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...

Why the HFR debate is not really a debate at all.

I guess I don't understand why some people are calling the look of 48fps HFR a new aesthetic. If you've seen a television, you've seen high frame rates. Make no mistake, 60i is 60 discrete pictures per second, albeit with half the vertical resolution (interlacing isn't that relevant to this discussion).

Granted, we've not seen it at quite this frame rate, progressively, at this resolution but the image has far more in common with what we're used to calling video than it does to what we're used to calling film (at 24fps).

I saw The Hobbit in 3D at 48fps because that's how the director intended it to be exhibited.

I felt like I was watching a PBS show on a gigantic television, shot on the best looking ENG camera ever made. I really wanted to like the look (or, not mind it) but I didn't.

The answer for some is to simply get used to it. Why? Because it's becoming more prevalent due to the higher refresh rates on TVs? Should I also get used to bad storytelling? That seems to be pretty popular, too.

Others say we're too used to 24fps and need to be more open to change. Except, this isn't change. It's video for crying out loud.

Film and video are contemporaries. Motion picture film predates video (television) by a few years, but video has been around (publicly) for the last 60 years or so in the US.

If video were going to replace film as the preferred choice for narrative storytelling, it would've done it by now. Why didn't it? Because people prefer the film aesthetic to the video aesthetic for the vast majority of projects. Video got its ass kicked.

Which is why there's no debate. Filmmakers and viewers declared the look of 24fps film more appealing for narrative work years ago.

If you think the only things that kept filmmakers from shooting on video instead of film was the smaller sensor, interlacing and dynamic range, you're sadly mistaken. If technical specs were the only thing holding video back from shooting films like The Godfather, When Harry Met Sally, Pulp Fiction or Harry Potter, the camera companies would've bowed to the demands of the industry and made bigger sensors and increased dynamic range long ago.

People don't flock to the Alexa, Epic or BMCC because they look more like video.

There's a reason why they didn't shoot The West Wing on video. They could've. HBO's The Wire, on 24fps film, is a gritty exposé of the problems besieging Baltimore. The Wire, on video, is Cops or 20/20.

Not liking HFR because you're a purist who thinks films should only be a certain thing is just as bad as liking it because you think it somehow means you're a forward thinker.

Preferring the look of 24fps doesn't necessarily mean you're stuck and can't embrace the future. It means, given the choice, you prefer what you think looks better.

Video doesn't actually look like reality (at least, it never has to me). It's what we associate with live, as-it-happens events due to how it's primarily been used since its inception. But, there's a huge distinction.

I didn't watch The Hobbit at 48fps and feel like I was actually there. Instead, it looked more like somebody sent a news crew to document the events in Middle Earth.

As several people pointed out, the darker scenes faired better and weren't as disengaging. However, those sweeping helicopter shots of mountain ranges and huge vistas lost the epic (pun intended) scope from the first three movies and instead made me feel like I was watching a travel video for New Zealand.

48fps addresses some of the inherit flaws of 24fps when it comes to motion. However, it does so (in its current state) at the expense of an aesthetic (24fps) that simply looks better to me.

I look at 48fps like wearing a terrycloth suit. You could do it and it would be different but that doesn't mean it will look better than wool gaberdine, if it looks good at all.

It's ironic, RED went through all this trouble to make their cameras a suitable replacement for film. Double the capture/playback rate and they're right back at having they're cameras look like video. Great looking video, but video nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
Brian Boyer said:
If video were going to replace film as the preferred choice for narrative storytelling, it would've done it by now. Why didn't it? Because people prefer the film aesthetic to the video aesthetic for the vast majority of projects. Video got its ass kicked.
Click to expand...
There will be no film stock manufactured in Five years so your point is moot.
Video doesn't actually look like reality (at least, it never has to me). It's what we associate with live, as-it-happens events ...
Click to expand...
Say what?
It's ironic, RED went through all this trouble to make their cameras a suitable replacement for film.
Click to expand...
I think Jim stated he wanted to make something that was better than what was available ....
 
I just saw the movie yesterday in 3d. Not sure if it is HFR 3d, as the lady behind the counter didn't know. Is there any other kind for this movie? It did require the REAL glasses.

First, my background. I read and loved the Hobbit and LoTR as a kid. Loved D&D and fantasy in general, so Hobbit holds a special place in my heart. This genre is niche enough, by the way, that some people just aren't going to like this movie for the type of genre it is.

i love the film look, 24fps. Hate trumotion and all the crap and always turn it off when I get a new tv. Also, I can't stand 3d. The only time I watch a movie in 3d is when I get to the theater and realize the movie I want to see is only playing in 3d at that time. The last time I liked 3d was Avatar. The time before that, some house of wax movie I saw as a kid. Such a crappy gimmick.

Thus, i was going into the screening expecting to absolutely hate this abomination.

Then it started and I loved every single second of it from the first moment. There was no transition time needed at all. I was worried about the beginning but the overblown first scene was clearly intended that way because that is a fantasy convention for flashbacks/reveries.

The characters all stood out from the background, but for this particular genre I thought it was the perfect effect. To me it didn't seem realistic at all, it seemed surreal. Everyone stood out from the background like a glowing Jesus. I loved it. And the 3d here I think was the best use of 3d I have ever seen. It actually sort of created an entire world. Definitely will support multiple viewings as you enjoy the 3d backgrounds. I mean, the perfect use of 3d for me was one particular shot of a Orc or goblin where you saw him at a 45 degree angle and you saw that he had an "Alien" creature type head. It really made be feel like I was in the middle earth that I had imagined as a kid.

Best of all was the acting of the leads and the meticulous job PJ did in translating the novel to the screen, nearly word for word. I liked this much better than the LoTR actually, which did not entirely satisfy me. This was thoroughly enjoyable and I can't wait to show this movie to my kids some day.

That said, I would only want to see HFR 3d for these types of fantasy movies. I think HFR has its place. Just like 24fps. Even black and white has its place for film noir. These are all just tools for the visual canvas. They are to directors what commas and semicolons are to the writer.
 
Last edited:
George Butterfield said:
There will be no film stock manufactured in Five years so your point is moot.
Click to expand...

I don't make moot points.

We're talking about the LOOK of 24fps, which started with film and has been carried over with modern digital cinema cameras, not film stock per se.

I thought that was obvious when I wrote "the film aesthetic", "the look of 24fps" and from the general context of the post. Perhaps it wasn't.

I also mentioned the Alexa, Epic and BMCC which, as you probably know, are not film cameras.


Say what?
Click to expand...

Really? What you see in your everyday life looks like video to you? That's unfortunate.

To be clear, when I say video, I mean those programs that look like The Tonight Show, All in the Family, Jeopardy, Monday Night Football, Access Hollywood, Survivor, etc.

To me, light behaves differently and more pleasingly when captured on film at 24fps than it does when captured on video at 60i, and looks truer to what I see in my real-life surroundings.

Alexa, Epic, BMCC and the F65 closely resemble the 24fps film aesthetic (at 24fps) and therefore seem more natural looking to me.

Video lends a sense of immediacy but that's not the same thing as reality.



I think Jim stated he wanted to make something that was better than what was available ....
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what point you're making here but it was my understanding that "better than what was available" referred to the cameras at the time, which he felt were not suitable replacements for film because they didn't meet film's already established level of quality when scanned at 4K - adequate substitutes in some cases, but not an all out replacement.
 
Last edited:
Great post Brian!

I'm planning on seeing this film today in hfr 3d. I'm very curious to see it that way.

Is digital imax projected in 2k or 4k?
 
Brian, don't feed the troll.

Also, great article by LaForet. Now I will definitely see the 2D version, if as he says its a totally different film in terms of engagement, light and magic (no pun intended...)
 
António Fagundes said:
Brian, don't feed the troll.

Also, great article by LaForet. Now I will definitely see the 2D version, if as he says its a totally different film in terms of engagement, light and magic (no pun intended...)
Click to expand...

Thanks for your support but I wouldn't call George a troll.

He just tried to call me on my sh!t and I'm not having it. ;)
 
Nailed it!

Brian Boyer said:
Why the HFR debate is not really a debate at all.

I guess I don't understand why some people are calling the look of 48fps HFR a new aesthetic. If you've seen a television, you've seen high frame rates. Make no mistake, 60i is 60 discrete pictures per second, albeit with half the vertical resolution (interlacing isn't that relevant to this discussion).

Granted, we've not seen it at quite this frame rate, progressively, at this resolution but the image has far more in common with what we're used to calling video than it does to what we're used to calling film (at 24fps).

I saw The Hobbit in 3D at 48fps because that's how the director intended it to be exhibited.

I felt like I was watching a PBS show on a gigantic television, shot on the best looking ENG camera ever made. I really wanted to like the look (or, not mind it) but I didn't.

The answer for some is to simply get used to it. Why? Because it's becoming more prevalent due to the higher refresh rates on TVs? Should I also get used to bad storytelling? That seems to be pretty popular, too.

Others say we're too used to 24fps and need to be more open to change. Except, this isn't change. It's video for crying out loud.

Film and video are contemporaries. Motion picture film predates video (television) by a few years, but video has been around (publicly) for the last 60 years or so in the US.

If video were going to replace film as the preferred choice for narrative storytelling, it would've done it by now. Why didn't it? Because people prefer the film aesthetic to the video aesthetic for the vast majority of projects. Video got its ass kicked.

Which is why there's no debate. Filmmakers and viewers declared the look of 24fps film more appealing for narrative work years ago.

If you think the only things that kept filmmakers from shooting on video instead of film was the smaller sensor, interlacing and dynamic range, you're sadly mistaken. If technical specs were the only thing holding video back from shooting films like The Godfather, When Harry Met Sally, Pulp Fiction or Harry Potter, the camera companies would've bowed to the demands of the industry and made bigger sensors and increased dynamic range long ago.

People don't flock to the Alexa, Epic or BMCC because they look more like video.

There's a reason why they didn't shoot The West Wing on video. They could've. HBO's The Wire, on 24fps film, is a gritty exposé of the problems besieging Baltimore. The Wire, on video, is Cops or 20/20.

Not liking HFR because you're a purist who thinks films should only be a certain thing is just as bad as liking it because you think it somehow means you're a forward thinker.

Preferring the look of 24fps doesn't necessarily mean you're stuck and can't embrace the future. It means, given the choice, you prefer what you think looks better.

Video doesn't actually look like reality (at least, it never has to me). It's what we associate with live, as-it-happens events due to how it's primarily been used since its inception. But, there's a huge distinction.

I didn't watch The Hobbit at 48fps and feel like I was actually there. Instead, it looked more like somebody sent a news crew to document the events in Middle Earth.

As several people pointed out, the darker scenes faired better and weren't as disengaging. However, those sweeping helicopter shots of mountain ranges and huge vistas lost the epic (pun intended) scope from the first three movies and instead made me feel like I was watching a travel video for New Zealand.

48fps addresses some of the inherit flaws of 24fps when it comes to motion. However, it does so (in its current state) at the expense of an aesthetic (24fps) that simply looks better to me.

I look at 48fps like wearing a terrycloth suit. You could do it and it would be different but that doesn't mean it will look better than wool gaberdine, if it looks good at all.

It's ironic, RED went through all this trouble to make their cameras a suitable replacement for film. Double the capture/playback rate and they're right back at having they're cameras look like video. Great looking video, but video nonetheless.
Click to expand...
 
Brian Boyer said:
Why the HFR debate is not really a debate at all.

I guess I don't understand why some people are calling the look of 48fps HFR a new aesthetic. If you've seen a television, you've seen high frame rates. Make no mistake, 60i is 60 discrete pictures per second, albeit with half the vertical resolution (interlacing isn't that relevant to this discussion).

Granted, we've not seen it at quite this frame rate, progressively, at this resolution but the image has far more in common with what we're used to calling video than it does to what we're used to calling film (at 24fps).

I saw The Hobbit in 3D at 48fps because that's how the director intended it to be exhibited.

I felt like I was watching a PBS show on a gigantic television, shot on the best looking ENG camera ever made. I really wanted to like the look (or, not mind it) but I didn't.

The answer for some is to simply get used to it. Why? Because it's becoming more prevalent due to the higher refresh rates on TVs? Should I also get used to bad storytelling? That seems to be pretty popular, too.

Others say we're too used to 24fps and need to be more open to change. Except, this isn't change. It's video for crying out loud.

Film and video are contemporaries. Motion picture film predates video (television) by a few years, but video has been around (publicly) for the last 60 years or so in the US.

If video were going to replace film as the preferred choice for narrative storytelling, it would've done it by now. Why didn't it? Because people prefer the film aesthetic to the video aesthetic for the vast majority of projects. Video got its ass kicked.

Which is why there's no debate. Filmmakers and viewers declared the look of 24fps film more appealing for narrative work years ago.

If you think the only things that kept filmmakers from shooting on video instead of film was the smaller sensor, interlacing and dynamic range, you're sadly mistaken. If technical specs were the only thing holding video back from shooting films like The Godfather, When Harry Met Sally, Pulp Fiction or Harry Potter, the camera companies would've bowed to the demands of the industry and made bigger sensors and increased dynamic range long ago.

People don't flock to the Alexa, Epic or BMCC because they look more like video.

There's a reason why they didn't shoot The West Wing on video. They could've. HBO's The Wire, on 24fps film, is a gritty exposé of the problems besieging Baltimore. The Wire, on video, is Cops or 20/20.

Not liking HFR because you're a purist who thinks films should only be a certain thing is just as bad as liking it because you think it somehow means you're a forward thinker.

Preferring the look of 24fps doesn't necessarily mean you're stuck and can't embrace the future. It means, given the choice, you prefer what you think looks better.

Video doesn't actually look like reality (at least, it never has to me). It's what we associate with live, as-it-happens events due to how it's primarily been used since its inception. But, there's a huge distinction.

I didn't watch The Hobbit at 48fps and feel like I was actually there. Instead, it looked more like somebody sent a news crew to document the events in Middle Earth.

As several people pointed out, the darker scenes faired better and weren't as disengaging. However, those sweeping helicopter shots of mountain ranges and huge vistas lost the epic (pun intended) scope from the first three movies and instead made me feel like I was watching a travel video for New Zealand.

48fps addresses some of the inherit flaws of 24fps when it comes to motion. However, it does so (in its current state) at the expense of an aesthetic (24fps) that simply looks better to me.

I look at 48fps like wearing a terrycloth suit. You could do it and it would be different but that doesn't mean it will look better than wool gaberdine, if it looks good at all.

It's ironic, RED went through all this trouble to make their cameras a suitable replacement for film. Double the capture/playback rate and they're right back at having they're cameras look like video. Great looking video, but video nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Great post, Brian. Very well said.
 
Am I the only person here who sees this as a purely subjective experience that one either enjoys or doesn’t? Why does it have to “look like video”? That description in no way shape or form reflects the experience I had, but I mean if that’s how it felt to you then I’m not going to try and tell you that it didn’t look that way to you. People are different, who would have thought?

From my subjective point of view 48fps created a kind of hyper-surreality that brought the whole visual continuity of live action and computer generated imagery into the same uncanny valley. And I enjoyed that. But I wouldn’t describe it in terms of “filmic” or “videoesque”, "Better" or "Worse". It was just different.

I think it’s nice that the audience was given a choice. That rarely happens. You usually have to take these kinds of creative decisions or leave them (and by that I mean see the movie or not). That choice may have arisen more out of circumstance than anything else, but this was one time when you got to make it and at least you get to say you were there during the great experiment whether you liked it or not.
 
Leo Sardello said:
From my subjective point of view 48fps created a kind of hyper-surreality that brought the whole visual continuity of live action and computer generated imagery into the same uncanny valley. And I enjoyed that. But I wouldn’t describe it in terms of “filmic” or “videoesque”, "Better" or "Worse". It was just different.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not really getting the "video" references either. There are vague similarities, but the experience is very different I feel. I would love to see what a 48fps film looks like once the intricacies of the medium are better figured out because it's clear the same rules don't apply as far as wardrobe, lighting, set design and vfx goes. When you shoot at 48fps you can't use "movie magic" to make something that looks fake in real life, and I'm talking about physical things like props, make-up, sets, etc., appear real in the film.

I also can't help but wonder how all this looks at 4k...
 
Last edited:
Brandon J.F. said:
Yeah, I'm not really getting the "video" references either.
Click to expand...
I agree it's a little bit of a simplification to say it looks like video, it's more of an uncanny effect. It doesn't look like anything but 48fps. You have to see it for yourself. That said, it's not my cup of tea...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top