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...

Having just seen The Hobbit HFR version, all the complaints and nonsense about HFR are very poor, and that is being exceedingly diplomatic. It was by far the best 3D movie I have seen (Coraline, Avatar, Prometheus, Cave of Forgotten Dreams, TT movie with Guy Martin) are the others. Far sharper and better more consistent 3D effect, still room for improvement but a big step in the right direction. And I am not a fan of 3D to begin with. Making a good 3D movie is vastly different from a 2D one and the HFR worked really well in the way that Peter Jackson shot The Hobbit. I presume that 60fps will make for an even better 3D effect. Because of Red , Sony and NHK pushing 4k2k cameras and projectors we have opportunities available to us that are impossible using film. Of course that means learning to make movies (especially 3D movies) in a new way, something that many are not prepared to deal with. It is ironic that people here rightly praise Jim Jannard and Red for their innovation and refusal to accept past standards yet they themselves are incapable of even trying to do the same when it comes to just watching a film. 24fps is a very artificial and fake way of shooting and watching a movie but because we are used to it we ignore it obvious failings, such as blurred out of focus pans and moving objects. It is not HFR that is fake or unreal or "wrong", it is the old limitations that we were forced to accept in the age of film stock. All credit and praise to Peter Jackson, Red etc for their pioneering efforts.
 
I'm sorry Ian but you seem to be unaware of the arguments already made regarding HFR and it's fallacies to some viewers. If you find however those arguments nonsense, please expand.
 
I thought the Hobbit at 48fps was amazing, especially in the action scenes. I don't think it's going to become the norm for films in the future by any means, but it is another option for filmmakers that's been brought to the mainstream in an exciting way.
 
António Fagundes said:
I was only asking him to expand on why the reasons for not liking it are nonsense...
Click to expand...

we've been through this before... it's okay to prefer slower rates or 'just not like it', but reasoning along the lines of 'magic arbitrary numbers' and 'that's the way it's always been' is nonsensical (in my opinion). unless you have anything more to say i really think it's time to let it rest.
 
Antonio.... putting aside the real problem of those who actually have difficulties from watching 3D (headaches, eye fatigue, vertigo etc), we have trained ourselves (mainly unconsciously) to accept 24fps and its inevitable and well known effects. What I believe is that it is time to retrain ourselves to accept a much more natural, sharper and clearer way of shooting and seeing movies, tv etc. Just like people had to get used to colour film and sound in movies ! :yesnod:
And that applies to 2D just as much as 3D and higher definition issues (4k2k - "fake props" etc) , not just HFR issues.
 
Last edited:
paulherrin said:
we've been through this before... it's okay to prefer slower rates or 'just not like it', but reasoning along the lines of 'magic arbitrary numbers' and 'that's the way it's always been' is nonsensical (in my opinion). unless you have anything more to say i really think it's time to let it rest.
Click to expand...

Sorry to disappoint you but its not up to you to say to put anything to rest. And please don't resume my arguments to 'that's the way its always been done' cliché, no one here ever said that but you (or rather, you paraphrasing Peter Jackson, do you actually have anything of your own?). On the other hand, if you don't have the brain to understand the arguments made against you, go away. Its annoying.

Ian McKenzie said:
Antonio.... putting aside the real problem of those who actually have difficulties from watching 3D (headaches, eye fatigue, vertigo etc), we have trained ourselves (mainly unconsciously) to accept 24fps and its inevitable and well known effects. What I believe is that it is time to retrain ourselves to accept a much more natural, sharper and clearer way of shooting and seeing movies, tv etc. Just like people had to get used to colour film and sound in movies ! :yesnod:
And that applies to 2D just as much as 3D and higher definition issues (4k2k - "fake props" etc) , not just HFR issues.
Click to expand...

That's my problem. Where is HFR even comparable to sound or color?? Why do you people put this HFR in such high regard? I really suspect that mostly is about people that don't really know all that much about film making at all, amateurs and wannabes. And anything that comes out of someone like PJ or Jim its automatically gospel. You don't actually have a personal opinion, that's what most of these sound like. I'm afraid to say, but comments like yours are so nauseatingly boring in favor of HFR.
 
I saw Hobbit first 2D 24fps. Liked it alot. Nice cinematography, good story, felt like a real movie. Saw it again in 3D 48fps and felt like I was watching a teleplay on the BBC. Sorry Didn't like it. not the 3D, not the clear image, or the makeup anymore. I've owned and shot with Red since the beginning and with Film for 12 years before that. I prefer 24fps.

www.redcinematographer.com
 
I was really impressed by the Dolby Atmos demo that I got at Dolby Labs, so I made it a point to experience the Hobbit in Dolby Atmos in addition to 3D HFR. My wife jabbed me with her elbow thinking I was asleep and snoring....but it was the dwarfs snoring in the cave! Visually, although I'm not a huge 3D fan, it was the best 3D I have ever seen; I saw no artifacts or ghosting at all, nor was it fatiiguing. I saw some posts earlier where they complained that motion seemed to be speeded up. I don't know what they are talking about which makes me wonder if some theaters have some projection issues. It certainly has a look all its' own, but I would not say it looked like a BBC teleplay or a soap opera. I also worked in film for many years, but found it very enjoyable.
 
Just saw the hobbit in 3D 48fps, and just wow, incredible. Not only was I a massive fan of the film itself, but was absolutely immersed by the HFR. I have to say I'm a die hard fan of LotR, and did go in with a positive mindset. I was always going to love the film.

As for the 48fps, that was a gamble, and I did contemplate seeing it in 24 the first time round. I am so glad i put my bet on 48. Some of the fast motion was different on the eyes, but nothing I didn't get used to after the first half hour. It worked spectacularly with the 3D, I felt like I could touch it. I know it's not an opinion shared by many, but I agree that this is the future of film making.

Hats off to you Peter, to me you've changed the game. Will be shooting my first feature in 48, when that day arrives. What a film, I'll never get over this night.
 
Obviously different people have different opinions on this matter and that is one thing. We are all entitled to our opinion.
In addition there is the issue of where the movie / tv industry is going.
And it is going to 4k2k and HFR and 3D, whatever our opinions on the matter, whether we like it or not.
As it happens, I like the first two and couldn't care less about 3D and my opinion will make not a jot of difference. :smiley:
Thats life. :smiley:
 
Paul Kalbach said:
I was really impressed by the Dolby Atmos demo that I got at Dolby Labs, so I made it a point to experience the Hobbit in Dolby Atmos in addition to 3D HFR. My wife jabbed me with her elbow thinking I was asleep and snoring....but it was the dwarfs snoring in the cave! Visually, although I'm not a huge 3D fan, it was the best 3D I have ever seen; I saw no artifacts or ghosting at all, nor was it fatiiguing. I saw some posts earlier where they complained that motion seemed to be speeded up. I don't know what they are talking about which makes me wonder if some theaters have some projection issues. It certainly has a look all its' own, but I would not say it looked like a BBC teleplay or a soap opera. I also worked in film for many years, but found it very enjoyable.
Click to expand...

I have to agere about sped up look, I didn't see that at all when I saw it in 3D HFR
 
I keep hearing people talking about the limitations of 24fps. What limitations does 24fps have? You can't pan? For starters, the pan is an ugly move. Second, strobing problems with pans and dollys can be mitigated if the camera is tracking and keeping pace with a subject. This gives the audience something to look at and hides the strobing background. If you know the limitations, you can design shots that avoid these problems. So what has 48fps given us? The ability to pan without strobe? Hardly groundbreaking if you ask me.
 
Andrew Rieger said:
I keep hearing people talking about the limitations of 24fps. What limitations does 24fps have? You can't pan? For starters, the pan is an ugly move. Second, strobing problems with pans and dollys can be mitigated if the camera is tracking and keeping pace with a subject. This gives the audience something to look at and hides the strobing background. If you know the limitations, you can design shots that avoid these problems. So what has 48fps given us? The ability to pan without strobe? Hardly groundbreaking if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I see a Lot of these pans in the Amazing Race, and in Hell's Kitchen. They look great!
 
Firstly I thought Peter Jackson and Andrew Lesnie did a fantastic job.

I saw the Hobbit last night at the Event Cinemas at George St, Sydney which is a 48FPS VMAX cinema and that is argueably the best cinema in Sydney, Australia.
The sound was fantastic and the motion of the 3d was the best i have seen as i normally get head aches or eye fatigue elsewhere.

OK That said.. Well i found parts of the movie, such as the wide open shots of the dwarfs running across the mountainside did look very much like video, but for the majority of the film looked very cinematic.

It was quite strange as my favourite part is when the dwarfs were captured by the trolls and at the same time Bilbo was introduced to Gollum. Gollum looked insane, that is the best 3d animation i have ever seen.

The chase scene from the dwarfs that came afterwards was very entertaining and the 48FPS really came into its own. But at the end when they were running out of the cave and it really looked like digibeta.

I wasn't disappointed with the film at all, in fact i was really excited taking my 14yr old boy and 11yr old girl to the first film ever made in 48fps. They will have a story to tell their kids one day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top