The Hobbit at 48fps...

[António Fagundes]

of course. it will take at least a few months to conduct and present the research, so please be patient - or conduct your own, or get in contact with me.

antonio... 24 frames per second is less information, thus slower thinking/brainwaves than the higher/faster levels of 48. i don't think we need to be in this higher level the whole time, i just think we should have it as an option on the table. what we're talking about is not really 'film'. if you want to do film the way they've done films for a hundred years, do film. we're still figuring out what to call this. this is digital cinema or visual storytelling or video art or something - come up with a better name if you want. but whatever it is, it certainly offers higher spatial and temporal resolution. so if it's all about sticking to tradition and what works here, this medium will do so by learning from thousands of years of stage theatre as well as the more recent developments in cinematic language. it is not replacing traditional filmmaking, or theatre, it forges a new experience by way of integration and synthesis.

But to make this new cinematic experience comparable to TV broadcasting its hardly a revolution, isn't it? It's not taking the medium to new heights. Its just using a technical language used in television broadcasting for years. If that's a revolution, its a very low standard revolution.

You keep referring to tradition, but now its you that is missing the point. If for you this is all about tradition, then why follow a 50 year old TV broadcast tradition? Why not invent a whole new way of presenting movies, not seen anywhere? That's a revolution.

 

[Scott Crawley]

That's a good question. I started giving it some thought when I was contemplating the HFR of The Hobbit.

I don't know how familiar you are with Doctor Who from that era but the interior scenes were all shot on video and the exterior scenes (actual outdoor scenes) were all shot on film. As I recall, this was fairly common back in the day, at least with British shows.

From what I can remember, I preferred the look of the filmed shots to the videotaped ones and I recall wondering why they didn't just shoot the whole thing on film because it would look better.

For budgetary or logistical reasons, they probably had no choice. Maybe video cameras hadn't reached a realistically portable stage yet. Perhaps they knew the video image would fall apart outdoors and opted for the superior format in those shooting conditions. Maybe it was a bit of both.

The best answer I can give at the moment why I came to accept it and, dare I say, embrace it, is this: It looked like television...and here's the important part...on television. For the interior shots, it looked like the thing that it was. It's hard to argue with that.

What separates (maybe unfairly) Peter Jackson from the BBC in the case of Doctor Who is a) he obviously had a choice and b) he chose a method that comes dangerously close to looking like one of the cheesiest and most detested looks videos has ever produced - the drama shot on video - for one of the grandest and most cinematic movie franchises of our time; a sweeping vision that he established.

The way I, and many others, have used old BBC, PBS and State-run TV dramas shot on video as examples of how unappealing The Hobbit looked to us goes back to my original post and tells me that the video look (for dramas) was always something many people tolerated but never really liked, even at a very young age.

I think that aspect hasn't really been touched on. LaForet is 37. I'm 44. Stu is probably somewhere in those neighborhoods. I'm assuming we all grew up on television. By most accounts, we should have an affinity for the look of video.

How old could we have been when we saw our first video drama when they were popular? 6? 8? 10? Even as kids, we went about doing whatever it was kids did back then but looked at that picture, thought it looked horrible and filed it away under "what not to do when shooting drama."

I think it's a slightly more involved situation for some of us than merely saying we're too used to how film looks.

Give me the look of Shaft's Big Score any day over the look of the original Upstairs Downstairs. That's just the type of cat I am. Ya dig!

Ok. Thanks. So compared to The Hobbit or film drama vs. tv drama your thoughts are pretty clear, but allow me to take you further.

Please forgive me if I am being overly literal but you didn't just say Dr. Who, you specified Tom Baker's Dr. Who. Was Cushing's Dr. shot the same way or might he have been shot entirely on film? I think I heard it mentioned in the past, but I forget. If he was shot exclusively on film and the frame rate mattered so much, why then do you not prefer his Dr. over Baker? I know it is a stretch to answer that, because I too am partial to Baker's portrayal, but bear with me and try and answer to the best of your ability. Does it have a bearing? If one is indeed empirically better it should, no?

 

[Joe Carney]

like may others, I have to give a qualified thumbs down to HFR 3D based solely on this movie. But I do see incredible potential.
The movie looked best in the scenes that were primarily CG (both pure CG and green screen). Which means for animated features, HFR 3D could be the wave of the future.
I also think part of the problem is they never got the lighting right for some reason. It looked worse than a cheap soap opera, and I'm old enough to know really cheap looking video (saw Dark Shadows as a young kid). Modern soaps have very sophisticated lighting compared to just 10 years ago, maybe WETA should have taken some clues from them.
I can't say the video look took me out of the movie,in fact I chose to embrace it and simply enjoy it inspite of the short comings.I was more put off by the ghastly digital makeup on Cate Blanchett and the other major characters in Rivendell.

I'm going to go back and see a 2K 2d Digital version at my local movie house so I can compare the experience.

 

[Scott Crawley]

like may others, I have to give a qualified thumbs down to HFR 3D based solely on this movie. But I do see incredible potential.
The movie looked best in the scenes that were primarily CG. Which means for animated features, HFR 3D could be the wave of the future.
I also think part of the problem is they never got the lighting right for some reason.

Why do you suppose you are more accepting of the frame rate for artificials like CGI and other animations? Could it not be because we are simply far more accustomed to viewing animation in broadcast frequencies?

 

[Sergio Perez]

It looks like someone took the trailer that is online and ran it through twixtor to 48FPS. It will look poor because it's not the actual data recroded, just interpolated like TV sets do today.

Real 48FPS will look better.

Fairly close, unfortunately, from what I saw in the theatre...

 

[Joe Carney]

Why do you suppose you are more accepting of the frame rate for artificials like CGI and other animations? Could it not be because we are simply far more accustomed to viewing animation in broadcast frequencies?

No, it's because the cg characters seemed very much alive, vibrant and realistic compared to 24p. I would like to see animated 2d features at 48f.

 

[Ryan Farnes]

All I'm saying is I experienced 'magic' at a different framerate. Why is that so threatening?

That is not all you're saying. No one is taking the magic you experienced away from you, but of anyone on the thread, you appear to want to take rejection of HFR away from everyone else. To "open their minds."

Open your own. Hehe. Alright, let's get back to beating this horse. :blush:

:beatdeadhorse5:

 

[Sergio Perez]

How too can we assert that 48fps is wrong for live action, or wrong for fantasy, or fiction in general because it is too real, while claiming that it works best with subjects that are unreal? It makes real things less real, but it makes fake things more real... It seems to defy logic.

I think that in this case its about the craft of animation- seeing amazingly well animated characters which are themselves "fantasy", or computer created, gives us, the audience, a sense of wonder, and the better, the smoother the more impressive it becomes for us. Its about the craft of animation in itself, not on a purpose to look for photo realism, but to present the best animation possible... My subjective opinion, of course...

 

[Joe Carney]

How too can we assert that 48fps is wrong for live action, or wrong for fantasy, or fiction in general because it is too real, while claiming that it works best with subjects that are unreal? It makes real things less real, but it makes fake things more real... It seems to defy logic.

You can avoid the dreaded video sheen with CG. I think the industry will have to figure out new lighting schemes for 4K/48F.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I think that in this case its about the craft of animation- seeing amazingly well animated characters which are fantasy creates to us the audience, a sense of wonder. The smoother the better. Its about the craft of animation in itself, not on a purpose to look for photo realism, but to present the best animation possible... My subjective opinion, of course...

hmmm yes, but that is why it was supposed to work for live action in 3D, yet it is rejected. I haven't gotten my head around this whole thing, and helpful, thorough and cohesive arguments are few and far between.

I couldn't see the HFR, and it will be an effort for me at this point to do so. I'm just not finding the motivation to make that effort now.

 

[paulherrin]

Let me tell you a story...

Let me tell you a story...

I saw the MGM logo swipe across the screen. In that moment all my fears about the high framerate experience dominated my attention and were being made manifest on the screen before me. This looks like really bad animation, or something. But I've seen some terrible production logos, so let's just see the movie. Wait, what's wrong with Bilbo? He looks all sped up and this does look like a soap! The lighting is really not working. He starts reading... oh no, three hours of this? Well alright, that shot flying over the city was kinda cool, maybe I can just get wrapped up in the visuals, after all Jackson really leans towards the visual end of the spectrum. But there's some really bad effects shots here, especially for weta! That glowing stone looks kinda cool down in the mine, though. But these camera moves are super weird... What is up with Frodo and Bilbo, why am I even watching this? It feels like a made-for-tv movie...


And then it happened, Martin Freeman (Bilbo) lit his pipe and Gandalf showed up, and the movie started. I realized there were actors and props and visual effects and cameras, and by realizing that I realized they were all just props for the cinematic experience and the suspension of disbelief was of my own will. So through that awakening I was able to relax: to simply listen to the storytelling, to see the play. Every once in awhile my brain reminded me that this was 'different', but it also reminded me that in calling attention to that 'differentness' I was missing the differentness itself, so I was able to let it go with more and more ease. This was ultimately clarified when Gandalf says, "You've been sitting and thinking for far too long!"


Somewhere between the dwarves initiatory song and flying on the wings of eagles, I went on an unexpected journey and felt the magic, though it really had less to do with a certain framerate as it did an experience. Like Bilbo, I had decided to leave the comfort of the Shire and go on an adventure. I had a dream once where I was flying: it was the most real thing I've ever felt, at least in a dream. And by real I mean something much more vast than our observable universe. So it was that when I saw with the vision of the eagles, something inside me understood the magical realism of Middle Earth.

 

[paulherrin]

So, what?

So, what?

In Walter Ong's landmark 1982 book, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, he points out the manner in which writing restructures consciousness. The alphabet is a technology that has led us into the abstract realm of hyper-analysis that exists only in the fact that it is completely removed from physical reality - which essentially disconnects us - and our minds - from it. So, I was reading the Hobbit last night - sometimes fast, sometimes slow. I'd say at times I was reading 24 words per minute, other times 48 or maybe even 120 or 12. Whichever speed the information was entering my brain depended mostly on the action of the narrative and the pace of the author's writing, as well as my immediately individualized interaction with the unchanging text. Now, literature is no longer the dominant form of mass communication. Don't get me wrong, I read a lot and love to, but the fact is that hundreds of years of electronic advancements have brought us many different experiences of sight and sound which have become the dominant form of information technology in our culture. We are now moving as a post-literate society, or in other words, experiencing secondary orality. The immediacy and immanence of traditional oral storytelling and the abstract reflectiveness of literature have been undergoing constant synthesization alongside digital media advancements. This is already happening, it's not just theory. It started when writing hit the scene. Plays do not exist without writing, nor do they exist without traditional storytelling performance. By returning to the roots of the theatrical experience, cinema is approaching something at once very old and yet very much it's own, new thing. The roots of this all is in traditionally spoken (and sung) storytelling of various times and places. The art and craft of story does (and should not) sit secondary to, but rather informs and develops alongside the technological advances that adjust our experience of it. So what we have now is like television, and it is like a play, and it is like a film - but it is only ever like those things. It uses the film (and television) language combined with theatrical language to make a new, and here's the key word (don't miss this) - developing - language. The old languages will still be around, just as greek and latin are still preserved, but there is a new one.


I keep hearing this "It just doesn't look like what I'm used to looking at and calling 'cinema'"... Now, when I started getting somewhat serious about video editing in high-school, I started talking (or at least listening, through reading) to folks on the internet. Ever since then I've been hearing about what's called 'film look'. This is where we take a step back for a timely realization. We're not shooting on film. That kind of video is nothing more than a wanna-be and will never be anything other than artificial nostalgia. I'm not saying don't do it if that's what you're into, I'm saying recognize it for what it is and act accordingly. The future of digital cinema is not in trying to cover itself up, but in being what it always has been.


But there are some still sticking to their guns, saying that 'filmmaking' is just as much about what is not shown as what is. And I think they're absolutely spot on - think yin and yang. But when we start sliding out of balance into the negative viewpoint, so as to say that it is more important to not see, or occlude, we must be way off. After all, light is the essential element to film or digital movie-making, and it is only because we have light that we can understand the darkness. Without light there is only darkness, which is not anything. Now, looking into the darkness can be interesting, as Rothko's paintings have taught. Likewise, seeing pure light can be interesting, as James Turrell's installations have taught. However, I believe that the relationship of light and darkness, on a conceptual, metaphysical, and artistic level is essential to the visual art of storytelling. The italian renaissance artists had this word 'chiaroscuro' to describe this. [I encourage you to look into these things yourself more deeply, as they are intensely thought-provoking. I can not in words say what this 'fully' means, you have to see it (in the artists original form, mind you).] Chiaroscuro, literally, means light-dark. From these terms we get our words for clear and obscure. So just in the language itself we see this idea of revealing things transparently in light and obscuring or covering things in shadow. This balance has defined the manner in which cinematographers tell stories and is a crucial artistic concept for us to ponder.


It is for these reasons that I do not believe shallow-depth of field (or deep focus) and film grain (or noise) and 24 frames per second (or 48) and 2D/2K (or 3D/4K) are essential elements to the so-called 'magic' of visual storytelling. Neither are cameras.


As far as this developing format is concerned, we're still learning what works and what does not. There is still years of experimentation ahead. Some people will like the medium and others will prefer another - that's fine. It may be that variable framerate is key, it may be something else. Whatever it is, it will change and adapt as we learn the language as a community. Eventually, certain methods will win out, but it is in the relationship of the two that they are defined (kind of like chiaroscuro). I recommend a balanced approach we do not want to Romanticize the past nor blindly charge into the Future, but simply appreciate and accept the complexities and simplicities of the present moment's movement.


There are many correlations to be observed in audience response. These are not rules or law, just trends that myself and others have been observing. Those that analyzed the technology throughout the entire film did not have a pleasant experience. Those that do not like digital video and/or 3D tend to not like HFR. Those that are open to the idea tend to have at least appreciated the attempt, and many have had an enjoyable experience of the technology, at least by the end of the movie. All of this points to theories of neuroplasticity, "changes in neural pathways and synapses which are due to changes in behavior, environment and neural processes... replac[ing] the formerly-held position that the brain is a physiologically static organ, and explores how - and in which ways - the brain changes throughout life." While you can sit in front of HFR content for a year without stop and your brain will rewire itself and you will become used to it, that doesn't mean you will like it. I've never liked broccoli, and I've never wanted to, and possibly, primarily because I've never wanted to. Whether we love it or hate it is ultimately defined by consciously and unconsciously held thoughts and beliefs, which aid in the manner in which our brain is constantly re-calibrating. I'm open to other interpretations and other ideas. That's just what I think all the evidence points to as the main reason we're having difficulty here. The only alternative I've heard is that 24 is a magical number and 'I like it, because it looks like everything else'. As if that somehow makes it an objective statement. If I have repeated myself here, it is because I believe what I say and have thought it through. Please respond critically, and kindly. I am not unbiased, neither am I afraid of my opinion or the necessity of that opinion to one day be absolutely wrong. We are afraid of change. We want to stay in our comfortable little holes and read books. Meanwhile, there is a whole world outside waiting for us to go on an adventure. It's a dangerous road full of death and failure. Then again, so is the Hobbit-Hole. But at the end of the road is something you've never seen or experienced ever before.


"And if you do come back, you will not be the same." (Gandalf, 2012)

 

[Scott Crawley]

People keep saying the lighting was bad yet it, like LOTR was shot by the same guy. The lighting in The Hobbit is no worse than it was in LOTR, and people loved those films. You all who are claiming that the lighting was flawed, inferior or amateur need to see it in 24.

 

[paulherrin]

People keep saying the lighting was bad yet it, like LOTR was shot by the same guy. The lighting in The Hobbit is no worse than it was in LOTR, and people loved those films. You all who are claiming that the lighting was flawed, inferior or amateur need to see it in 24.

scott, i do actually think the lighting at the beginning was not so good (for 3D/48). loved the rest. read my previous two posts (if you didn't just already) and see what you think. the second you've probably already heard a lot of, but it may still be instructive - i think you'll enjoy the first part, however.

 

[Josh Snyder]

You can avoid the dreaded video sheen with CG. I think the industry will have to figure out new lighting schemes for 4K/48F.

And then have crappy lighting for 2D 24p version of the movie?

 

[Scott Crawley]

scott, i do actually think the lighting at the beginning was not so good (for 3D/48). loved the rest. read my previous two posts and see what you think. the second you've probably already heard a lot of, but it may still be instructive - i think you'll enjoy the first part, however.

I will do that, but the fact that so many viewers @48 are claiming that so many disparate elements were bad while nearly nobody who viewed @24 are making the same observations suggests to me that a lot of critics @48 have their heads up their asses.

edit: either that or they just whine louder. ;-)

 

[Joe Carney]

I think that in this case its about the craft of animation- seeing amazingly well animated characters which are themselves "fantasy", or computer created, gives us, the audience, a sense of wonder, and the better, the smoother the more impressive it becomes for us. Its about the craft of animation in itself, not on a purpose to look for photo realism, but to present the best animation possible... My subjective opinion, of course...

Exactly, the concept and application of "realism" for animated characters is different than realism for live action.

 

[Joe Carney]

And then have crappy lighting for 2D 24p version of the movie?

I don't think I or anyone else has an answer to that question at this time.

 

[António Fagundes]

Here's one thing you should know about art, if you can rationalize it, if you can easily express it with words, its probably poor! Art is what happens when you let your unconscious mind do the work, the moment you try to nail it, you're making it less interesting. We all know that is so much better when we can't fully understand the emotional power of a film, a book or a song. We just feel it, completely vulnerable to where this emotion takes us. And this is where a personal vision comes, its when an artist is capable of navigating through the secret oceans of unconscious desires and bringing to life what he hopes to have found and then showing it to the world, so than we can all experience what we know makes us human but was buried deep inside our psyches.

You should read Harold Bloom's The Invention of The Human. And this is probably why most people can't define in words what makes 24p so special to them. Why do you like 50p? Because its suppose to be be part of the evolution of things? That's hardly a good answer. Or because it makes everything so hyper realistic that you feel you're right there in middle earth? So why hasn't that worked for everybody? Is it that just like you don't want to like broccoli, you wanted to like 50p? None of these reasons are from the heart, you're trying to second guess yourself, trying to meet someone else's standards.

Ever wondered that the user world media is craving exactly the opposite of what The Hobbit proposes? Ever you stopped and think a little why such things as Lomo, Instagram or Hipstamatic or all the other super popular photo tools are in such demand? Instead of super sharp photographic images? Doesn't it tell you that people, without even knowing why or caring to know why, prefer to look at an image that has 'soul' instead of sharpness or reality? Humans crave for stories, for emotional responses, for anything that makes their left side of the brain wonder round. 'Reality' is what they have naturally. But the adventure you so love to mention is what people want. You don't have to tell us that we need to take on that adventure, we go there anyway, that's what we humans do, its in our genes. The problem is that the majority still sees a much more exciting adventure in the way movies are made now, then the way a couple of folks are trying to make them. On the other hand, people love to be surprised, people love novelty, but only fall in love with it, if it promises and gives them an adventure they never had before. And with hfr, people always go back to the 'I've seen this before, its TV!'

Is that so hard to understand?

 

[Scott Crawley]

Ever wondered that the user world media is craving exactly the opposite of what The Hobbit proposes?

Not really. I just figured it was for the same reasons everybody wanted shallow DOF and now everyone wants slow mo. It was because it was unattainable for so long. It was because shooting a "film" is the holy grail and so emulating it in every way possible became obsession without regard for what is actually best. (I'm not saying that 48fps is best at this point, so try not to have a cow.)

The grass is always greener on the other side of the street. That's why.