The Hobbit at 48fps...

[Robbie_C]

When I walked out of the theatre from a 3D HFR screening I had to ask myself, how was the experience as a whole, did it bring me any closer to Middle Earth? did I feel more empathy towards Bilbo's plight?

The short answer is 'no' I was no more enamoured with The Hobbit as an engaging and compelling experience because of new techniques which this film showcased. Whether this is because my brain is conditioned to watching 24fps in a large darkened theatre may be another thing, but as a mechanism to bring me closer to the job of storytelling - it just didn't work for me. In terms of immersion nothing sucks me in more than the bare bones storytelling process of the acting, script, sets, blocking, lighting etc.

As agreed with most people in this thread, CG 3D action was sooo much better than previous attempts. But slow paced dialogue and sweeping landscapes yanked me out from the plot and plonked me straight back into a theatre looking at a big screen - at times the vistas reminded me of an HD TV demonstration reel.

There may have been a couple of live action camera moves which were deliberately quick, to highlight the HFR - especially in the Hobbit Hole and there was a CG one thrown in for good measure which was one which screamed through the Dwarf kingdom in the back story.

 

[Paul Schneider]

I saw it at 48frames HFR in IMAX (assuming 4K) it was novel, but not significant. The intense sharpness was definitely intriguing...but in all honestly if you find yourself focusing on distant waterfalls, the singular hairs of an elven princess, or the pores on a dwarves nose than you've probably missed the point.

Its not about resolution. It never was.

I watched it again tonight on my tv in 1080, 24p flat (thank you technicolor...thank you DGA) and I actually enjoyed it a bit more. Could be that I just had coffee in my hand though...and easy refills...not sure.

 

[Paul Schneider]

I suspect from a studio point of view, theexperiment didn't fail, because The Hobbit is making huge money.

Is it. Every statistic I've read had it falling far short of first weekend expectations at the box office.

It will make money no doubt, but many movies do much better.

 

[Peter Proniewicz-Brooks]

Is it. Every statistic I've read had it falling far short of first weekend expectations at the box office.

It will make money no doubt, but many movies do much better.

Not in December in the US they haven't, at least opening weekend wise. Reports I've seen suggest its a record opening for a movie in December in the US. And WBs expectation was to equal or exceed that record, that sounds like it met WBs own expectations.

 

[Sindre Saebo]

one think i realized about the 3d in hobbit and perhaps with all 3d . if you tilt your head sideways. The image goes double vision. Not very good for cozy couples in cinema!!!

Although couples may go to cinema for a cozy experience, they shouldn't tilt their heads sideways to rest on the other persons shoulder when watching 3D films. No matter what projection system is used - active, passive, color shifted, circular or linear polarized - the stereoscopic effect is based on horizontal differences on the screen between the left and right eye images. If you tilt your head sideways, your eyes are no longer horizontal like the projection, and your brain will try to fuse an image with one eye looking up and the other looking down to see the same object on screen. Our eyes can't do that, and it will lead to eye strain or the brain won't fuse the image at all, resulting in double vision.

Sindre Saebo
Oslo, Norway

 

[Aaron Shirley]

How i think of it ... is shooting 96 fps at 360 shutter ... so i'd get a 1/96+1/96+1/96+1/96 = 1/24 for a 24 fps at 360 ... so by dropping in post the last two frames I'd get a 1/96+1/96 +0+0 = 24 fps at 180.
For 48 fps i'd drop every other frame in post ... so 1/96+0+0+0 = 1/96 for the first frame of 48 fps at 180 , then 0+0+1/96+0 = for the 2nd frame.
You can see for both the 48 fps and 24 fps, the last 1/96 is never used ... so is really recording 1/96+1/96+1/96+drop . So by "drop" frame i mean dropping the last frame in a cycle while shooting to save space.

When you say "1/96+1/96+0+0=24fps at 180", are you saying: shoot at 96fps at 360°, and blend frame one and two, drop three and four, and end up with 24fps at 180°? ...and if so, what are you using to blend frames in such specific cadences?

...so if I'm understanding this right, in your last example, your second frame in the cadence pair isn't being used either, is it? So you could drop that one too?

 

[Mark Phelan]

Is it. Every statistic I've read had it falling far short of first weekend expectations at the box office.

It will make money no doubt, but many movies do much better.

Find something better to read. It has broken all records for a movie opening from what I've read.

 

[António Fagundes]

Find something better to read. It has broken all records for a movie opening from what I've read.

Paul specifically mentioned weekend. The records broken are for the month of December, not weekend opening. Remember it's The Hobbit, a movie that falls back on the LOTR success, so we'll have to wait and see how the film does in its entire run. I hope it does well, because I personally applaude film makers like Peter Jackson and his ability to create these wonderful and extravagant huge films. The movies need him.

 

[Hywel Phillips]

I watched it at 24 fps in 2D and thought it was over-long in places, beautiful in others. I thought the riddle scene was absolutely stunning- not visually (although it was very well done visually) nor because of the CGI on gollum (which was awesome CGI) but because of the performances of Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis. The achievement of the film to my eyes was translating that excellent performance by a live actor to a CGI motion captured bunch of pixels. I enjoyed it.

Then I went back and watched it in HFR 3D. When the film opened, there was a ripple of uneasy laughter in the theatre because the HFR initially looked speeded up. Ian Holm's Bilbo looked like the 1970's Benny Hill show sped-up chase sequences. Still, bearing in mind Peter Jackson's exhortation that it would take 20 minutes or so to "tune in" visually, I stuck with it.

Unfortunately although the sped-up effect did diminish, it never went away for me and some of the later action and chase sequences still looked like the Benny Hill show.

Worse, I just couldn't get away from the ghastly impression that I was watching the behind-the-scenes video of the film, rather than the film itself. You know how you look at the behind-the-scenes footage, and it looks crap, like a bunch of actors dressed in silly costumes and wigs jumping around a set? And when you see the final movie footage, the magic has happened and it looks like Middle Earth?

The magic never happened for me.

Sure, a few shots looked much better in 3D HFR, having looked slow and contrived in 2D 24 fps (I'm guessing those were compromised by them shooting for the 3D HFR version primarily and editing accordingly). But the movie as a whole? I couldn't get over how bad it looked.

I don't know how much of it is my conditioned expectations. I could never get away from the VERY STRONG visual impression that I was looking at Sir Ian McKellen, an actor, dressed in a straggly wig, wearing contact lenses (I swear I could see them in some shots) and a slightly grubby woollen costume running around various film sets and the mountains of New Zealand.

In 24 fps 2D, I saw Gandalf the Grey striding around Middle Earth.

Maybe the problem for me is the claimed strength of 48 fps- that it looks more real. So much more real that it looks like what it is, actors, sets and CGI, rather than what our imagination wants to be there to fill in the gaps. Maybe it is the very lack of visual information that helps construct the dream-like world of the movies.

Add to that the inevitable headache because I like to lean my head just a little to the side when I watch films, it turns out. Just enough to force me to sit bolt upright and consciously stop myself from doing it, and when I relax a bit, the headache starts to lurk.

Whatever, neither 3D nor HFR are for me. I hope at least some film-makers continue to shoot in pure 24 fps 2D without compromising to simultaneously shoot 3D HFR. And I have to tell film-makers planning on a pure 3D or HFR release that I'm unlikely to go see your film.

Cheers, Hywel

 

[Noel Sterrett]

When you say "1/96+1/96+0+0=24fps at 180", are you saying: shoot at 96fps at 360°, and blend frame one and two, drop three and four, and end up with 24fps at 180°? ...and if so, what are you using to blend frames in such specific cadences?

I don't think the example accounts for the sensor read timing associated with a rolling shutter. Jello is difficult to blend.

Cheers.

 

[Brandon J.F.]

Is it. Every statistic I've read had it falling far short of first weekend expectations at the box office.

It will make money no doubt, but many movies do much better.

I don't think a $223 million opening is below expectations

http://www.deadline.com/2012/12/the...dnight-u-s-canada-opening-sets-december-mark/

 

[António Fagundes]

Although in all fairness, The Hobitt opened to a monstrous 18.200 screens, whilst other films open to half of that. So that record breaking is somewhat 'paid for' as the studio managed to make the movie shown in so many theaters. Maybe its part of the strategy, to have a headline saying its an all time Christmas record will sell more tickets as opposed to not having that headline at all. Only time will tell if The Hobitt will keep growing in numbers. Films such as The Dark Knight and even Titanic opened soft, but ended up growing to huge blockbuster records. And films such as Colverfield that broke the all time weekend gross, didn't accomplish much after that. So, at the moment its all relative.

I'm so hyped that I'm an hour away to go see the movie...!

 

[Brandon J.F.]

Antonio, The Dark Knight had a $200 million dollar opening. Hardly "soft". http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2504&p=.htm

The Hobbit opened on so many screens because the demand was there to support it. It also got an "A" CinemaScore from audiences.

 

[Häakon]

I suspect from a studio point of view, theexperiment didn't fail, because The Hobbit is making huge money. I think the vast number of audience members don't care and don't notice the high frame rate, good or bad.

Well, the vast number of audiences didn't see it in 48p (only about 10 percent of screens showed it this way), so you can't make many judgements about the "experiment" one way or the other. Also, you pay for your experience first and then go experience it, so even the fact that a movie brings in a ton of money doesn't mean it was a great movie. There are built-in audiences for franchises like that. I thought the movie was decent enough, but hated the HFR presentation. Does my ticket sale reflect that?

I will agree with you that the effect of 48p is a very interesting one in that some people honestly don't notice or care. I have a really adverse reaction to it in the same way that I do a 120hz+ television. Other people seem to love it. Some people can't even tell the difference. It's quite interesting to me.

 

[António Fagundes]

Demand has nothing to do with the number of screens the film opens at. It depends on how many screens the studio wants the film to go, the more screens the more expensive it is for the studio. For the studio to want to open at nearly 20.000 screens probably says that otherwise they might not make a good start, and if a 180 million doesn't get a good head start, its bad.

And now I understand why. I just saw the movie, and I don't even know what to say. To call it an experience is definitely the wrong term, because by 'experience' I understand it as being a good thing, something unique. And The Hobbit was just a silly 'experience'. Call it what you will, that I missed the point or whatever, but the hfr is like watching a BBC drama shot on Betacam in the 90s (an expensive drama if you will...) If that's the progression of film making, then someone with a very bad taste is calling the shots up there. Because the hfr just took all the magic and the epic(ness) out of the film.

Arguments like; 'your brain is used to seeing hfr in soap operas so that's why you think it looks like one'. Well, that's just a silly argument isn't it? You can say that about anything. If Peter Jackson had shot The Hobbit handheld with a mini dv, you could also say; 'well, you're used to seeing shows like Cops shot on it, that's why you think it looks like that, but you're wrong, its the best thing. Its the future...' sorry, but these are all bad excuses. You just can't have an elastic argument about this. It does look like a soap opera, it looks cheap and the images don't carry any weight. As I began watching it, I felt so embarrassed. Somehow I felt like I was feeling Peter Jackson embarrassment for making this unexplainable technical move. Like 'Fuck, what have I done...'

Also the lighting was just to much like TV light. Highlights weren't clipping, but were just bad. Some good shots, but overall, just bad. If I had to make a list of five movies shot on Red that could have been shot 100% better, The Hobbit would be in that list... Also, every time there was a fire in a scene, it looked like hand draw animation fire, with blur and other cheap effects to hide I don't know what, they make the Gollum and can't shoot fire? Handheld shots, forget it. Crane shots all over the place, wobbly and unstable. Why on earth didn't nobody stabilized the 5K footage is beyond me. In this day in age, to show wobbly camera movements on a 180 million show is just lame.

But there were good things. Gollum was a masterpiece. The Trolls were wonderful, and the tall white angry dude that rode giant and angry wolf (forgot his name) was also amazing. The last shot of the film, the eye of the dragon was also marvelous.

Overall, it was such a downer, because this was suppose to be a film that had achieved a few technical successes, but all I could see were failures. And honest to God, I'm not a cynical moviegoer or film maker. I love movies, I love to be entertained. I'm an easy customer. But this was just too much to take in. I loved Avatar, saw it three times, I have absolutely nothing against new technology, in fact I loved it. What I'm not is blind. And I also like to think that I have worked and continue to work very hard to achieve a good eye and a developed taste in things. I can understand why some things are done and why they are important. But on The Hobbit, I really couldn't find anything good about it being shot at hfr, why on earth would we suddenly want to use the Discovery Channel look over the 'movies' look, is beyond me.

This film felt like someone's trying to sell me a Hyundai for a Porsche...

But hey, this is just my opinion.

 

[Josh Snyder]

As I began watching it, I felt so embarrassed. Somehow I felt like I was feeling Peter Jackson embarrassment for making this unexplainable technical move. Like 'Fuck, what have I done...'

I really couldn't find anything good about it being shot at hfr, why on earth would we suddenly want to use the Discovery Channel look over the 'movies' look, is beyond me.

Yeah please some pro HFR/Hobbit person answer this. For example, have you always liked the look of Discovery Channel shows more than the look of movies shot in S35? Or did you just change your mind because Jim said HFR looks better?

btw very good post Antonio.

 

[Brandon J.F.]

Demand has nothing to do with the number of screens the film opens at.

Really? I'm speechless. Haha...

 

[Paul Schneider]

every time there was a fire in a scene, it looked like hand draw animation fire, with blur and other cheap effects to hide I don't know what, they make the Gollum and can't shoot fire?

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.

 

[Bob Gundu]

I haven't seen the film yet, but I will say that a production this grand is full of compromises. They undoubtedly worked on it to the last couple days before the premiere. Never mind dealing with 3D, even as a 2D production, its ridiculous how complex it is. Every frame is an FX shot, and I'm pretty sure they're cringing at shots that were slapped together. When I worked on IMAX's first 3D conversion of Superman Returns, I couldn't believe how close to release the edit was still being worked on. Many shots that were worked on got cut the last minute and replaced with entirely new shots that were literally comped at fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants!

Ahhhh memories......

http://10framehandles.com/pictures/IMAX_SupermanReturns/index.html

 

[Paul Schneider]

I haven't seen the film yet, but I will say that a production this grand is full of compromises. They undoubtedly worked on it to the last couple days before the premiere. Never mind dealing with 3D, even as a 2D production, its ridiculous how complex it is. Every frame is an FX shot, and I'm pretty sure they're cringing at shots that were slapped together. When I worked on IMAX's first 3D conversion of Superman Returns, I couldn't believe how close to release the edit was still being worked on. Many shots that were worked on got cut the last minute and replaced with entirely new shots that were literally comped at fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants!

Ahhhh memories......

http://10framehandles.com/pictures/IMAX_SupermanReturns/index.html

no doubt. its a monster.