The Hobbit at 48fps...

[Sergio Perez]

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...

48fps is just 2 frames short from 50fps, which is the PAL TV (video) standard. As someone that was raised in a PAL country, 48 fps absolutely looks like "regular" 50fps motion, to me.

 

[Brian Boyer]

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.

Fair enough.

I can't speak for others but I assume everything anyone says about looks or taste, including me, is always subjective (unless you're bad-mouthing Trance, because that stuff is just horrible, end of story). I may speak definitively at times, but that's just my style.

I did make allowances for it not looking exactly like broadcast video when I wrote, "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)."

You may still disagree and that's fine. I wish I could see the film as you did.

I'm what you might call hyper-sensitive to the "video look" and I've posted recently about digital cinema cameras, even Alexa and Epic, having that look at 24fps in certain instances, mostly under artificial lighting conditions.

And like I stated before, the darker scenes were less objectionable to me, especially in the battle towards the end. Those scenes were ones that came closest to looking like something different to me.

Unfortunately, in a nearly 3 hour movie, about 2.5 hours of it were just too much for my "video aversion".

 

[Marc Berger]

Just saw it, 2K, (unfortunately 24 fps, so I can´t discuss about that subject), 3D...loved it. That´s for sure a movie made by a bunch of people loving to make movies! It shows a lot of love for the original story, a lot of love for the developing of the characters and sets, a lot of love and passion for the art and technical background of filmmaking. Great acting! EpicX is fulfilling at 100% its name. Great 3D.
All this discussions about 3D or not, at 24p or 48p or not are indeed very interesting and I get a lot of input from you all, but for me, the arriving of 4K in 2 D as the new standard in cinemas will be the big thing in the (hopefully) near future.
Thank you PJ and team for this wonderful and unexpected journey into a fantastic world of imagination and love!

 

[Leo Sardello]

I can't speak for others but I assume everything anyone says about looks or taste, including me, is always subjective (unless you're bad-mouthing Trance, because that stuff is just horrible, end of story). I may speak definitively at times, but that's just my style.

Yeah, sorry that wasn’t meant as a direct response to your posts- you certainly covered the subjectivity of it all, it was more of general statement on some of the turns the discussion has been taking. I could have worded it better. It was also a stab at trying to use terms outside of "film" and "video" to describe something I felt isn't accurately described by either and simplified too much by their use.

 

[paulherrin]

[yes, i'm back for a quick comment: get over it]

Brian, and everyone else loving what Laforet said which is exactly what Stu said which is exactly what somebody else said about what somebody else thought somebody else said... read my previous posts and feel free to critically respond.

I'm not going to say you have to embrace 48fps. Nobody knows what the future looks like, but if you want to be a part of it you may want to consider the possibilities. And while you're at it don't hold the rest of us back with anecdotes, nostalgia, and empty rhetoric. Continue making work at 24 frames and continue seeing it at 24 frames if it's magical for you. I'll still check it out in the way you want me to see it if it's solid storytelling. You're welcome to see what the rest of us are doing, but you don't have to come to our shows if it's just going to turn you into a bunch of complainers. Let's not forget that story is still the pinnacle of this medium. If you're not getting into the story, it may be bad form, but don't be afraid to look inside.

Best observation from Vincent:

"It seems that two trends are apparent: Younger people seem more receptive to the HFR. And people that went to the film without knowing about HFR seem to have reacted much more positively than people who went in there to specifically see the new HFR technique."

Again, see my previous posts and see if this observation doesn't exactly match my hypotheses, which is essentially: you're trying too hard to see.

oh, p.s. - just went and saw it again for the third time (which was my second time in HFR - unfortunately not IMAX, which was epic - and very fortunately not in 2D 24, which did not work for me cinematically, though i still enjoyed the characters and story just as much, just no magic from the moon or firelight or water or smoke)

 

[Ben Scott]

Just saw it. Absolutely no problem with the high frame rate. It was a different aesthetic but not necessarily a bad one. Hated the 3D though and in a 2hr49min it just induced headaches in everyone. The film itself, along with the extraneous 'slide down a mountain while debris drops around me' moments left a fair bit to be desired.

Gollum was great and there were a couple of great moments, but overall I was pretty disappointed. Also the IMAX Waterloo in London's seats are seriously uncomfortable after 2 and a bit hours.

 

[paulherrin]

Just saw it. Absolutely no problem with the high frame rate. It was a different aesthetic but not necessarily a bad one. Hated the 3D though and in a 2hr49min it just induced headaches in everyone. The film itself, along with the extraneous 'slide down a mountain while debris drops around me' moments left a fair bit to be desired.

Gollum was great and there were a couple of great moments, but overall I was pretty disappointed. Also the IMAX Waterloo in London's seats are seriously uncomfortable after 2 and a bit hours.

on the headache thing, make sure you're hydrated... just sayin. i got a headache in the 2d version cause i didn't drink any water!

 

[Marc Wielage]

Also... Peter was viewing in 48fps on set when filming/directing and also when they were cutting the film. I felt the pacing/directing of the film was way better in 48fps.

Correction: they cut the film at 24fps on Avid, and later conformed the 48fps files and viewed those. Technically, it was cut in 2D 24fps and then refined in 3D and 48fps.

Full story on editor Jabez Olssen's Avid workflow at this link:

http://www.postmagazine.com/Publica...012/December-1-2012/Edit-This-The-Hobbit.aspx

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Correction: they cut the film at 24fps on Avid, and later conformed the 48fps files and viewed those. Technically, it was cut in 2D 24fps and then refined in 3D and 48fps.

This comment could contain some clues...

 

[Scott Crawley]

Correction: they cut the film at 24fps on Avid, and later conformed the 48fps files and viewed those. Technically, it was cut in 2D 24fps and then refined in 3D and 48fps.

That is very interesting, so I have to ask for a reference. Is that a fact? Thanks.

 

[James T Mather]

Trailer converted into 48fps - I can't imagine it looks much different from this - just in stereo.

http://www.48fpsmovies.com/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_Trailer.mp4

 

[Brian Boyer]

[yes, i'm back for a quick comment: get over it]

Brian, and everyone else loving what Laforet said which is exactly what Stu said which is exactly what somebody else said about what somebody else thought somebody else said... read my previous posts and feel free to critically respond.

I'm not going to say you have to embrace 48fps. Nobody knows what the future looks like, but if you want to be a part of it you may want to consider the possibilities. And while you're at it don't hold the rest of us back with anecdotes, nostalgia, and empty rhetoric. Continue making work at 24 frames and continue seeing it at 24 frames if it's magical for you. I'll still check it out in the way you want me to see it if it's solid storytelling. You're welcome to see what the rest of us are doing, but you don't have to come to our shows if it's just going to turn you into a bunch of complainers. Let's not forget that story is still the pinnacle of this medium. If you're not getting into the story, it may be bad form, but don't be afraid to look inside.

Best observation from Vincent:

"It seems that two trends are apparent: Younger people seem more receptive to the HFR. And people that went to the film without knowing about HFR seem to have reacted much more positively than people who went in there to specifically see the new HFR technique."

Again, see my previous posts and see if this observation doesn't exactly match my hypotheses, which is essentially: you're trying too hard to see.

oh, p.s. - just went and saw it again for the third time (which was my second time in HFR - unfortunately not IMAX, which was epic - and very fortunately not in 2D 24, which did not work for me cinematically, though i still enjoyed the characters and story just as much, just no magic from the moon or firelight or water or smoke)

Dearest Paul,

Where to start? I read some of your earlier posts and got the impression, from your vigorous defense, that you dig the 48fps. Great. All that means to me is that you probably think some things look good that I think look terrible, and vice versa. But, I could've told you that before I read your posts. We probably don't like all of the same music, either.

I read LaForet's blog post after I posted my first comment in this thread. What I said in that post was something that I started to think about immediately after the movie was over and it has elements of things I've said in previous posts..

Hold you back? "I'll shows ya's!", said Paul, mightily shaking his fist.

That's how you feel six days after this movie was released? I had no idea I wielded so much power over you or the future of filmmaking.

Good for you, though. If you want your narrative work to look like The Amazing Race, knock yourself out. Don't let anyone crush your dreams.

Kidding aside, if 48fps looks like something new and wonderful to you, I think it's good you've been inspired and perhaps you'l be the one that makes the thing that changes my mind about it. Until then, the current incarnation of 48fps looks to me like a slight variation on a look we're all very familiar with and I never cared for in the first place (for narrative work, except for Tom Baker era Doctor Who episodes0.

As for trying too hard, what can I say? I'm an informed consumer. I knew what I was buying when I bought it, in the way PJ intended it to be consumed.

Having an open mind doesn't mean you have to like everything. It only means you have to be willing to try things. If you decide you don't like something, that's a valid conclusion.

I tried HFR and didn't like it this go 'round. I find it amusing that you formed a hypothesis around an outcome with such a simple explanation. Since we didn't like it, there must be some flaw in the way we processed it?

Stop trying to make it seem like you're plugged into some future the rest of us can't see because, from where I'm sitting, your future narrative work may end up looking strikingly similar to Celebrity Apprentice if you're not careful.

Alas, there's room for it all.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

...Hated the 3D though and in a 2hr49min it just induced headaches in everyone.... the IMAX Waterloo in London's ....

One of the problems with stereoscopic 3D in general is that it is only going to have good 3D on a designated screen size. If the depth budget and negative parallax were calculated for say 10m screen size, the film is going to look flat on a television screen and it is going to cause eyestrain on a 20m IMAX screen. It can't look good on all screen sizes.

Does anyone know what is the maximum negative and positive parallax in The Hobbit and how it varies?

 

[Häakon]

I'm what you might call hyper-sensitive to the "video look" and I've posted recently about digital cinema cameras, even Alexa and Epic, having that look at 24fps in certain instances, mostly under artificial lighting conditions.

That's because all of the cameras you've listed ARE video cameras.

24p video is just more aesthetically pleasing to a lot of us than 48p video for narrative, cinematic content.

Let's not forget that story is still the pinnacle of this medium. If you're not getting into the story, it may be bad form, but don't be afraid to look inside.

What's unique about "The Hobbit," however, is that among all of its different presentations it's actually the story that is the common denominator. Many people (myself included) found themselves having a really difficult time getting into it because of the off-putting and distracting framerate. I'm not proclaiming one version to be objectively "better" than the other (this all comes down to personal taste), but I find it quite revealing that the reception to the film (and its story) can be quite different based simply on the visual aesthetic alone.

Story is of course the foundation of any movie, but it isn't the thing that "trumps everything else" as many people like to declare. When acting or cinematography are so bad that they actually detract from the experience, the whole film suffers (even if the story is brilliant). The advent of 48p, then, is particularly relevant because if it is a constant distraction then its sheer presence weakens the film regardless of anything else. That's the case for me... I personally have no desire to watch cinematic content at 48p again. That sort of makes me sound like a luddite (and I'm not even that old), but I was one of the first to get onboard with RED when people laughed at digital acquisition as an alternative to film. I welcome change, especially when it comes in the form of technological advancement. But like Stu and Vincent and many others I don't feel that 48 frames is an "advancement" just because it's a higher number... we've seen high framerate video on our televisions for years. It's just a new approach to narrative filmmaking that by its nature killed a lot of the feeling that many of us really appreciate about 24p; that balance between fantasy and reality that only shows you just enough and allows you to get truly lost in the adventure on the screen. I get none of that from 48p.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Back to the point of editing timebase...

48 is kinda new to everyone...
And some of the issues mentioned both here and by journalists (like the "speedup" and overly sensitivity to jerky cameramoves) wouldn't become obvious before conform to 48.
Because (just guessing here) "it wasn't really an issue in 24".

I can still after this, imagine places for 48, but wouldn't it be a good idea to edit in 48, when the whole visual experience is unknown to most cinematic men and women?

Then it could also be easier to decide which sequences to leave at 24, and which to playback in 48?

Just trying to think a bit constructively around all this...

That a few of the oldies here (like myself) who really dug the possibility of shooting 24 PsF ovr i60 on the DVX-100, and bought still lense adaptors to go with it to get the "35 look", have issues with HFR, is not too unexpected...

 

[Karl H]

People are saying 'you have to see this, 48fps is something you've never seen before' and '...don't knock it until you've seen it'.

Here's a trick. Set your Epic or Scarlet to 48fps timebase. Record some footage. Now push 'play'. There, you've seen it. Did you like it? Great.

But you want to experience it on a big screen? Ok. Sit closer to your monitor.

You don't have to pay me for the $'s I just saved you for experiencing this new never before seen medium.

Don't have an Epic or Scarlet? Get a VHS copy of Eastenders, Coronation street, Neighbours or Home and Away from the late 80's instead, and see this new frame rate in all its glory! (then imagine it with more resolution, latitude, and a bearded bloke with a staff)


On a more serious discussion of the topic, I think the distinct technologies and their effect on the Hobbit are getting blurred by reviewers. I'm reading reports of HFR being responsible for seeing Gandalf's contact lenses and being distracted by things happening in the background. Now while 48fps has some bearing on this, bigger factors are that PJ has probably chosen to shoot a lot of deep DOF in this movie due to this being his first 3D pic. Shallow DOF does not work well in 3D, so wider lenses, and more in focus than the last 3 films. Perhaps that's more distracting to see the whole environment in sharp clarity. Being able to see Gandalf's contact lenses has more to do with resolution than HFR. I watched the first LOTR from a film print (which Im told only yield around 750 lines of resolution), now we have 5K Epics producing super sharp down sampled images projected digitally, which expose every part of the set. 48fps will make a difference, but with great resolution comes great responsibility. The set looks like a set because of deep focus and tons of resolution.

David Lynch once said 'The murkier the film, the more room to dream'. We're moving so far away from that with increases in resolution, frame rates, 3D. But of course decisions the director takes over lenses, lighting, framing, really dictate what the audience can and can't see. Do you really want that line between imagination and reality completely stripped away? I guess that depends on what film you're trying to make. But some of the criticism leveled at The Hobbit is a combination of everything digital, not just HFR alone.

 

[paulherrin]

thanks guys, good points. i absolutely think that you have to use variable framerates to follow the narrative action. higher framerates should be for heightened awareness moments. in real life, when crazy stuff starts happening, i guarantee you will go into a heightened state (don't try this at home). gunleik is absolutely right, you also have to monitor/playback at 48/3D all the way from set to post if this is ever going to work, but i really think it was silly to just slap it out at a constant framerate... but it still didn't bother me that much. although, the whole opening sequence, in medias res, should have been cut (this may be peter's tongue-in-cheek to the studio system, i hope?). when i own it, i'll be pressing the 'next' button to start right where the book starts when gandalf shows up. i'm doing some personal testing and research on this stuff. if it's not the way to go i won't be doing it outside experimentation, but i'm certainly not going to let a bunch of hubbub from the critics stop me from trying. i'll post everything i can. one of the first thing's i'd like to try is using variable time-bases within the same shot - for example, only the fire at 48... could be weird, could be awesome, but it will be something i've never seen before.

and just to be clear, i'm not saying it's your (whoever you are) fault that you didn't like the 48 framerate, i'm simply suggesting that if you had a strong reaction against it, your brain has some aversion to it on a neurological level and/or you're in over-analysis mode. it's totally okay not to like it, however there are quite a few people who say they want to like it, but could not. so if you really want to, at least look at my suggestions and prove me right or wrong to yourself. i do believe it's possible to let your brain get accustomed to it, although as i mentioned, i think framerate needs to have creative/immersive function on a frame by frame, or at least shot by shot or sequence level.

i also just want to say that they really pushed out the vfx. some of them were mediocre. which is not a good representation of what weta can do. some effects shots were spectacular. gollum's performance is the best facial animation based on mocap i've ever seen, based on really solid acting, he really let it loose - and luckily they put enough time into that scene and it looks awesome. i'm sure you guys know what it's like to be on an intense set for a week or a month or a few - imagine that, except for a year or three staring into the abyss. i wish they would relax those schedules where post houses have the time they need (within reason) to make uncompromisingly beautiful work. i could have waited another month...

 

[Scott Crawley]

Until then, the current incarnation of 48fps looks to me like a slight variation on a look we're all very familiar with and I never cared for in the first place (for narrative work, except for Tom Baker era Doctor Who episodes

I suppose you were being cheeky when you made that remark, but I also assume then that it contains some truth as far as you see it. I don't disagree with any of your articulate and well considered remarks, but in the spirit of understanding the phenomena; if you or anyone else is more accepting of the frame rate for Dr. Who than other material, why is that? If the primary argument is that 48 lacks the surreal feeling preferred for a dream-like fiction why would Dr. Who stand out as more acceptable than any other?

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

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.

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.

Shanon, your post was pretty balanced, so I don't mean this disrespectful, but in the first sentence you said you didn't even know if you were watching 48fps 3D or 24fps 3D, and then later you said you would never want to see anything but 48fps 3D. But you aren't even sure what you saw... ?

Trailer converted into 48fps - I can't imagine it looks much different from this - just in stereo.

http://www.48fpsmovies.com/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_Trailer.mp4

Quick look, but some shots indeed reminded me of how it looked.

Having an open mind doesn't mean you have to like everything. It only means you have to be willing to try things. If you decide you don't like something, that's a valid conclusion.

Great quote.

 

[António Fagundes]

Paul with all due respect you have to stop acting like you know something we don't! You like hfr, and that's wonderful, you could be Jim's best friend now. What you can't do is assume that you're a lonely and misunderstood genius, that has the ability to know exactly what the future of film making holds, trying to make his case to a bunch of old imbeciles...

That's not only insulting and delusional, but also a slander to everyone else trying to understand what Peter Jackson did. What we don't do is accept something because a camera manufacturer says its good or because a big blockbuster did it, we (I) accept things based on my taste, my experience and my knowledge, because those are the only things I can really trust, but something tells me you don't know what I'm talking about, yet...

Let me tel you something, I'm all for hfr, but The Hobbit its the text book on how NOT to do hfr! So, until I see a film comes that manages to kick my balls with hfr, I will not care much for it! It is a BBC drama, nothing new, nothing good.

Its also funny how on such an extensive analysis from LaForet, you had to pick the one comment that was most fitted to defend your argument, rather a silly one I must say. I'm not only young, but I grew up on video games, consoles, internet, etc... I didn't grow up locked in an old dusty room with a film projector, if that's what you picture everyone else to be. But that didn't help one bit in favor of what I saw in The Hobbit. Also, its not the 'young' that get to call the shots on this, they haven't developed a good taste, everything is good in their book! Grow a little and you'll see how much more demanding you'll become...

So please carry on with your arguments without being judgemental and insulting to the other point of view, you can be harsh, but leave out the insults. You can't actually go through life like that, if someone doesn't agree with you, its not personal, its just the way the world turns...