The Hobbit at 48fps...

[Patrick Tresch]

Loved to see the Hobbit in 48fps. Didn't like much the highlight blurs and color correction in the first part of the film. Highlights looked nearly clipped. But the 48fps is an interesting move, specially for 3D. True it gives a hyperrealism feel to the image that some don't like as movie is an art of illusion... Obviously 48fps tends to diminish the technical artifice of creating illusion of movement with 24 frames a second...

Also interesting use of 3D, far away of what I expected.

Pat

 

[M Most]

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.

That story could go this way:

Hey, Johnny, I remember when I saw the first movie shot and released at 48 frames per second.

Gee, Daddy, why would anyone do that?

Well, it was Peter Jackson, and he was so hell bent on solving problems with stereoscopic projection that he got the studio to let him shoot and release it at that rate.

But Daddy, wouldn't that make it look like video, and expose the sets for what they are, and make the CGI stand out more, and makeup would be a problem too?

That's true,l Johnny. And that's why it wasn't done very much, and why it soon died out.

And by the way, Daddy, what is stereoscopic projection?

It could go like that. Too soon to tell.......

 

[Brandon J.F.]

And its going to make a lot more. Great storytelling and compelling characters. And with an HFR to non HFR screen ratio favoring non HFR 3D projection, its obviously understandable

The funny thing is the only version available here is the HFR 3D version

 

[Bruce Allen]

OK, say The Hobbit, in HFR 3D.

My thoughts:

1. Overall, I enjoyed it waaay more than I expected to.

2. 270 degree shutter at 48fps doesn't work and really adds to the video look. Wish they had shot 180.

3. 48fps shows up the resolution deficiencies of 2K. Wish they had finished at 4K. Yeah, I know that's hard.

4. Highlight clipping at 48fps looks like video. Wish they either shot Alexa or waited and shot on Dragon.

5. Skin tones alternated between being the best I'd seen on RED and mediocre video look. Again, wish they had shot on Alexa or on Dragon (assuming Dragon has better skin tones).

6. Ian McKellen was great. But then I've seen him perform as King Lear on stage and he was great there too. Good actors needn't fear 48fps. It actually shows their strengths.

7. I loved the slow-mo shots projected at 48fps. Weird, because I thought that there wouldn't be much difference there. But it just feels like reality slowed down... WTF. Trippy as heck.

8. Still preferred Life of Pi overall.

9. The opening was a terrible way to introduce 48fps, what with quick cuts, sped up swooping cameras, villagers' kids that look like they were crewmember nephews, bad beards, nutty matte paintings, featureless smoke, etc. I know you're not supposed to show the monster but seriously... give us the frikkin' dragon in glorious "this is 48fps tripped out reality" slow-mo flying out of tendrils of smoke, billowing flames at us in deadly beautiful detail. Please. It took a long time to recover from that start and the hobbit hole stuff didn't help.

10. 48fps at 4K, 1/96 shutter, with a sensor with enough latitude, with good skin tones and a non-video look... and VFX done on systems that can properly handle 48fps 4K... and the right project, with bright rich color laser projection = CAN'T WAIT!!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Patrick Tresch]

6. Skin tones alternated between being the best I'd seen on RED and mediocre video look. Again, wish they had shot on Alexa or on Dragon (assuming Dragon has better skin tones).

The video look and nearly clipped highlights isn't due to the camera used but due to the color correction they did.
I hated the overexposed and blurred highlights look they used in the beginning of the film. As skintones are close to highlights they also looked washed out. I had a bad time to overcome the first 20 min of the film as colors where freaky!

Alexas wouldn't perform better as it's a colorist (director) choice.

Pat

PS: Life of PI was even more artificial, I still preferred Hobbit overall.

 

[Bruce Allen]

The video look and nearly clipped highlights isn't due to the camera used but due to the color correction they did.
I hated the overexposed and blurred highlights look they used in the beginning of the film. As skintones are close to highlights they also looked washed out. I had a bad time to overcome the first 20 min of the film as colors where freaky!

Alexas wouldn't perform better as it's a colorist (director) choice.

How do you know that they weren't forced to go with that look because that's all they could make the RED footage do?

Basically, I was reminded of the RED-shot Pirates of the Caribbean. To me it was like they were trying to make it look like previous movies... but failing to get there because the sensor / color filters didn't capture the info needed.

PS: Life of PI was even more artificial, I still preferred Hobbit overall.

Well, each to his own, I suppose. But overall the skin tones in Life of Pi looked far more natural to me. I didn't know what it was shot on when I watched it and was thinking "either this is shot on digital and is the best digital I've seen, or it's shot on really grain-free film and is the best post-conversion I've seen!" The highlights on the water looked natural too. And the people who saw it with me thought it was shot on film.

With The Hobbit you had traditional RED colors for the tungsten lighting scenes... then outside you would alternate between shots that looked kinda OK and then every now and then there would be a closeup where the lighting and the sensor suddenly played nicely together and you'd have... wow... nice skin tones! Then poof... gone with the next shot. This makes me think that they wanted to get nice skin tones but couldn't always pull it out of what the sensor color filters saw.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Patrick Tresch]

How do you know that?

How do you know that they weren't forced to go with that look because that's all they could make the RED footage do?

1) nothing is clipped in the highlights but pushed harshly towards the highlights (I even took the time to look at it as I didn't believe what I saw). They could have pulled back a lot of details in the highlights.
2) it looks more like a LOOK than a technical problem... (It wouldn't be my choice)
3) They have the budget to get the contrast of the scene where they like it to be (even suited for an Ektachrome Super 8)


But you'r right, the clipped look is really strange (videoish).

Pat

 

[Bruce Allen]

1) nothing is clipped in the highlights but pushed harshly towards the highlights (I even took the time to look at it as I didn't believe what I saw). They could have pulled back a lot of details in the highlights.
2) it looks more like a LOOK than a technical problem... (It wouldn't be my choice)
3) They have the budget to get the contrast of the scene where they like it to be (even suited for an Ektachrome Super 8)


But you'r right, the clipped look is really strange (videoish).

Pat

OK - I'll have to go and watch it again Glad we both noticed it though! At least I know I'm not crazy now. Cheers!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[paulherrin]

i've seen a few different projectors - all with different highlight rendition on this film... just sayin. going to see it right now (again) - this time 3D/24 with the fam, only version i've not seen yet.

 

[Aaron Shirley]

OK, say The Hobbit, in HFR 3D...

2. 270 degree shutter at 48fps doesn't work and really adds to the video look. Wish they had shot 180.

I agree, but remember that a faster shutter speed has been used before on movies like Ridley Scott's movies in the 90's (Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Robin Hood). It reminded me a little of video, but not many people agreed with me.

3. 48fps shows up the resolution deficiencies of 2K. Wish they had finished at 4K. Yeah, I know that's hard.

I always feel a little ripped off when I pay extra for 4K (digital imax) and find out it was DI'd in 2K, but doubly so when the 3D turns out to be digitally faked from one camera (obviously not the case for The Hobbit).

4. Highlight clipping at 48fps looks like video. Wish they either shot Alexa or waited and shot on Dragon.

5. Skin tones alternated between being the best I'd seen on RED and mediocre video look. Again, wish they had shot on Alexa or on Dragon (assuming Dragon has better skin tones).

I saw it in 48fps HFR 4K 3D first and had the same experience as you. My theory is the over lit and clipped highlight look was because of the 3D projection's brightness getting cranked up in some theaters. Because then I saw it in 24fps 2K 2D and had a much different experience Almost no highlight clipping (when it did, it was a very smooth curve and glowing like in LotR). The skin tones still had an odd smoothness to them that I'm not used to seeing in RAW R3D footage, so that had to be a color grade decision. I think the Epic-M was absolutely the right camera for the job at the time this was shot... I just think the job requirements were a little... questionable...?

6. Ian McKellen was great. But then I've seen him perform as King Lear on stage and he was great there too. Good actors needn't fear 48fps. It actually shows their strengths.

Cool, I felt like I was watching some kind of multimedia live stage performance (I shoot things like this professionally a few times a year), with the HFR in The Hobbit. I, like several others have said, felt like some of the elements didn't stand up to the hightened reality of HFR, and that maybe the fantasy genre wasn't the best way to try to appreciate the HFR effect, but this isn't a concept that should be completely scrapped, just adjusted a good bit.

7. I loved the slow-mo shots projected at 48fps. Weird, because I thought that there wouldn't be much difference there. But it just feels like reality slowed down... WTF. Trippy as heck.

9. The opening was a terrible way to introduce 48fps, what with quick cuts, sped up swooping cameras, villagers' kids that look like they were crewmember nephews, bad beards, nutty matte paintings, featureless smoke, etc. I know you're not supposed to show the monster but seriously... give us the frikkin' dragon in glorious "this is 48fps tripped out reality" slow-mo flying out of tendrils of smoke, billowing flames at us in deadly beautiful detail. Please. It took a long time to recover from that start and the hobbit hole stuff didn't help.

10. 48fps at 4K, 1/96 shutter, with a sensor with enough latitude, with good skin tones and a non-video look... and VFX done on systems that can properly handle 48fps 4K... and the right project, with bright rich color laser projection = CAN'T WAIT!!

Playback speed variation was another error I noticed was exclusively in the HFR version. In 24fps, I saw none of the weird slowed down and sped up spots that happened in the HFR version.

So HFR didn't really get a fair chance in most theaters it sounds like (certainly not in mine). But even without the shutter speed, over brightness with hard clipping, and speed playback problems; the extra fluid motion reminded me of old 60i, and I enjoyed the 24fps 2D version much, much more.

 

[Aaron Shirley]

Aaron, hate to tell you this, but you are WIDELY OFF THE MARK.

I work in broadcast tv, and can tell you there's a HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE between 60i, and 48fps.

60i (ie 59.94) is just another form of 30fps (or 29.97).

Its 30FPS.

30FPS IS NOT 48FPS.

What I saw in the theaters for The Hobbit, in 3D at 48fps, looks like NOTHING I'VE EVER SEEN IN A TV BROADCAST EDITING ROOM THE PAST 10 YEARS.

Trust me.

It does, however, look a lot like when you boost the refresh rate on your TV to make sports "sharper". THAT'S more the experience.

For better or worse, PJ is changing cinema forever. This is not your mother's broadcast television. This is something COMPLETELY NEW AND DIFFERENT.

Well, I've worked in Broadcast TV on and off since 1999, ranging from commercial editing, to Discovery Channel and NASA TV, and while I will agree with you that 60i and 48p are technically not similar in the least, and that I haven't seen either look in the editing room in almost 10 years (due to offine HD editing's typical nature of 24p and 30p playback), I strongly disagree about what: 60 fields per second on an interlaced monitor, 60 progressive frames per second, and 48 progressive frames per second; looks like.

They look very similar.

You know that there is a very different look between 30p and 60i, and I'm sure you know why. Assuming all of the frame rates we are talking about are natively captured that way with no pull down, or field blending; 30 progressive frames per second shows just 30 unique pictures per second which is just slightly more fluid looking than 24 unique pictures per second. 60i on the other hand, shows 60 half resolution unique pictures per second with a bit of blending happening between pictures that creates the illusion of full resolution; and it looks a lot like the motion in 720-60p, which also looks a lot like 2K-48p.

Maybe you're used to seeing your 1080-60i Broadcast TV with a 3:2 pulldown, or maybe you work in 720-60p with monitoring in 720-30p. I know that both of those have been the norm in stations I've worked in for the past 10 years, but surely you remember what 60i on a tube TV looked like. That's what 48p (and 60p for that matter) look like to me, and add to that, the hard clipping of highlights I saw in my HFR theater's projection, 48HFR looked like 1980's TV shows that were shot on video cameras.

 

[Aaron Shirley]

i've seen a few different projectors - all with different highlight rendition on this film... just sayin. going to see it right now (again) - this time 3D/24 with the fam, only version i've not seen yet.

Have you kept track of what the highlight renditions were for each version you've seen? I've seen two so far (48HFR 3D 4K and 24fps 2D 2K), and my theory is hard clipping is being caused by the brightness getting cranked up to make up for the light loss in the 3D glasses. (see my previous posts for details)

I'm also very curious what your previous experiences with higher frame rates are. Did you ever watch TV specials that were shot with video cameras instead of film cameras like The Nutcracker Suite on PBS or made for TV movies or shows from the BBC? Do you ever watch channels that broadcast in 720-60p like some sports channels?

 

[paulherrin]

aah, they all blur together at this point really, i've just been paying most attention to the story, though i only remember highlights being a bit too harsh on the 3d projections (though i missed the opening sequence - which i haven't liked regardless of versions - in 2d, and that sequence was by far the poorest lighting-wise). all i can say about the 24 frame versions i've seen is that they have been incredibly soft in comparison. IMAX (HFR/3D) was by far the best experience. 4k finish would be perfect...

i have not seen any of that, but it sounds cool. i love the nutcracker... i listen to bbc, but haven't watched any programming that i can recall. don't watch much sports, don't use tru-motion/120-240hz/etc... my experiences have been via gaming (almost never) and the computer screen, which i've about grown up looking into. what you could probably most say is that i don't have negative connotations with high-framerate or 'video look'.

 

[ChristopherKenworthy]

Never again

Never again

If 48fps continues beyond this film, I pray we are always given a choice, because I never want to see it again. I was so appalled by the look. I shot a feature on Red, and although it was a total flop, I still like how it looks. Peter Jackson is way more successful than me, but I think he's made an ugly film by subjecting it to 48fps.

I love Red, but I will never adapt, get used to or otherwise accept the look of 48fps. It is so horrible. Those people I saw The Hobbit with wanted my opinion, but I asked for theirs first. All said it looked like cheap soap opera, or low budget TV. Nobody liked it. Everybody said the props and costumes and makeup looked fake because it was so sharp and clear.

There was one shot of a landscape that I liked. For drama, I think it was a total failure.

Each to their own. Some people seem to like it. Right now, I'd rather watch something shot on a 7D than another film at 48fps.

 

[António Fagundes]

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.

This.

That story could go this way:

Hey, Johnny, I remember when I saw the first movie shot and released at 48 frames per second.

Gee, Daddy, why would anyone do that?

Well, it was Peter Jackson, and he was so hell bent on solving problems with stereoscopic projection that he got the studio to let him shoot and release it at that rate.

But Daddy, wouldn't that make it look like video, and expose the sets for what they are, and make the CGI stand out more, and makeup would be a problem too?

That's true,l Johnny. And that's why it wasn't done very much, and why it soon died out.

And by the way, Daddy, what is stereoscopic projection?

It could go like that. Too soon to tell.......

And this.

If 48fps continues beyond this film, I pray we are always given a choice, because I never want to see it again. I was so appalled by the look. I shot a feature on Red, and although it was a total flop, I still like how it looks. Peter Jackson is way more successful than me, but I think he's made an ugly film by subjecting it to 48fps.

I love Red, but I will never adapt, get used to or otherwise accept the look of 48fps. It is so horrible. Those people I saw The Hobbit with wanted my opinion, but I asked for theirs first. All said it looked like cheap soap opera, or low budget TV. Nobody liked it. Everybody said the props and costumes and makeup looked fake because it was so sharp and clear.

There was one shot of a landscape that I liked. For drama, I think it was a total failure.

Each to their own. Some people seem to like it. Right now, I'd rather watch something shot on a 7D than another film at 48fps.

And this!

 

[Martin Beek]

If 48fps continues beyond this film, I pray we are always given a choice, because I never want to see it again. I was so appalled by the look. I shot a feature on Red, and although it was a total flop, I still like how it looks. Peter Jackson is way more successful than me, but I think he's made an ugly film by subjecting it to 48fps.

I love Red, but I will never adapt, get used to or otherwise accept the look of 48fps. It is so horrible. Those people I saw The Hobbit with wanted my opinion, but I asked for theirs first. All said it looked like cheap soap opera, or low budget TV. Nobody liked it. Everybody said the props and costumes and makeup looked fake because it was so sharp and clear.

There was one shot of a landscape that I liked. For drama, I think it was a total failure.

Each to their own. Some people seem to like it. Right now, I'd rather watch something shot on a 7D than another film at 48fps.

Hear hear! +1 !!!

 

[Kyle Prohaska]

^ Yes I agree with above. If this becomes a trend, I hope there's enough of a split between moviegoers that 24fps is always available and not just 48fps at some point. That's really the only thing that would bother me a TON. Same thing with 3D, although that's already happened to some folks, where they couldn't find 2D presentations nearby.

 

[Scott Summers]

I was watching a beautifully sharp, smooth, ultra high resolution, awesomely lit film, with spectacular costumes, great acting and story, fantastic roller coaster ride shots. How, in all of that, you managed to associate it with a daytime soap, is beyond me.

Remember when you were young, and you had the ability to walk into a theatre and just enjoy it? When did you all get so stuck in your ways, that you can't even enjoy something truly revolutionary. Honestly, and I mean that, be honest; it didn't bear any resemblance to a soap opera. Come on really? Because anything over 25 frames suddenly steps into no mans land, and you cannot accept it as true cinema. Andrew Lesnie did such a damn good job of shooting it, and all you guys can do is complain that the frame rate is too high.

We're all into films. Something revolutionary is happening, in our industry, in our lifetimes. Don't be one of the naysayers. Drop your preconceived notions about what is 'allowed' to look like a movie. Get on board, and really enjoy yourself, because this is big.

I had the time of my life. The MOST breathtaking movie experience I've ever had. I wish you all felt the same.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Scott, I wanted to like the 48 fps. I didn't sit down for a 3-hour movie to not enjoy the experience. I could see how it improved the 3D and the fast motion technically, but it also still reminded me of interlaced-scan HD -- why shouldn't it? It's the only other example of high motion sampling rates that most of us have experienced. You seem to think it's a conscious choice whether to like or dislike the 48 fps look, not a gut reaction. At best, I got used to it, I tolerated it, but that's not the same thing as liking it. A few helicopter shots looked better though, made me think that this format may be better suited to IMAX-like nature documentaries.

 

[Scott Crawley]

When we face something that is new we compare it to our experience so we can anticipate and survive. It is in our nature, our wiring. Some of that is instinctive or reflexive, and some of it is rational. There is little point in trying to separate the two as both are inevitable.

It is reasonable to expect those who are very experienced, deeply committed or entrenched in 24fps to be slow to adapt, but the law of nature is still adapt or die.

I think the good news for many of us is that this shift isn't likely to happen quickly, but it seems likely that it will happen. I'm still uncertain if the audience has spoken or if they have, is anyone listening? Wee shall see.