The Hobbit at 48fps...

[Sergio Perez]

That's the old Kurosawa saying about how to make a move -- get it right in front of the camera then shoot it as well as you can with the camera. Of course, that makes it sound simple.

It's hard enough to get things "right" for the limitations of 2D and 2K, let's say, and it gets harder and harder with 3D and more resolution, temporal and textural. I would cut Hollywood some slack. It's all smoke & mirrors, a slight of hand, misdirection as much as it is direction. That's part of the job, to tell the audience to look here, not there. That's the art of storytelling. If you are making an IMAX documentary, sure, you may spend more time just letting the audience immerse themselves in the reality of the location and all the details in it. But in a narrative, you generally want the audience to look at the actor's performance and get caught up with the story, so visual details can either help... or become a distraction, even if they are beautiful details.

Couldn't agree more. Just saw "Les Miserables", A film that reminded me of Dreyer's classic "Passion of Joan D'arc" with the constant use of close ups and Shallow Depth of Field, but, in this case, with constant camera movement. One can see the struggle of focus pullers in this movie (and its noticeable in picture), but it was essential to create the focus on the actors performances the film creates. While this is acceptable in 24fps, I think this was the sort of film that would suffer terribly in 48fps. The cinematic language would have to be completely different if it was shot 48fps- there couldn't be such use of Shallow DOF, for example. The "focus hunting", which was unavoidable due to the "freedom" the director gave actors to do their performances, would look too distracting in 48fps. If it meant focus marks for every single take, it would hinder the performances, destroying the single most powerful aspect of that movie.

 

[paulherrin]

In Hobbit I found only one issue with 3D or HFR that focus pull (AKA rack focus) didn't work properly in some of the shots and scenes.

To me didn't work at all, there is no need for that in 3D and it should be avoided in 3D just because it

made a bad effect and actually that kind of artefact also slightly damaged 3D cinematography/photography.

yeah, not sure what that was about... could have dollied/pushed in or just cut, or simply staged the shot a little differently. there are a lot of camera moves/techniques (leftover language) that were developed for a certain presentation, and they don't really translate that well.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

yeah, not sure what that was about... could have dollied/pushed in or just cut, or simply staged the shot a little differently. there are a lot of camera moves/techniques (leftover language) that were developed for a certain presentation, and they don't really translate that well.

The focus rack from one point to another in 2D has a very smooth blur gradation and done with perfect glass no breathing,

but in stereoscopic 3D that is about a kind of simulation of 3D space that really didn't work well because it didn't show a kind blur smoothness in the space at all.

It was more like a short optically dizzy effect...

To me it was totally wrong way to do that and of course it could be done in many different ways to make those cuts or transitions between the subjects...

 

[paulherrin]

yeah - although i loved the spacial compression effect in the scene where the necromancer comes out of the void - that was really awesome (and sucked in 2d)

 

[Marc Wielage]

Nice article in Forbes about Jim...

Thanks for the reference! Very interesting comments. That first Red digital short done by Jackson was a real game-changer, no question.

 

[Brandon J.F.]

Interesting app to simulate various project frame rates (up to 120fps) in your browser: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

 

[Brigham Edgar]

I love having the choice, just like 3D...can't argue with having a choice! And some will always love it, some wont...just like 3D. Me, I hated it, I'm no convert for the moment and really wish I saw the film in regular 24 first as it just annoyed me so much. And unfortunately all I can remember is not if I actually liked the movie or not but just that I so disliked it in HFR...and that's really sad basically. I wish I saw something else first or watched it in 2D no HFR before. Anyway...problems of the first world hey

 

[Brian Anderson]

I know I'm very very late in the game to be posting about the Hobbit but I just saw it for the first time tonight and lucky enough @ 48fps in 3D. My dad and I found it to be a truly amazing movie and presentation!

Before seeing it and reading lots of posts about how viewers didn't like the 48fps and so... I didn't find that to be accurate, I loved the movie and the high frame rate. Since this movie is breaking all the box office records, everyone at Red Digital and Peter Jackson's Crew must have done something right. Their hard work is paying off so congrats to both teams!

 

[drew sandoval]

Just a thought here, but I read that they shot the 48fps with a 270degree shutter. Isn't that what causes the "video look" phenomenon/problem? All the Michael Mann thrillers that people complained about, it was decided it was because he was shooting with a 360degree shutter speed, not a 180 like audiences are used to from cinema. If they shoot with a smaller shutter, won't that alleviate the complaints cause bygoing with a video style shutter?

 

[paulherrin]

there's a clear perceptual difference regardless of the 'shutter angle'

 

[Jonas Klittmark]

Just a thought here, but I read that they shot the 48fps with a 270degree shutter. Isn't that what causes the "video look" phenomenon/problem? All the Michael Mann thrillers that people complained about, it was decided it was because he was shooting with a 360degree shutter speed, not a 180 like audiences are used to from cinema. If they shoot with a smaller shutter, won't that alleviate the complaints cause bygoing with a video style shutter?

I read this too and was surprised. I wonder what it would have looked like with normal 180 shutter angle? It sounded like they did it partly for aesthetics but also for exposure (there was a reference to it making the Epic "effectively ISO 250").

 

[Cameron Chin]

I read this too and was surprised. I wonder what it would have looked like with normal 180 shutter angle? It sounded like they did it partly for aesthetics but also for exposure (there was a reference to it making the Epic "effectively ISO 250").

With an 180 degree shutter angle, the film would have a more metal look to it, aka video. The wide open shutter is to induce motion blur to the frame so that it will soften the sharp images shooting at 48fps... and also increasing the shutter angle will increase the exposure of the frame... basically one is dragging open the shutter longer when opening up the shutter.

 

[Julian Banos]

Finally I got a chance to see it HDR IMAX 3D. I avoided all reviews and comments as much as possible. I have two main issues with 3D: It makes the screen look smaller, and it takes away a lot of brightness, highlights. Regardless of these two things I keep on watching 3D, then 2D in theaters if I can. I think Prometheus was the best live-action feature 3D I have ever seen, but I also enjoyed the NAB presentation of Bloom (best brightness in 3D I have seen).
Hobbit ads 48 frames, and I just finished a job in both 48 and 60HFR flavors, so I was thrilled to see the film.
1. New editing principles need to apply to 48HFR, some inserts do not work and some do, same with quick editing.
2. Whenever the camera moves counter-wise to the objects direction of movement, say a dolly following a character right and it pans left: it distracts.
3. A lot of pressure on production design and on composites. Suddenly the tricks start to show up.

I would not throw away 48 HFR yet, since there were some awesome shots. It will take time to experiment and make new rules for using it. There is ton of improvement, but there needs to be more experiments and analysis. I think its great to know that somebody can make a multi-million dollar experiment without hesitation. It takes a lot of guts to do it.

Maybe we are looking at the dawn of a new continuity system, after all the one we use now its pretty old.

 

[Elan Gunos]

If Space Odyssey 2001 was shot today, and considering its long stable shots, I think it can greatly benefit from 48fps 3D.

 

[Ryan Farnes]

If Space Odyssey 2001 was shot today, and considering its long stable shots, I think it can greatly benefit from 48fps 3D.

Blasphemy.

:smiley:

 

[Brendan Isaac]

Loved the 48fps suited the story! Not for every film but exciting times!

 

[Mark Toia]

Just watched the Hobbit...

I was so keen to see it, watched every blog making of video... even friended Jacksons facebook blog.... Almost tripped over myself to see it....
But I was so sadly disappointed.

Great effects as usual... but... It lacked brilliance.
Will I see the sequels.... probably not.

Was shooting it in 3d really worth it. ?
Was Shooting in 48fps worth it... ?

Maybe one day. but for me it was so distracting on both counts.

 

[Eric Santiago]

I finally got to see it and avoided all the bts hype prior.

I didnt see the HFR version.

I actually loved this movie and felt good after.

I watched it as a fan of the book and didnt let my sfx blood get in the way of things.

Really really loved it

Maybe it got in my head with everyone telling me it was boring.

Either way, great job Weta and Peter Jackson.

Oh and yeah, I kinda had the EPIC on the back of my mind a few times

 

[Gabe Conroy]

With an 180 degree shutter angle, the film would have a more metal look to it, aka video. The wide open shutter is to induce motion blur to the frame so that it will soften the sharp images shooting at 48fps... and also increasing the shutter angle will increase the exposure of the frame... basically one is dragging open the shutter longer when opening up the shutter.

That's kind of a bizarre way to look at it...if they had shot in 48 fps on film, they would have had to shoot at 180 degrees or less, but you're saying that would've made it look like video? The way they shot it can only be done with video...

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

That's kind of a bizarre way to look at it...if they had shot in 48 fps on film, they would have had to shoot at 180 degrees or less, but you're saying that would've made it look like video?

According to my experience, he's right - but I have no idea whatsoever what he meant by 'metal look' (sorry!). I prefer to use the word 'immediate' to describe the look and feel of video. Frame rate is the biggest variable in whether footage looks like 'film' or like 'video'. So film at 48fps will look like video. Not 100% the same thing but close enough. Unless I totally misunderstood your comment, in which case I apologize.