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...

Al Lougher said:
In my surrounding cities it was quite the opposite. If you asked for 3D you got HFR, and you had to specifically ask for non HFR 3D to get 24fps 3D, and even saying that all but one theater were showing 3D HFR only, including Imax.
Click to expand...

Possibly due to the higher ticket prices for HFR? Just speculating.
 
Your point is well made. I was overlooking Bill's mention of motion, and focusing upon DOF and lighting.

James T Mather said:
I suspect what Bill may be referring to is the TV style coverage that so many recent films embrace (wide shots on wide lenses, now swing a long lens from the same position to get the close ups - usually for expediency) doesn't really fare enormously well with overly deep DoF. Citizen Kane is a very carefully blocked and art directed piece of work and Messrs Toland and Welles managed to utilize all the screen space very meticulously.

This is not a low budget approach as much time is spent dressing and blocking to camera - as well as managing actors positions to the degree that the shoot becomes somewhat camera-centric (which some actors may feel constrained by and unwilling to assist). In short - deep DoF is harder work for all concerned and requires a larger commitment from all departments. Further, since jumping up each stop requires a doubling of the light levels - even getting a stop of 8 or more requires a much bigger financial commitment in terms of lighting package used.

I know this because a few years back we shot an entire sound stage job on the Frazier lens system which frequently required lighting sets up to around an average of f16 (and occasionally higher) and all at 50fps. We had to roll the camera, wait for it to hit speed and then ask the actor to sit in - by the end of the (not unduly long) take his hair had started to smoke from the 2 Cinepar HMI's narrow-beamed onto his head as a window backlight. Not easy for anyone and the lighting bill for the three day shoot looked like a zip code.
Click to expand...
 
That's fair enough.

Deep DoF can be lovely though. I'd be less inclined towards it on digital personally at the moment as I feel we have enough to do to de-digitalise the image from current cameras. This is my personal taste rather than any kind of rule however.
 
At our cinema the ticket person only had a vague idea of which show was which, and the ticket taker had no idea. I used Flixter to buy my tickets and it seemed misleading. I ended up getting 2D 24 when I thought I was buying 3D 48. I thought I was getting a deal because it was a matinee. I was mistaken. To their credit, the Rave was very good about refunding my tickets and getting me into another screening. The problem was that they had no early HFR matinee, so I had to see 24fps or come back much later in the afternoon.

Al Lougher said:
In my surrounding cities it was quite the opposite. If you asked for 3D you got HFR, and you had to specifically ask for non HFR 3D to get 24fps 3D, and even saying that all but one theater were showing 3D HFR only, including Imax.
Click to expand...
 
Gunleik Groven said:
And, I wonder if the combo ofhfr, and extremely deep dof, might be a bit distracting, even though it sounds like the obvious thing for 3d. But from the sound of it, it could together add "too much" of the desired effect.

The lastquestion, methinks, is more of an artistic/esthetic question.

Is "real" really desireable? And if so, in which contexts.

More in the line of, when to use whicheffect.

At capture "too much" is allways good.

At display?

There isn't a finite answer to that. But it is a question to think really hard on on a per production base, methinks.
Click to expand...

Is real desirable? To a certain extent and in most cases I think yes, it is... But as you say it depends. Suspension of disbelief is entirely voluntary. If what we are presenting to the audience strays too far from what they know as real, then it is likely to be perceived as too fake, or in other words, too unreal and folks will refuse to go along. Even in a fantasy world we expect a certain level of reality. For instance it would have to be a fantastic world indeed for the laws of physics not to apply at all. The angle of incidence still must equal the angle of reflection in most cases. If your 3D exagerates the depth of a scene and obfuscates the location of real light sources, therefore making your lighting appear unmotivated, then you run the risk of breaking the illusion. If you create very unreal light in a format that leads the audience to expect a heightened reality as HFR supposedly does, then you may have the perfect storm.

Part of what Tolkien is lauded for is the level of relatable detail in his fantasy. IE he was meticulous about using elements of known language when creating his own, and did create complete languages and cultures for his characters. It grounded them in reality that makes them feel more like history than fantasy. I would therefore argue that Tolkein's brand of fantasy in particular demands much more realism than most others, so in this case it feels like sound reasoning to go with a frame rate that we would identify as "real".
 
Last edited:
Tobias Ashenheim said:
totally, it looked nothing like what i see with my eyes.. maybe im going blind.. but whats realistic about a crane shot or a cut to a closeup? thats not how i see the world.. im not sure i buy into cinema as a "realistic" experience.
Click to expand...

:-) I appreciate the distinction: "realistic" rather than real. That is ultimately the point I was trying to make. By blurring the line between what is real and what is not cinema is able to stimulate our imaginations and create opportunities for us to be transported to another world. Is it a fine line that we dance upon or not? How badly must you fuck up before the audience abandons you? Are the Bag End scenes deeply flawed or does the 48fps version create the perfect storm?
 
Scott Crawley said:
Rewatch Citizen Kane and get back to me. It was renowned for it's deep focus. Do you think that film lacks dimension?

How about Kurosawa? Do his films lack dimension?

I do think you are on the right track though. Some of the issues people are having may be related to dimension while others are related to the frame rate and I believe that many are confusing the two.

If the lighting is not working, or looks too fake it is most likely related to dimension. Characterizations of sitcom like or soap opera like are more likely related to the frame rate me thinks.
Click to expand...

Scott, Citizen Kane does not lack dimension, and that is exactly my point: it was shot on film @ 24fps. No amount of depth of field is going to change that look. Why is that (apart form the obvious craft)? As stated, I see HFR as being a combination of things that promote the "dreaded video" look. It's clearly not just depth of field, but when you add deep depth of field to such high resolution and high frame rates, it seems to me that these things might just promote or exacerbate the "issue". Again, the "look" derives from a combination of things that promote subject matter of unprecedented resolution to appear as if it were all on the same plane, thus undermining the careful modelling of lights and sets and things that are painstakingly created to promote the illusion of depth. This detracting value is even more obvious when motion and its relationship with near and far dynamics come into play.
 
I hate to admit this but just tried to see "The Hobbit" in 48fps 3D, 10 min in almost felt like I was going to have a seizure and my wife got motion sickness. I thought it would be like the interpolation that my TV has but it is a completely different beast altogether, first movie in history that I walk out of. High frame rate is not for everyone, not only does it look too real but everybody looks like there in fast-forward Benny Hill style with a dash of soap opera effect added with 3D. Sorry Peter Jackson I tried I really wanted to like it....
 
Opinions seem to be quite split down the middle here, people either hated it or loved it.

But I do have to question, and without getting personal on anyone. How are some of the people here being influenced by Jim's plugging so enthusiastically on HFR. On this post he did say; 'keep an open mind' but then he also said that he 'had converted', so that's not really an 'open mind' suggestion anymore... he's basically saying, if you don't love it, you don't have an open mind... you're a square... :)

It's a good thing I don't take all my cues off Jim either.

But that's what I personally did anyway, I didn't want to hate it and I didn't want to like it, like Jim said, I went with an 'open mind', although a lot of shit was rolling down the net on HFR already, I personally didn't get influenced by that, as I don't make decisions until I see it for myself. Now, how many people here actually went there biased on loving it no matter what, just so they could be on Jim's and PJ wavelength, I don't know... Because there's a lot of that on this forum. It's no secret. And that doesn't make it easy when trying to understand the honest opinion from everyone.

By the way, Happy Christmas everyone!
 
António Fagundes said:
Opinions seem to be quite split down the middle here, people either hated it or loved it.

But I do have to question, and without getting personal on anyone. How are some of the people here being influenced by Jim's plugging so enthusiastically on HFR. On this post he did say; 'keep an open mind' but then he also said that he 'had converted', so that's not really an 'open mind' suggestion anymore... he's basically saying, if you don't love it, you don't have an open mind... you're a square... :)

It's a good thing I don't take all my cues off Jim either.

But that's what I personally did anyway, I didn't want to hate it and I didn't want to like it, like Jim said, I went with an 'open mind', although a lot of shit was rolling down the net on HFR already, I personally didn't get influenced by that, as I don't make decisions until I see it for myself. Now, how many people here actually went there biased on loving it no matter what, just so they could be on Jim's and PJ wavelength, I don't know... Because there's a lot of that on this forum. It's no secret. And that doesn't make it easy when trying to understand the honest opinion from everyone.

By the way, Happy Christmas everyone!
Click to expand...

I can't think of an easier exercise than to go see a movie with an open mind. No matter what the movie and its means of execution. It's a movie after all, not the Nuremberg trials. If there is one thing this century has already taught us, it is that we are eager to embrace new technology and new paradigms. Perhaps too eager. I think the general opinions here are honest enough. And discussing the methodology and technology behind HFR shouldn't be seen as an attempt to excuse, damn, or promote it. We must surely be on the cusp of many radical and experimental approaches, deviations from film tradition. So we'd better get used to it, and learn how to talk about these alternatives to the norm.
 
I'm sorry but that's such an easy argument. Every time someone says this 'its the future', is that suppose to be a conversation stopper? Is that supposed to be automatically good?

Lars Von Trier years ago shot an entire movie on mini dv with available light. It looked like shit! But if he was PJ, James Cameron or anyone of that company and said that was the future, would it be automatically good, would I be forced to find reasons to like it? Hell no!

He also invented the Dogme 95 manifesto. Where is it now? Countless film makers have done experiments much more braver and sophisticated than shooting a movie at 48f. Why is it all the sudden that this is considered the ways movies should be shot? What is so damn special, technological and game changing about a movie at 48f? I really fail to see. Its something we all seen for years on our TV sets! how can anyone claim that to be the future? How presumptuous!

Also, I don't have to get used to anything. I'm part of this generation, I live in change! Don't presume that only you and a few other people 'know' about change! Its condescending! What I am not is a headless chicken that follows whatever's making more noise. Real change is happening in a lot of other films and no one cares to talk about those. Deviation from tradition needs a lot more brain and sophistication than just shooting a film at 48f and calling it The Future!
 
But this IS a part of the future, for better or worse. No one is saying it is all "automatically good". It is what it is. I really don't know where you are getting your ideas from when it comes to the readings of these posts. Go and watch Ulysses Gaze or the Turin Horse, calm down and get back to us with names and enlightening examples of those groundbreaking auteurs you hold in such high regard, but try and keep it all within the context of what is being discussed here: the merits of high frame rate as employed by a mainstream movie, and any implications that might hold for same. And HFR is not an old approach, as you would have us believe, even though it happens to hint at qualities exhibited by old/tv/ interlaced video. While you're coming up with a list of radicals, add an example or two of HFR usage in film, so that we might compare it to the Hobbit's.
 
I'd also like to add that Von Trier's dogme movies looked the way they were intended to. And Von Trier has shown just how capable he is of mastering many looks, from the sublime to the understated to the downright doesn't give a damn. Call it shit if it makes you feel better though.
 
James T Mather said:
This is incorrect: 60i is not the same as 30fps - It depends on the mechanism of the capture device - if the camera is recording in temporally distinct fields then it is sending an image to your eye 60 temporal divisions per second - ie:60i. In this respect Aaron is more accurate. 48hfr is closer in visual nature to 60i than 24p progressive capture is in terms of temporal resolution. In short, it creates what is often referred to as part of "the video look" synonymous with digibeta and early 80's Blondie videos. I agree with Aaron - this is the video look which has been bypassed for years as a serious option for dramatic capture. Why? Because it looks shit. HFR in my opinion looks pretty much exactly like mid eighties The bold and the Beautiful to me. Other opinions may differ and they are welcome to it.
Click to expand...

This may be the case, but nothing on TV NOW looks like this. I edit every single day in 60i, and nothing and I mean NOTHING looks like 48fps. I guess because our source footage is originally shot in 24fps or 30fps. If you are comparing 48fps to 60i captured source footage from the 80's (the hey day of the "video" look), then fine. But...to suggest in any way that The Hobbit looks like anything currently being broadcast on tv now, or even over the past 10 years, would be in accurate.

I've been working in cable...in an edit room...for over 10 years, I've seen every possible kind of footage known to man, and I have never, ever ever seen anything like HFR before...

Side note...I need to see some of those old Blondie videos...
 
well I was one of the biggest skeptics, was positive I'd hate it as I'm typically more of an elitist/snob/classicist. But I saw it in imax/3d/HFR and loved it. It could very well be the future just not that it'll necessarily replace 24fps but I could definitely see much more of this going on.

I will say one thing though, the thing Jackson said about it taking 10-20 min to acclimate is definitely not true. I didn't FULLY acclimate to the 48fps until minimum an hour into the film. It was only after the first hour that my mind finally stopped questioning what I was seeing and taking me out of it.
 
James T Mather said:
Conditioning from the past? 50i/60i video has been with us for decades - in other words we have had HFR available to us for quite some time and only cheap n' nasty soap operas have embraced it. This is not a new recently-discovered aesthetic.
Click to expand...
The conditioning was/is concerning the correlation between the frame rate and the other aspects of the image due to use of (completely outdated by today's standards) video cameras, limited budgets (which affetcs everything from sets and costumes to sfx) and content (genres, script quality). It was also interlaced and not progressive which adds additional artifacts not found in the cinema. Fps and the rest have to be decorrelated to get a fair assessment of the true nature of different frame rates. When I hear "looks like shit" I don't think of high fps material specifically, but rather footage riddled with (usually) unintended artifacts. Such as most pans at 24 fps, from film or video cameras. Or film at any fps robbed of texture with agressive and poor DNR, sharpened to hell and back etc. etc.
 
Nick Morrison said:
This may be the case, but nothing on TV NOW looks like this. I edit every single day in 60i, and nothing and I mean NOTHING looks like 48fps. I guess because our source footage is originally shot in 24fps or 30fps. If you are comparing 48fps to 60i captured source footage from the 80's (the hey day of the "video" look), then fine. But...to suggest in any way that The Hobbit looks like anything currently being broadcast on tv now, or even over the past 10 years, would be in accurate.

I've been working in cable...in an edit room...for over 10 years, I've seen every possible kind of footage known to man, and I have never, ever ever seen anything like HFR before...

Side note...I need to see some of those old Blondie videos...
Click to expand...


I hate to disagree with you but here in PAL land tons of stuff is on at 50i and originated at 50i. We have HFR every day - have done for years. I appreciate some people like it and some people don't. I personally don't - HFR looks to me, pretty close to cheap 50i TV that I see every day. Yes, pan judder is less of an issue and certain motion strobing is lessened but for what disruption it brings to my suspension of disbelief in the drama, I personally prefer 24 right now. Other opinions may vary and that's cool. We can't all like the same things.

And yes - we can all do with watching more Blondie videos.

Happy Chrimbo everyone. Have a cool Yule.
 
Bill Anderson said:
But this IS a part of the future, for better or worse. No one is saying it is all "automatically good". It is what it is. I really don't know where you are getting your ideas from when it comes to the readings of these posts. Go and watch Ulysses Gaze or the Turin Horse, calm down and get back to us with names and enlightening examples of those groundbreaking auteurs you hold in such high regard, but try and keep it all within the context of what is being discussed here: the merits of high frame rate as employed by a mainstream movie, and any implications that might hold for same. And HFR is not an old approach, as you would have us believe, even though it happens to hint at qualities exhibited by old/tv/ interlaced video. While you're coming up with a list of radicals, add an example or two of HFR usage in film, so that we might compare it to the Hobbit's.
Click to expand...

Bill, you don't have to pull out Bela Tarr to illustrate genius. As a matter of fact, instead of The Turin Horse, you should mention Satantango or even Werkmeister Harmonies. Bela Tarr is not a film maker, he's an alien.

But if you can't see where HFR is positioned amongst all other things that have been tried in cinema, then there's no argument, is there. Janusz Kaminski 90º shutter angle in Private Ryan, Terrence Malick and Emmanuel Lubeski's natural light, no filtering, no ND's shooting style. Bleach bypass. Pro Mist in Hitchcock, 80D to open up the blue spectrum in GWDT, (both of these experiments made by Cronenweth in order to push and 'improve' Red's image). 3D. Christopher Doyle's 100% soft light approach. Gus Van Sant's Gerry, Elephant and Last Days. Harris Savides shooting 4 stops underexposed and pushing it in development. Complete lack of musical score in No Country For Old Men. An animated family film with no dialogue for the entire first 45 minutes of the film in Wall.E. Jonathan Glazer's Sexy Beast shot with only two lenses. Alfred Hitchcock made an entire film with only ten shots in Rope. Films like Avatar, Tintin, District 9. Stanley Kubrick. Cinema Varité. David Fincher. Gordon Willis. Jan-Luc Goddard. Found footage genre. Un Chien Andalou. Citizen Kane. Easy Rider. Jim Jannard. Seven Samurai. Love it or hate it, The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity. And on, and on....

Can you carry on by yourself now?

Lots have been done, and none has change the way movies are made at its core. And amongst all of these great things that many film makers have done, 48 fps is just not that big of a deal, and its just too arrogant a thought! And how is it that you get to know that that is the future? What do you know that we don't know? Please, its your time to give us some insight on your statements!
 
Last edited:
Here is my take on HFR...

It should be used as a story-telling tool. It is absolutely amazing on high detail scenes - such as the aerial wide vistas of the NZ landscapes (errrr, sorry - Middle Earth...). But on some scenes it just looks little weird...
In this age of digital projections - why do we have to be locked into a specific FR? Its not like the "motors" of the projector have to adjust or anything...
Why can't we have the option to project some scenes at 48P, some at 24P and yet others at 96P or what ever P...?!?
This way we can use the HFR as a storytelling tool. Add the realism to scenes we want and remove it from those we don't need it in...

There are almost infinite shades of grey between black and white...

Same goes for 3D. Just imagine movie where some scenes are projected in HFR 3D at 48P, others in 2D at 24P. The technology is there... (for 3D glasses each eye can just project the same image for a 2D effect in the scenes we don't want in 3D)

It is a matter of adding meta-tags to scenes / frames and the media servers / projectors to buffer ahead based on those tags. Jim - You guys design and build your own projectors. Why not add this? The best thing about it - it does not exclude the traditional projection - it simply adds more options...

Obsolescence obsolete...

Peter
:reddevil:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top