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...

António Fagundes said:
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!
Click to expand...

The way I understand it is that anything said about PJ's usage of HFR is an affront to your "intelligence" and is seen as some sort of ill informed worship of PJ and HFR while at the same time signalling a complete ignorance or willful denial of any other innovations in the art. If 48fps is "not that big a deal" to you, then perhaps you can let the rest of us decide just how big a deal it is, or might be, to us (not to mention the industry as a whole). And whether it is likely to flourish or languish. Is that OK with you?
 
Just saw Hobbit again in HFR 3D IMAX. I saw it 4 days ago at the same theater in nearly the same seat (Knoxville Regal 18)... first time was a great experience... today was terrible. The best that I could tell, they were showing it at 24FPS. It was dizzying and weird.... like watching a movie through a coke bottle. Every cut in a scene was accompanied with a flash. When characters would blink, they would look like aliens because the blink was so fast. It felt like 24FPS in that none of that "stage" "hyper-realistic" look was present at all. I pleaded with them to fix it. They stopped it a few times based on some suggestions from IMAX (they said). Anyway, HFR is interesting when projected correctly but unbearable when projected incorrectly. They gave everyone in the theater a free pass but never fixed it during our showing. A very unpleasant 3 hours. I would have left but we were with others who hadn't seen it yet so walking out mid film just didn't seem fair to them.
 
Peter Majtan said:
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:
Click to expand...

Precisely, Peter: HFR might not change "the way movies are made at its core"(what ever does?) but it might change the "core" of the way we make our own movies.
And surely that is something worth acknowledging, and investigating.
 
Andy Roberts said:
Just saw Hobbit again in HFR 3D IMAX. I saw it 4 days ago at the same theater in nearly the same seat (Knoxville Regal 18)... first time was a great experience... today was terrible. The best that I could tell, they were showing it at 24FPS. A very unpleasant 3 hours. I would have left but we were with others who hadn't seen it yet so walking out mid film just didn't seem fair to them.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it have run 6 hours if they were showing a 48 fps file at 24 fps? And looked slowed down, not sped up?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Wouldn't it have run 6 hours if they were showing a 48 fps file at 24 fps? And looked slowed down, not sped up?
Click to expand...

Hi David... I hear what you're saying. It just looked like frames were being skipped or doubled or something. For example, if Gandalf blinked, his eye lid was shut and then open with no transition... no closing and opening of eyelids. Wavy things had a very odd jumpy look. The only time things looked "normal" was when nothing was moving. As my son joked, "Everything was fine except the 'motion' part of motion picture." But when it was still, there was more of the look of 24FPS, flatter and not as dimensional at the HFR. The thing that made it not appear as weird was when I covered one of my eyes. The motion SEEMED more normal then. All I can say, whether I diagnosed it correctly or not, was that it was very disturbing to my mind... I just closed my eyes and tried to nap. But seeing it Thursday night was very enjoyable, even though a few of the HFR scenes didn't appeal to me.
 
sounds like 3d sync issues... to say the least. i saw it in that theatre on opening night and it was spectacular. hopefully they'll fix that up cause i plan on going back. the hfr was way better on imax than on a small screen.
 
Bill Anderson said:
But this IS a part of the future, for better or worse.
Click to expand...

I was expecting a little back up information on this, since you sound so sure...

By the way, don't turn this on me, it's you that is saying that if I don't like HFR or PJ's attitude its because I'm not this or enough of that, or... Where as people that didn't like the HFR (such as me) don't formulate the same kind of discriminatory criticism on you. As I could very well have said that people that do like HFR, don't have taste, or don't have this or that... but that's not what its about is it? Its ridiculous and pretentious.

So please, stop trying to make your case by diminishing my opinion to a mere tantrum.
 
I had a chance to watch the 48 fps version in IMAX 3D and was a bit easier to watch than the RealD version I saw earlier. Even though it was a 2K LieMax screen, it was still the sharpest thing I have ever seen projected on a screen, even sharper that 70mm IMAX and 4k. I still found the look distracting and it ultimately took me out of the story. I think the technology is perfect for IMAX style documentaries but I don't think it belongs in motion pictures. Let me explain. 48 fps is geared towards large budget effects driven films and was really intended to be an enhancement for 3D projection. The problem is that the frame rate dramatically increases the clarity and realism of the live action sets and actors. This is not really an issue if everything on the screen is real but when you add in special effects, the effect becomes distracting. I truly believe that the uncanny valley will always be an issue with computer generated effects. 24fps helps to hide the distinction between special effects and reality because 24fps produces an image unlike human vision, the "cinematic look". HFR cinematography produces live action footage that is so lifelike and clear that it makes the cg effects look that much more fake. This was the problem with the hobbit, the live action footage looked like real life but the cg effects looked like a video game cinematic. Unless CG dramatically improves (and I mean dramatically, to the point where it looks 99% like real life), HFR films will continue to look fake. I would love to see an IMAX film at 48fps, imagine Planet Earth or Baraka presented this way, it would look stunning. However, it won't work on narrative projects because it only reminds the audience of how unrealistic CG effects look when put next to hyper real live action footage.
 
It's funny that ppl think high frame-rate is new,no its not its been here the whole time, associated with soap operas, home camcorders, reality TV shows etc. Now your telling me that my movies should look like my home videos..bla!!​ LOL!
 
of course it's not 'new' - although the combo of 3-D, large-scale, widely-distributed, three-hour, effects-driven movie made within a year and a half is quite an achievement simply on its own. some like the source material, some don't. some like the pj translation, some don't. some like the effects, 3d, hfr, and some don't. [yawn]
 
Saw it today in HFR 3D projected with a NEC 3200 projector (2K) with a 6kW lamp. I went in with an open mind, but expecting not to like it. Easily the best 3D experience ever, not even close, and I've enjoyed other 3D movies. It took me a little bit to get used to the 48fps but I had no problem getting into the movie after a few minutes. The biggest difference I noticed was minimal motion blur. Everything stayed sharp even with extreme camera moves. I still think there is a "magic" to 24fps but I think there's a place for 48fps. The 3D was so easy to watch with no strain on the eyes. There were times I closed one eye to make sure I was still watching 3D because I had gotten so used to it.
 
Peter Majtan said:
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...?!?
Click to expand...
I believe the current implementation of DCP is that the frame rate, aspect ratio, and color space are embedded in the file headers. I don't think you can change frame rate on the fly, at least the way DCP is now. Certainly, this could be something that could be changed. The trailers prior to The Hobbit were certainly in 24fps (and in 3D), and that worked fine. I don't think it would be simple to go back and forth between 3D and 2D, though, since that's a physical projection issue.

I also would argue that going back and forth between 24fps and 48fps would probably trigger the same visual objections from people who complain about an all-48fps presentation. I don't think there's a solution that will satisfy both sides of the argument.
 
marc, you can embed 24 frames (2x) in 48 and ramp around however you want. if the transitions are smooth enough there should be no reason why it would draw attention to itself for a normal viewer. for 2d within 3d, you just let everything rest on the same plane. no reason to switch anything physical or in the metadata. just embed it all in the master.

that being said, does anybody know about any tools/plugins available for framerate manipulation? should be simple enough if not...
 
Hobbit finally opened in Australia today. Made the trip (2hrs) with family and a few others to get to a HFR cinema so we could see it as PJ intended.

These are the relevant parts of their responses without being led or pre framed.

My wife: "It looked like television, like BBC drama. Or a bit like a video game. It was "ok"."

My Youngest son said (without having heard his mother): It looked sort of like my video games. I didn't mind the way it looked. But I liked the LOTR better. That was perfect for me. Why did he change it? It also seemed to speed up sometimes? And didn't really look normal?"

My Eldest son said: "Everything looked so fake. His (Gandalf's) staff looks like it was made of plastic? I could see their makeup. Where are the real orcs? Almost everything was CG. The real Orcs were so much better. Compare the battle scene at the end of Fellowship of the Ring to the Hobbit?"

My daughter said: "She enjoyed it." And I have no doubts she did. She enjoys everything. She's a great soul that way and have wished more times than once over the years I could be more like her - joyful and very happily undiscerning with no time for analysis nor for those that do :) We're just potential buzz kill :) The only thing I hear her consistently complain about is Kristin Stewart... I think she has a point.

Didn't ask the others we went with what they thought.

Myself, entered very open minded... I don't "hate" anything. However I found the look quite jarring throughout most of the film unfortunately. I kept waiting to acclimatise, succeeding only in small parts, being more continually drawn out by the aesthetic. I perceived it to be TV reminiscent, yet it was "more" and so also quite unique, which I definitely enjoyed from a curiosity perspective. But much like my wife, I still found myself, unwittingly drawing visual associations to Old Doctor who and Blake Seven and BBC drama episodes and found the aesthetic overall was very unflattering, and placed a level of attention onto the prosthetics, hair, makeup and production design which I found considerably more problematic than helpful.

I did feel some moments are definitely better than others, largely in the wide landscapes, some of the action, low key and high con scenes/shots I found I also preferred, and the noted improvement in 3D quality that many have commented on. I also think it does have some immersive real life qualities about it - it does feel more "look out the window real" than 24p. So I can see how some will see this as a great tool and why some are really enjoying it. However my conclusion is that I strongly prefer 24P. Though I can conceive of specific moments or content where I might prefer 48p.

I'd like to finish my post though by saying I don't feel frustrated or disappointed by any of this at all. In life you try a lot of cuisine to discover the flavours and food that you love the most, and I acknowledge that just because I prefer the fish course, others can and will prefer the chicken. But regardless I like to try new things, and will happily applaud the adventurous chef that let's me, even if it's not my cup of tea. Which unfortunately it wasn't. So I look forward to my second viewing in 24p. Nice to have choice on the menu.
 
Andrew Rieger said:
I had a chance to watch the 48 fps version in IMAX 3D and was a bit easier to watch than the RealD version I saw earlier. Even though it was a 2K LieMax screen, it was still the sharpest thing I have ever seen projected on a screen, even sharper that 70mm IMAX and 4k. I still found the look distracting and it ultimately took me out of the story. I think the technology is perfect for IMAX style documentaries but I don't think it belongs in motion pictures. Let me explain. 48 fps is geared towards large budget effects driven films and was really intended to be an enhancement for 3D projection. The problem is that the frame rate dramatically increases the clarity and realism of the live action sets and actors. This is not really an issue if everything on the screen is real but when you add in special effects, the effect becomes distracting. I truly believe that the uncanny valley will always be an issue with computer generated effects. 24fps helps to hide the distinction between special effects and reality because 24fps produces an image unlike human vision, the "cinematic look". HFR cinematography produces live action footage that is so lifelike and clear that it makes the cg effects look that much more fake. This was the problem with the hobbit, the live action footage looked like real life but the cg effects looked like a video game cinematic. Unless CG dramatically improves (and I mean dramatically, to the point where it looks 99% like real life), HFR films will continue to look fake. I would love to see an IMAX film at 48fps, imagine Planet Earth or Baraka presented this way, it would look stunning. However, it won't work on narrative projects because it only reminds the audience of how unrealistic CG effects look when put next to hyper real live action footage.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately I have to agree with you...I was so excited for this experience and I watched it last night in 3D and HFR....while the 3D projection wasn't even close to amazing, it was definitely the cleanest, sharpest, crispest image I have ever seen in a cinema, but the look the HFR gave the whole footage in terms of motion blur and feel is definitely not for me :/ will go back and watch it in 2D 25fps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top