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...

I notice, the when it comes to "cinematic look", adding grain to the image is practically of no interest any more:-) - for me as well. When Digital film came along, every DP I know would shout loud for adding grain in the post, to achieve that "cinematic look and feel". Here we are a few years later, and now we're looking out for the cleanest - noise-less image possible - The Hobbit was fantastic from that point. My point is, weather you like it or not, you most likely will be shouting for 60+ HFR in the near future, because I works and adds in general more value to the picture - it's closer to how we see - you just need to adapt.
I too - for the first 30 min. - experienced the Hobbit as a HDV movie-look and didn't like HFR. But then I just sat back and enjoyed the beauty of the images (the only thing than helped me through the 2.5h mostly boing story).
I was impresed on how great the make-up worked with the all reveling ultra hi res EPIC pictures, and most of the visual effects. The pop colorful grading I did not like so much.

That said, I just watch AVATAR 3d on my flat - and wished it had been HFR 5K EPIC - It's my favorite movie ever and the visuals are simply alien.
 
There is a lot to learn about +48fps progressive capture and display, the book has yet to be written.

My 2 cents
Higher temporal resolution requires more attention to detail of moving subjects on greenscreen and cgi.
Fast moving detail in foreground that used to be a blur at 24fps will strobe at 48fps.
Sweet spot for subject size of moving action is different at 48fps.
Fast pov shots worked very well and are very engaging.
Not enough use of faster action within a static frame.
Some hand held snappy pans and tilts that would have been ok at 24fps appeared more obvious and lacked motivation.

My wife described the HFR look thus "it was like watching a rehearsal" my kids thought it weird for 15 minutes then forgot about it and they said that it was cear and smooth and "you could have been there watching it with your own eyes..."


I think this effort should be applauded. Without a commercial release it is hard to know how the public will react, i hope we see more HFR so we can furhter undersatnd audience reaction.

Mike Brennan
 
Michael Brennan said:
There is a lot to learn about +48fps progressive capture and display, the book has yet to be written.

My 2 cents
Higher temporal resolution requires more attention to detail of moving subjects on greenscreen and cgi.
Fast moving detail in foreground that used to be a blur at 24fps will strobe at 48fps.
Sweet spot for subject size of moving action is different at 48fps.
Fast pov shots worked very well and are very engaging.
Not enough use of faster action within a static frame.
Some hand held snappy pans and tilts that would have been ok at 24fps appeared more obvious and lacked motivation.

My wife described the HFR look thus "it was like watching a rehearsal" my kids thought it weird for 15 minutes then forgot about it and they said that it was cear and smooth and "you could have been there watching it with your own eyes..."


I think this effort should be applauded. Without a commercial release it is hard to know how the public will react, i hope we see more HFR so we can furhter undersatnd audience reaction.

Mike Brennan
Click to expand...

This is a much more sensible approach. I too can see the possible advantages of HFR in the overall experience, but The Hobbit was a landmark failure in doing this, just because they did it doesn't mean they did it right. I do applaud their effort only to a certain extent. It would be a real notable act of confidence and courage IF they had only released the HFR version. That would be the only true way of doing this. Just like Avatar was released only in 3D without any previous knowledge of how it would work with audiences. That for me only proves that PJ wasn't himself totally confident in what he did with the HFR. OR, it could just be that the studio didn't want to risk it. But then again, I thought PJ was a powerful man, and this is a directorial decision...
 
paulherrin said:
interlaced and progressive frames are absolutely different experiences. the only similarity is that they're not at 24... which is to say they are different.
Click to expand...

"Absolutely" and "only" are pretty strong words and many people clearly see the similarities that you keep insisting don't exist. You might as well be trying to convince us that American Idol and The X Factor are two totally different shows.

What I will give you is this: Progressive and interlaced frames are different experiences at slower frame rates and lower resolutions. 24 discrete, interlaced (240 lines of visible vertical resolution) images per second at D-1 resolution, 720x486 (NTSC), would look horrendous.

But, consider this: The vertical resolution of 1080i video is 540 lines per field. That's more than the full resolution frame of of 480i video without the interlacing (480p).

Human visual acuity can only resolve so much detail. Persistence of vision already settles in nicely at 24fps. As you start increasing the frame rate and vertical resolution on interlaced frames, it should become increasingly harder to discern them from progressively scanned frames under many viewing conditions for the same reasons the differences between 720p, 1080p and 4K become less obvious due to viewing distance and screen size. Shouldn't it?

Speaking of 4K, I'm guessing pushing around 60 discrete, progressively scanned images (v=2160) per second wouldn't look that much different (especially to the average viewer) from 1080 interlaced images (2160/2) per second at 60i, given the appropriate, but reasonable, distance and screen size.

I don't think your eyes or your brain could keep up, therefore nullifying many advantages progressive scanning has. Many people are already seeing where the look of the two processes starts to converge with the 48fps version of The Hobbit...something you refuse to believe is possible.

So, "absolutely different" is a bit of an overstatement, in my opinion.

Now, maybe my theory is wrong. But please, for the love of Pete, don't say to read your earlier posts. All they're meant to do is convince me that I really liked something that I didn't actually like. You try to quantify and argue taste, which is why I think most people haven't addressed them.

I know what I saw, I know what it looked like to me and I found it unappealing.
 
Last edited:
i'm really not sure what you're talking about. persistence of vision? really?

interlaced and progressive is just as different as active and passive... i don't see what's so hard to understand about that. even if you can't process information fast enough to articulate exactly what that difference is, your brain knows. it's not the same. but i will concede that they do both cycle more times per second. and maybe if you actually were to read my posts you'd see i was offering my thoughts on the potential of high framerate experiences and trying to help the people who 'want to like it' possibly understand their aversions and learn a different way of going to the theatre just to watch a movie and experience it without picking it apart. i sort of thought i was being helpful, sorry if you were too busy analyzing it to get the point, i really am.
 
Brian Boyer said:
"Absolutely" and "only" are pretty strong words and many people clearly see the similarities that you keep insisting don't exist. You might as well be trying to convince us that American Idol and The X Factor are two totally different shows.

What I will give you is this: Progressive and interlaced frames are different experiences at slower frame rates and lower resolutions. 24 discrete, interlaced (240 lines of visible vertical resolution) images per second at D-1 resolution, 720x486 (NTSC), would look horrendous.

But, consider this: The vertical resolution of 1080i video is 540 lines per field. That's more than the full resolution frame of of 480i video without the interlacing (480p).

Human visual acuity can only resolve so much detail. Persistence of vision already settles in nicely at 24fps. As you start increasing the frame rate and vertical resolution on interlaced frames, it should become increasingly harder to discern them from progressively scanned frames under many viewing conditions for the same reasons the differences between 720p, 1080p and 4K become less obvious due to viewing distance and screen size. Shouldn't it?

Speaking of 4K, I'm guessing pushing around 60 discrete, progressively scanned images (v=2160) per second wouldn't look that much different (especially to the average viewer) from 1080 interlaced images (2160/2) per second at 60i, given the appropriate, but reasonable, distance and screen size.

I don't think your eyes or your brain could keep up, therefore nullifying many advantages progressive scanning has. Many people are already seeing where the look of the two processes starts to convergence with the 48fps version of The Hobbit...something you refuse to believe is possible.

So, "absolutely different" is a bit of an overstatement, in my opinion.

Now, maybe my theory is wrong. But please, for the love of Pete, don't say to read your earlier posts. All they're meant to do is convince me that I really liked something that I didn't actually like. You try to quantify and argue taste, which is why I think most people haven't addressed them.

I know what I saw, I know what it looked like to me and I found it unappealing.
Click to expand...

Brilliant!
 
Paul, The Knoxville Regal's HFR is working fine again... in case you were wondering. I saw it again yesterday and found that the "look" that some find unappealing (myself included) was even less noticeable... I really enjoyed it. I do think there is an acclimation process. Yes 48FPS is different than 24FPS, but so is dark chocolate and milk chocolate... both enjoyable, just different.
 
paulherrin said:
i'm really not sure what you're talking about. persistence of vision? really?

interlaced and progressive is just as different as active and passive... i don't see what's so hard to understand about that. even if you can't process information fast enough to articulate exactly what that difference is, your brain knows. it's not the same. but i will concede that they do both cycle more times per second. and maybe if you actually were to read my posts you'd see i was offering my thoughts on the potential of high framerate experiences and trying to help the people who 'want to like it' possibly understand their aversions and learn a different way of going to the theatre just to watch a movie and experience it without picking it apart. i sort of thought i was being helpful, sorry if you were too busy analyzing it to get the point, i really am.
Click to expand...

Now you're attacking the very mention of persistence of vision? It's the fundamental reason why we perceive smooth motion from still images at all, provided they're displayed fast enough. Why do you think HFR works?

I never said progressive and interlaced were the same. I said, given the right conditions, they'll start to LOOK the same.

The Epic and film stock are totally different. Under the right conditions, they also start to LOOK the same.

Vacuum tube amplifiers and digital modeling are two totally different technologies. As the modeling algorithms improve, they start to SOUND the same.

This concept can't be foreign to you.

Paul, I did read your posts, which is why I know they're mostly irrelevant to the real issue. Even in this latest attempt to explain the motivation behind your posts, you put yourself in a place of superior knowledge and experience. It's self-serving and self-aggrandizing.

Plus, I didn't even know HFR Aversion Therapy was a thing.

It's like you think if you can explain my aversion to cheesy soft rock you'll be able to convince me that I do indeed like the band Air Supply.

I truly believe you thought you were helping. But, you based that help on a seriously flawed assumption - that because we didn't like it, we must've be doing something wrong.

The main sticking point I see in this thread is:
Many people who've gone to see the 48fps version and loved it came back to this thread and made a declarative statement about having been to the mountaintop and how 48fps is awesome/visionary/new/the future.

The problem with that is:
You're placing a value on the fact that you liked it, above and beyond simple matters of opinion and taste. You're patting yourselves on the back as if liking it were some sort of accomplishment. It's not. It doesn't make you one of the cool kids.
 
Brian Boyer said:
The problem with that is:
You're placing a value on the fact that you liked it, above and beyond simple matters of opinion and taste. You're patting yourselves on the back as if liking it were some sort of accomplishment. It's not. It doesn't make you one of the cool kids.
Click to expand...

No one could have said it better!
 
Andy Roberts said:
Paul, The Knoxville Regal's HFR is working fine again... in case you were wondering. I saw it again yesterday and found that the "look" that some find unappealing (myself included) was even less noticeable... I really enjoyed it. I do think there is an acclimation process. Yes 48FPS is different than 24FPS, but so is dark chocolate and milk chocolate... both enjoyable, just different.
Click to expand...

awesome, thanks man... i'll be back up there soon enough. let me know if you wanna go again, haha! good idea on the chocolate, maybe i'll sneak some in.
 
paulherrin said:
how about this: next time i want a character assessment and a full analysis of what i believe... i'll ask for it. until then, what in the world does what you believe about what i believe about your beliefs have anything to do with hobbits or high framerates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision
Click to expand...

Okay. I admit my reference was outdated. I'll take the hit on that one. I blame my parents.

Replace Persistence of Vision with Phi Phenomenon and Beta Movement. It doesn't really matter. They're still describing what Persistence of Vision erroneously sought to explain. It doesn't change the point, and you know that. The important bit of that sentence was the 24fps part. You know that, too.

Whatever the cause, it exists and relies on displaying images in rapid enough succession. Therefore, it's temporally based and influenced by frame rates and, in the context of this discussion, higher ones in particular.

By the same token, the next time we want your "thoughts on the potential of high framerate experiences and trying to help the people who 'want to like it' possibly understand their aversions and learn a different way of going to the theatre just to watch a movie and experience it without picking it apart", we'll ask for that.

You wonder how I presume to know your beliefs but you're going to help people understand their aversions and learn a different way to watch movies? Your Dr. Phil routine on the look of HFR is what ran this thread off the rails in the first place. Ask yourself what that has to do with Hobbits and high frame rates.

POT (talking on the phone): "Hello, Kettle? This is Pot. Yeah, um...you're black."

What you believe about those who disagree with your position, as well as those who agree, is clearly represented in your posts. No analysis is needed. Simple reading comprehension will suffice.
 
oh don't be mistaken, i'm extremely hypocritical, even if that's not my intent. i've met very few people who don't seem to be so and they get a lot of respect from me. on that same note, it's always easier to blame someone else... my statements are meant to challenge you (including me) and encourage introspection. it's my failing (at least to some degree) that they've become barriers instead of doorways.

there are some people here who are legitimately trying to figure this out, and there are others who are anti-experimental and offering nothing but insults and negativity. if i've spoken too harshly towards such folks, so be it, even though i try to be quick in offering a meaningful apology for any offense. it is my practice to immediately offer forgiveness as best i can, and along with an apology/noticeable shift in attitude i immediately forget offensiveness.

i really like talking with people who disagree with me - when they offer information, not insults. you aren't going to see things the way i see things, that's okay. our experiences are obviously divergent, also okay. you may not like my proclivities towards philosophic metaphysics, very okay. ignore me as much as you deem appropriate. i'm not discounting anybody's opinion, preference, or experience - but if you want to actually have a discussion about such subjectivities, we've got to dig a little deeper - and there are many ways to attempt that. i don't have anything against any of you guys, and i really see no reason to continue bickering on and on about hurt feelings. i'm not interested in throwing stones back and forth and building forts around framerates, as fun as that might seem.

let's be real: trying to effectively communicate on the internet really sucks sometimes, so let's get over it. my intentions are typically to further thoughtful discussion, offer whatever help i can, and try to splash some humor every once in awhile. if there be a way to read my writing that's not personally insulting to you, try reading it that way first and if you have questions send me a personal message.

now. i'm glad we're coming to a balanced point where we see the potential in variable/hfr technology in the aiding of visual storytelling techniques. there are certainly many 'problems' that it creates, at least for the way we've been doing things, and the hobbit was a less than perfect example of what high framereate technology can accomplish (as i've tried to point out and quite a few others have been making wonderful analyses and suggestions about) although i (and i know it's pretty split here) happened to really enjoy the experience and the story, which is the bigger picture here. it's not going to be appropriate everywhere or for everyone, but it is a single, relatively small factor akin to depth-of-field, lens selection, film-stock, stereoscopy, slow-motion, time-lapse, and on and on. it's just a thing. there's nothing magical or unmagical about a framerate (or we'd all be watching a black and white strobing screen at 24 or 48 or 120fps - could be an interesting installation though as long as you don't start having brain seizures). any magic is somewhere other than the sum of individual parts...
 
It has been discussed here that PJ used the HFR in order to solve viewing issues on the 3D presentation. But the way you make your statement, is that HFR is better than 24 full stop! And once and for all, if you could actually tell us exactly why that is, and please don't hide your explanations behind pseudo metaphysics, because if HFR are that much better to you, a simple and clear explanation should be easy to find. For example, tell us why would 'Lincoln' be a much better film if shot at 48.

Clear and common sense answers would be great. Just like then ones you get from this side of the argument, please. Not your usual judgment is necessary, thanks.

Its discussions like these, if you are able to answer, that actually bring the thought process forward to some better answers, and not what you have repeatedly been doing so far. Criticizing and letting everyone know that if they don't like HFR is because they are narrow minded.

Lets try and 'elevate' this now, shall we?
 
first, i haven't seen lincoln.

second, all i've ever said or implied is that framerates higher than 24, in my personal opinion (along with many others), are and can be potentially well-suited for certain types of cinematic/visual storytelling experiences. i like films that have been shot at 24 frames per second - but not because they were shot that way, but because they are what they are.

thirdly, the only people i've been speaking harshly towards - or simply suggesting that they open their minds (you don't have to, just a suggestion - chill out) are those who think the way we've always done things is the only way to think about doing things. in my opinion, this is foolish and destructive thinking - not for me, i'll carry on, but for the individual. if you're convinced otherwise, so be it - you don't have to listen or respond to anything i have offer. and please stop making assumptions that are absolutely contrary to clear and direct statements that i've made multiple times (perhaps there's some skimming going on? [emphasis added so as not to be missed if so]) pretty common sense stuff.

and finally, i'm done with this conversation about a conversation that's virtual to begin with. this is absurd - nobody's saying anything. this thread isn't about me, or anybody else. i'll only be responding to thoughtful comments from this point on. any other discussion needs to take place via PM. clear enough?
 
paulherrin said:
oh don't be mistaken, i'm extremely hypocritical, even if that's not my intent. i've met very few people who don't seem to be so and they get a lot of respect from me. on that same note, it's always easier to blame someone else... my statements are meant to challenge you (including me) and encourage introspection. it's my failing (at least to some degree) that they've become barriers instead of doorways.

there are some people here who are legitimately trying to figure this out, and there are others who are anti-experimental and offering nothing but insults and negativity. if i've spoken too harshly towards such folks, so be it, even though i try to be quick in offering a meaningful apology for any offense. it is my practice to immediately offer forgiveness as best i can, and along with an apology/noticeable shift in attitude i immediately forget offensiveness.

i really like talking with people who disagree with me - when they offer information, not insults. you aren't going to see things the way i see things, that's okay. our experiences are obviously divergent, also okay. you may not like my proclivities towards philosophic metaphysics, very okay. ignore me as much as you deem appropriate. i'm not discounting anybody's opinion, preference, or experience - but if you want to actually have a discussion about such subjectivities, we've got to dig a little deeper - and there are many ways to attempt that. i don't have anything against any of you guys, and i really see no reason to continue bickering on and on about hurt feelings. i'm not interested in throwing stones back and forth and building forts around framerates, as fun as that might seem.

let's be real: trying to effectively communicate on the internet really sucks sometimes, so let's get over it. my intentions are typically to further thoughtful discussion, offer whatever help i can, and try to splash some humor every once in awhile. if there be a way to read my writing that's not personally insulting to you, try reading it that way first and if you have questions send me a personal message.

now. i'm glad we're coming to a balanced point where we see the potential in variable/hfr technology in the aiding of visual storytelling techniques. there are certainly many 'problems' that it creates, at least for the way we've been doing things, and the hobbit was a less than perfect example of what high framereate technology can accomplish (as i've tried to point out and quite a few others have been making wonderful analyses and suggestions about) although i (and i know it's pretty split here) happened to really enjoy the experience and the story, which is the bigger picture here. it's not going to be appropriate everywhere or for everyone, but it is a single, relatively small factor akin to depth-of-field, lens selection, film-stock, stereoscopy, slow-motion, time-lapse, and on and on. it's just a thing. there's nothing magical or unmagical about a framerate (or we'd all be watching a black and white strobing screen at 24 or 48 or 120fps - could be an interesting installation though as long as you don't start having brain seizures). any magic is somewhere other than the sum of individual parts...
Click to expand...

Dude, I like playing argument (I coined that phrase as a lad) like nobody's business. You'll get no qualms from me there. And I can only speak for myself when I say I wasn't offended nor did I suffer hurt feelings by anything you've said.

There's absolutely room for the type of discussion you want to have on this subject and I don't think anyone was trying to shut you down.

However, you formulated an opinion that made having that discussion extremely difficult, if not impossible, because it didn't correspond with our experience or accurately represent our thought process and summarily dismissed our judgement as lacking in some way. All of your posts were predicated on and reflected your original assumption and you've been unwavering in looking at the issue from a different angle.

If you're saying you're willing to allow for a different assessment of why people didn't like the HFR version, you'll have a far more productive and engaging discussion. Otherwise, I think you'll continue to be met with the same type of resistance.

On that note, I'm bowing back out.
 
+1..
Brian Boyer said:
Dude, I like playing argument (I coined that phrase as a lad) like nobody's business. You'll get no qualms from me there. And I can only speak for myself when I say I wasn't offended nor did I suffer hurt feelings by anything you've said.There's absolutely room for the type of discussion you want to have on this subject and I don't think anyone was trying to shut you down.However, you formulated an opinion that made having that discussion extremely difficult, if not impossible, because it didn't correspond with our experience or accurately represent our thought process and summarily dismissed our judgement as lacking in some way. All of your posts were predicated on and reflected your original assumption and you've been unwavering in looking at the issue from a different angle.If you're saying you're willing to allow for a different assessment of why people didn't like the HFR version, you'll have a far more productive and engaging discussion. Otherwise, I think you'll continue to be met with the same type of resistance.On that note, I'm bowing back out.
Click to expand...
 
HFR is what I expected. A controversial technology supporting another controversial technology.

It's paradoxical in my mind that by adding frames, it feels like quality has been lowered. I feel that HFR cheapens the visual quality and makes it feel "made for TV." Or a theatrical production that was filmed on a sound stage. Not because those kinds of things are of a lower production quality and I'm somehow associating a video frame rate with historical production quality, but because I personally, internally, thoughtfully, do not like video frame rates for cinematic production. HFR makes me feel like I'm watching a take, actors, a set. 24 frames better makes me feel like I'm watching a story, characters, a narrative, a film.

I guess it was all to make 3D work better, but I don't anticipate ever choosing an HFR showing over a normal one in the future. And for that matter, I probably won't choose 3D either unless it improves or the film is amazing in 3D over 2D.

It was good to try it, but it was what I expected, even though I gave it a shot. I'm really not sure what other people are seeing that hasn't been seen before. Some of the CG definitely felt more real and immediate, but my initial assumption is because it is similar to a video frame rate, which we associate with real and immediate things?

I wonder if HFR fans always had a disposition toward video frame rates and this was a breath of fresh air to see it more cinematically employed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top