Advance press screenings of 48fps The Hobbit 'disappoint'

[allupons]

People need to stop mis-using the word sharpness. The reason 48fps and higher looks awful is due to motion characteristics and blur. When you all but remove all motion blur, yet maintain highly fluid motion with more recorded frames you get the awful vhs "soap opera" effect. Very sharp, high resolution video @24 fps can look completely amazing and simultaneously cinematic. It is when you break the dreamlike fantastic appearances of 24fps, with the vhs-centric poorly reproduced smooth motion reality look of 48 fps that things look like crap. Leave sharpness out of this.

[OverCranked]

When they announced the 3D Hobbit and high frame rates on RED user back then I questioned the possibility of " Soap Opera " look and yes, you guessed it, the fan boys got a chance to show their loyalty by all kind of booing and jeering.
In fact everybody should brace for RED users attempt to crash this party as well - just because the possibility of a less than WoW is being attached to RED subject. Let's make sure this is not about RED and the subject is 48 fps and stereo shooting to stay on track.
I love peter Jackson and his vision for the Lord of the Rings and this is an unfair look of his current situation with Hobbits :

- He does what he does because he can !
He is not hungry anymore. In fact he could flop three more productions like Hobbits and still try a few more. And non of anybodies business. So he does it.

- Success of the Lord of the Rings was so huge that his next work will be overshadowed no matter what. Combine that with the king's ransom the result would be trying anything possible to keep the producers happy. That's when the gimmick & gizmos sales persons show up.  Apparently RED was in the front of that  queue

- Hobbit should've been done before the Lord of the Rings. It's a smaller story in context and creating a prequel to the LR needs extraordinary efforts. He has gone the gimmick rout many wished he hadn't now.

- 48 fps technically is better by all kinds of arguments and white papers. The people writing those white papers go pay to watch pictures made in 24fps for years to come because they feel better.

[jlev23]

[quote author=allupons link=topic=637.msg4672#msg4672 date=1335365829]
People need to stop mis-using the word sharpness. The reason 48fps and higher looks awful is due to motion characteristics and blur. When you all but remove all motion blur, yet maintain highly fluid motion with more recorded frames you get the awful vhs "soap opera" effect. Very sharp, high resolution video @24 fps can look completely amazing and simultaneously cinematic. It is when you break the dreamlike fantastic appearances of 24fps, with the vhs-centric poorly reproduced smooth motion reality look of 48 fps that things look like crap. Leave sharpness out of this.
[/quote]
shooting at higher frame rates makes footage "feel" sharper and clearer, this is a fact. it reduces the motion blur mainly due to the increase in the shutter speed as well as more frames being taken in by your eye. thats why we use this technique in shooting for compositing elements, normally on green screen. this is exactly why people are complaining the sets have too much detail and look fake.

[Axel]

[quote author=allupons link=topic=637.msg4672#msg4672 date=1335365829]The reason 48fps and higher looks awful is due to motion characteristics and blur. When you all but remove all motion blur, yet maintain highly fluid motion with more recorded frames you get the awful vhs "soap opera" effect.[/quote]

You are right, it's not sharpness, it's slowness. Why slow, when the phases change faster? Because we judge speed by motion blur. If it misses, even fast action looks lame:
[img]http://asset1.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20090813/bullitt_mustang.jpg[/img]

Not true? Watch Transformers (or s.th. like this), and imagine 48p. It doesn't fit to the concept.

However, the whole framerate-business is also a matter of viewing habit (is that term right? Please correct me). It can change. Jackson predicted it and his employees agreed (he is not the nice guy as he appears in making ofs, he doesn't tolerate contradiction).

[quote author=OverCranked link=topic=637.msg4673#msg4673 date=1335366116]48 fps technically is better by all kinds of arguments and white papers. The people writing those white papers go pay to watch pictures made in 24fps for years to come because they feel better.[/quote]

4k and 48p need production design that is bereaved of fine overtones. Everything has to look convincing and real. Reality - the grey gruesome dimension where we park our cars - is not convincing. The haphazardly formed environment out there is nothing we wish to see. We want it to have meaning, and this simply hasn't to do with technique.

[jcs]

I found 60fps film to look excellent: Showscan (by Douglas Trumbull: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan). While it did not work out for traditional movies, they did make it into a successful business for theme parks and location-based entertainment: http://www.showscan.com/

If the Hobbit doesn't work at 48fps for whatever reason, a trivial drop-frame to 24fps will fix it. Stereoscopic panning definitely works better at higher frame rates, though.

However, there is an alternative experiment to try: variable frame rate in the same picture. Show outdoor shots at 48, and other shots which don't work at 48 at 24.

One thing we have discovered is that if we bring a simulation (or movie) too close to reality, but not quite there, it has a strong negative reaction, psychologically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley. It may be that we'll get used to it, like beer (remember the first time you tasted it?).

Certainly for outdoor nature shots, high resolution, high framerate material makes the front of the theater look like a giant window into the real world. Add some fans and fragrance and the experiences becomes more real. That's where Showscan ended up (including motion platforms).

[moebius22]

[quote author=Axel link=topic=637.msg4675#msg4675 date=1335367670]

However, the whole framerate-business is also a matter of viewing habit (is that term right? Please correct me). It can change. Jackson predicted it and his employees agreed (he is not the nice guy as he appears in making ofs, he doesn't tolerate contradiction).

[/quote]


That's the kind of holier than though attitude that gets me with filmakers such as Jackson and Cameron. It's either their way or the highway when it comes to the methods of filmmaking. It's like the viewer doesn't like it, but too hell with them, because this is better - I hope it blows up in their faces.

Cameron (as great as he is) is long overdue for a [i]Intolerance[/i] moment himself.

[rube]

Perhaps the "film producers" now have a leaning curve to shoot High def Video.

Film is more forgiving than High-def. Its latitude its silky soft look are more organic than stark clean cut video.
All those who shoot pro video know this.

Its ironic that the pro film guys are now dealing with this reality.

[lukovsky14]

I've seen a video about it... From what I understood, its being recorded in 48fps but NOT played back in 48fps... They convert in back to 24fps so that there is less motion blur... 

[MatthewP]

It's all psychological. If you showed someone from before the video-era a film shot at 48fps vs 24fps, they'd choose the former.

Thankfully, with all these smooth motion modes on TVs, that psychological effect is going away, as more and more people are getting used to smoother lifelike motion... though lower framerates suit fantasy films, I think.

Now if James Bond was shot at a high framerate... it would probably look awesome.

[Paul Watt]

So much vitriol from many who have not seen the clips, or any 48fps 3D.  Why all the hate?  So Peter Jackson took a risk and tried something different.  No-one's forcing anyone to make any aesthetic choices for future films.  Do whatever you like.  I find it a bit hypocritical that people criticize new technology when it's someone else pushing the envelope, then bemoan the fact that they can't get their hands similar technology at an affordable price. 

[PAVP]

What was wrong with the Lord of the Rings trilogy?  I thought those movies were well done and generally well accepted by the public.  I don't like the look of BlueRay and perhaps that is how some of the scenes in The Hobbit are looking.  To me BlueRay versions of movies look like video.

[Axel]

[quote author=PAVP link=topic=637.msg4684#msg4684 date=1335371163]
What was wrong with the Lord of the Rings trilogy?  I thought those movies were well done and generally well accepted by the public.  I don't like the look of BlueRay and perhaps that is how some of the scenes in The Hobbit are looking.  To me BlueRay versions of movies look like video.
[/quote]

It was in the 3D version of [i]Avatar[/i], in the scenes on the military base on Pandora, that all the vertical lines of human architecture caused the steadicam-movements and pans to judder. You saw it in 3D only, because it was doubled for each eye. In 2D it was okay.

It was also okay in the soft-edged jungle. It would have been in the Shire, probably.

[moebius22]

[quote author=Paul Watt link=topic=637.msg4683#msg4683 date=1335370859]
So much vitriol from many who have not seen the clips, or any 48fps 3D.  Why all the hate?  So Peter Jackson took a risk and tried something different.  No-one's forcing anyone to make any aesthetic choices for future films.  Do whatever you like.  I find it a bit hypocritical that people criticize new technology when it's someone else pushing the envelope, then bemoan the fact that they can't get their hands similar technology at an affordable price.
[/quote]

Because Cameron and his kind are forgetting first and foremost, it's about the viewing experience and not the Fx (in that order). If you destroy the viewing experience for Fx sake, what good is that?

I also seriously doubt the frame rate war will result in us getting cheaper camera equipment.

[halfmac]

>:( I have not liked the new LCD Tvs that have the higher frame rates.  They make Avatar look like a Soap Opera.  Yuck!

I am not surprised by this post.  [b]3D is a gimmick. [/b] 48 frames is a gimmick.  When I first heard about the Hobbit using 48fps, I was hoping it would be projected at 24 in some theatres so I could see it.  I will not watch it at 48fps. 

I saw Doug Trumbull's ShowScan (which had a 60fps) and it looked like 'Live Film'.  It was not good for dramatic motion pictures.  Neither is this.

I remember a time when we were all trying to make our 60fps video look like film.  The only way to do it was reduce the frame rate to 24p.  Those new cameras were the rage.  Even at 30p they looked better.  Now you have Peter Jackson going the other way because of a gimmick, 3D.  They is no replacing of good story telling.  And 24p does this.

I hate to say it, but I told you so.

[Caleb Genheimer]

I for one am holding judgement until after I see the completed film in theaters. I suspect this could be a case of them showing stuff they're not done touching up.

[HurtinMinorKey]

[quote author=halfmac link=topic=637.msg4688#msg4688 date=1335372367]
>:( I have not liked the new LCD Tvs that have the higher frame rates.  They make Avatar look like a Soap Opera.  Yuck!

[/quote]

It's probably not the TV, it's because you haven't set up your playback properly. Most of the cinema modes turn the motion smoother(which can cause this look) off, so make sure you are in a cinema mode. Also, are you using component video instead of HDMI, because this will cause interlacing, which will also make it look too smooth.

I wonder if there is a chance that the techs setting up the showing might have f-ed this up at all.

[SuperDre]

uhoh, personally I don't like the videolook of interpolated movies on LCD TV's, it's one of the thing that get's turned off immediatly. I already thought the set's looked very 'fake' when the first trailer was shown, so this might explain why.. for me the cinematic look makes the difference between watching real life reporting/homevideo's and movies, I already turned off some movies like 'kings of south beach' after a couple of minutes because of the videolook, i just couldn't get past that look (ok, the movie itself was propably not so good either, but normally that isn't a problem for me, I watch almost anything)..

I don't want to watch a movie as if I'm watching through my own window, I don't want it to be THAT realistic moving/looking..
Then again, don't think that ALL movietheaters will show the movie in 48fps 3D, older cinema's will just have 'regular' 3D..

[NeoNSerg]

wow,I thought it was only me.. I was shocked when Cameron said 60fps was the future..
I hate new LCDs and switch off that smoothering.. but I thought it was me only.. Good to know there is huge protest against that.

As for Avatar - I love that. Here is an interesting fact
In January 2007, Fox had announced that 3-D filming for Avatar would be done at 24 frames per second despite Cameron's strong opinion that a 3-D film requires higher frame rate to make strobing less noticeable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(2009_film)

So maybe FOX saved Avatar even from Cameron  :)

[NeoNSerg]

Here is another point..
1) Shutter. Maybe it is not FPS only but Shutter makes the difference
With 24p you shoot with 1\48 ... Stop frame at 1\48 is a blur.. here or there or everywhere.. so constant blur from frame to frame gives smooth action.

With 48p you shoot at 1\96 at least.. Stop frame at 1\96 is likely to be sharp.. at least half will be sharp.. Depends on lens of course but chances for shart "photo-like" frame are much higher.
And that is where all those "sets look like sets" come.

2) DOF. Another trap comes from DOF. For 3d they need focus everywhere, so that eye can then see 3d and blur himself..
And that is where another trap "sets look fake" come. In 2d they would be blured away , no one would look there.. But now it is all sharp.. oops

Just my  5 cents

[Bruno]

[quote author=PAVP link=topic=637.msg4684#msg4684 date=1335371163]
What was wrong with the Lord of the Rings trilogy?  I thought those movies were well done and generally well accepted by the public.  I don't like the look of BlueRay and perhaps that is how some of the scenes in The Hobbit are looking.  To me BlueRay versions of movies look like video.
[/quote]

BluRays don't look like video, check yout TV settings, you probably have some sort of digital smoothing turned on.
That setting usually needs to be readjusted for every TV input you use.