Hobbit in 3D HFR this morning - because you'll probably all disagree.

I thought it looked horrible. Very disappointing. It looked like video many times, including the video-like blown out highlights.
The camerawork looked haphazard and even sloppy and the fight scenes were stroboscopic.
Many shots out of focus, probably because of shallow DOF and lenses wide open.I must say, all more or less as expected...

If this is the future of cinema (all hail the video look), i definitely don't want to be part of that future...

Martin.
Click to expand...

I Have not seen the film yet. But having 40 something epics on set and quite a few professionals around, how can they not get the exposure right?

But what strikes me the most is how fast the first film actually must have been put together having the 48fps, all the CG, enormous amount of material and the stereo aspect of it all. Thinking that shooting 3 films in a bundle cant be all that vice. Not much time to reflect and learn from the process. Just from tests I done and what I have seen I agree, I do not like HFR at all. not even in stereo goggles with one screen for each eye. People say 24p was the lowest possible frame rate set to save film stock back in the days. I think there was a lot more to it, as in 24p you have best of both words good enough motion but you also get to see each frame. The streamy look of high fps video is terrible I think even when done proper I think it looks like when my tvset is set to smoothing or worse. Hope I'm wrong and have to go back and edit this post after I seen the move though... a bit sad if it does not look good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top