Advance press screenings of 48fps The Hobbit 'disappoint'

[Axel]

[quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4769#msg4769 date=1335517150]
24fps cinema [i]happens[/i] to be dream-lke or fantasy-like. It was never meant to. This was a happy coincidence.Cinema is not fantasy by definition. It happens to be perceptually . But it can also be reality, if the filmmaker so desires.[/quote]

This boils down to the definition of >cinema<. If a film deals with reality, if it does so in a realistic style, I would then call this a documentary. With whatever framerate the director sees fit for the work, I agree with you. Can you name one film that was shown in cinemas and that dealt with reality? Not in a realistic [i]style[/i], which is as arbitrary as a fantastic style. But which tried to depict reality?

[quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4769#msg4769 date=1335517150]Now about 3D. For whether the step to 3D is a step to realism we will have to agree to disagree. For me, it is. And resoundly so. 3D in 24 fps is an abomination.
But you are right about how the eyes work. And because you are right, we NEED higher frame rates in 3D. Depth perception also needs distinctive edges to quickly evaluate distances. Blur and the lack of continuous movement hinder it. This loads the brain. 48 fps will no doubt help with this.
[/quote]

You are probably right. I recommend the semi-documentary [i]The Cave Of Forgotten Dreams[/i] (it deals with real dreams, so to say) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kULwsoCEd3g

As I understand cinema, it is in a very long tradition of the adjuration of magic. Become master of your world. Mark your fears, defeat them. Project what it is about life that you want to [i]become[/i] reality, fix the image [i]on the wall[/i], teach yourself to grow bigger than life.

The cave artists painted scenes, very often the hunting of animals. Very regularly you see the chase, the slaying and the family eating on the same rock. This suggests sequential states in time, a narration. A visual narration in time, a film.

[img]http://www.wellermanns.de/Gerhard/images/GL/Eiszeit_Kunst/mannmitbogen.jpg[/img]
Two hunters and two deers in perspective at the same time? Or a deer surprised by a hunter (receeding already in posture) and escaping [i]later[/i] ?

To some this interpretation might not be believable. Look at the bows that are taut, cinetic energy about to be set free. Look at all the frozen motion in the thousands of paintings. Some of the animals even seem to have more than four legs? Eh? Of [i]course[/i], they are running! Ice age flip-books!

[HurtinMinorKey]

[quote author=Leang link=topic=637.msg4765#msg4765 date=1335508558]
btw don't bore me with David Fincher stories..  if you want to talk about real filmmakers from the heart then talk about Alejandro González Iñárritu and his DP Rodrigo Prieto - raw real world storytellers! not some facebook or redone euro tattoo movies because hollywood wants to make a profit..  boring scripts but there's a sucker born every minute
[/quote]

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt untill now, but you just outed yourself as a complete tool.  Rodrigo Prieto was the DP on Brokeback Mountain, which is the biggest cliche storyline ever. Even South-Park was making jokes about gay-cowboy movies 5 years before this movie came out.  He (Prieito) has never produced anything that approaches the beauty and storytelling of Fight Club.  He can have all the "heart" in the world, but he lacks the talent of the best.

[Leang]

[quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=637.msg4792#msg4792 date=1335547276]
[quote author=Leang link=topic=637.msg4765#msg4765 date=1335508558]
btw don't bore me with David Fincher stories..  if you want to talk about real filmmakers from the heart then talk about Alejandro González Iñárritu and his DP Rodrigo Prieto - raw real world storytellers! not some facebook or redone euro tattoo movies because hollywood wants to make a profit..  boring scripts but there's a sucker born every minute
[/quote]

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt untill now, but you just outed yourself as a complete tool.  Rodrigo Prieto was the DP on Brokeback Mountain, which is the biggest cliche storyline ever. Even South-Park was making jokes about gay-cowboy movies 5 years before this movie came out.  He (Prieito) has never produced anything that approaches the beauty and storytelling of Fight Club.  He can have all the "heart" in the world, but he lacks the talent of the best.
[/quote]

wow.  just shows what you really know about the underground world of filmmaking and prestigious festivals.  Had you known anything about who I had mentioned like Alejandro González Iñárritu and HIS DP Rodrigo Prieto (who have worked together on storytelling trilogies) you would've at least had something of an opinion besides the fact that you went on some tangent about ''gay-cowboys'' and jokes.  It seems like you're trying to give a subtextual message that you don't like gays or something else.  To mention that DP's have no concept of visual storytelling is far right ridiculous.  ''he can have all the heart in the world, but lacks the talent of the best.''  what are you talking about?? 

[cpc]

[quote author=Axel link=topic=637.msg4780#msg4780 date=1335530524]
[quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4769#msg4769 date=1335517150]
24fps cinema [i]happens[/i] to be dream-lke or fantasy-like. It was never meant to. This was a happy coincidence.Cinema is not fantasy by definition. It happens to be perceptually . But it can also be reality, if the filmmaker so desires.[/quote]

This boils down to the definition of >cinema<. If a film deals with reality, if it does so in a realistic style, I would then call this a documentary. With whatever framerate the director sees fit for the work, I agree with you. Can you name one film that was shown in cinemas and that dealt with reality? Not in a realistic [i]style[/i], which is as arbitrary as a fantastic style. But which tried to depict reality?[/quote]

I didn't mean reality as "our reality", but any reality. I actually had in mind films that strive to put the viewer in the scene. But not just in the sense of immersion - most films that don't intentionally go for a detached viewpoint to the subject matter try to do this anyway. Rather, in a more visceral way; to impose the scene on the viewer by making it as indistinguishable from life as possible. Maybe higher frame rates with their life-like quality will further this ability.
Any work of fiction that wants to convey a documentary feel is likely a good candidate to utilize the high frame rate option.

I've addressed this in an article on my site (partly inspired by this discussion) on [url=http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/frame-rate-artistic-choice-silent-movies/][u]frame rate as artistic choice[/u][/url], which also expands a bit on the topic of silent films.

[quote author=Axel link=topic=637.msg4780#msg4780 date=1335530524]
[quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4769#msg4769 date=1335517150]Now about 3D. For whether the step to 3D is a step to realism we will have to agree to disagree. For me, it is. And resoundly so. 3D in 24 fps is an abomination.
But you are right about how the eyes work. And because you are right, we NEED higher frame rates in 3D. Depth perception also needs distinctive edges to quickly evaluate distances. Blur and the lack of continuous movement hinder it. This loads the brain. 48 fps will no doubt help with this.
[/quote]

You are probably right. I recommend the semi-documentary [i]The Cave Of Forgotten Dreams[/i] (it deals with real dreams, so to say) :

As I understand cinema, it is in a very long tradition of the adjuration of magic. Become master of your world. Mark your fears, defeat them. Project what it is about life that you want to [i]become[/i] reality, fix the image [i]on the wall[/i], teach yourself to grow bigger than life.

The cave artists painted scenes, very often the hunting of animals. Very regularly you see the chase, the slaying and the family eating on the same rock. This suggests sequential states in time, a narration. A visual narration in time, a film.

[img]http://www.wellermanns.de/Gerhard/images/GL/Eiszeit_Kunst/mannmitbogen.jpg[/img]
Two hunters and two deers in perspective at the same time? Or a deer surprised by a hunter (receeding already in posture) and escaping [i]later[/i] ?

To some this interpretation might not be believable. Look at the bows that are taut, cinetic energy about to be set free. Look at all the frozen motion in the thousands of paintings. Some of the animals even seem to have more than four legs? Eh? Of [i]course[/i], they are running! Ice age flip-books!
[/quote]

I can subscribe to this view. Storytelling almost always builds a fantasy. And I certainly find the unreal quality of cinema appealing. Its opposition to reality is charming. But then again, I would give anyone that disagrees the option to shoot their work in any fps at their discretion. Even if they may happen to be wrong with their choice. :)

[piz]

One movie I saw and loved in 3D and I think could definitely make use of the higher frame rate look was JACK ASS.    It seems everyone is just talking about certain types of films but there are many possibilities for all sorts of films, not just your typical fictional narrative. 

One thing that has never been done well in my opinion is a film strictly in POV perspective and I believe it has a lot to do with the strobing of 24fps that makes it difficult to watch and feels unreal.  This is one area of a new type of narrative I could see emerging given the new generations brought up on 1st person games played in POV but the key is having something like higher frame rate to give it is life like motion as possible. 

[Axel]

[quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4809#msg4809 date=1335568567]
I've addressed this in an article on my site (partly inspired by this discussion) on [url=http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/frame-rate-artistic-choice-silent-movies/][u]frame rate as artistic choice[/u][/url], which also expands a bit on the topic of silent films.
[/quote]

Your arguments are flawless. I like to stress the difference between [i]realistic[/i] and [i]realistic feel[/i]. Not to contradict you, just to nail down why there is such a problem at all.

48 fps feel more realistic, because the time is fluent, (almost) uninterrupted. I appreciate you have an analogue background, the name Shutter Angle of your site seems to refer to the 180° shutter of classic film cameras. They didn't record the whole motion, they threw away 50% (OMG, it's hard to find the right words that early in the morning, excuse germanisms). And we continue to do so. This is one of several reasons for the film-judder one endures particularly with pans. [i]The Hobbit[/i] was filmed with a "shutter angle" of 270°, that means with a exposure time of 1/36 second per frame (please correct me, mathematics are also not my hobby over my first cup of coffee), throwing away only one-fourth of the motion-phases.

You could say "live" instead of "realistic". Higher framerates, bigger shutter angle (or interlaced video) make the images look like continuous real-time. I doubt that this is only a viewing habit. Will it disappear after a period of acclimatization? I don't think so.

Because 24 fps, as coincidentally as they became standard, [i]now[/i] are accepted as narrated time, in the same way that a novel is coincidentally told in past tense. [i]Once upon a time[/i] promises a story that's worth listening to, we accept that it's logic is completely arbitrary, and only because we accept it early on, we engage with it.

In modern literature, european more than american, novels are sometimes narrated in present tense. This is exhausting, because there is no relative future. Godard said, the cinema showed death at work. In a movie we are like passengers in a train who sit in the travel direction. You see things coming, you watch them develop, unfold. Would you sit opposing the direction of the train, every object that passes your field of vision would almost shock you, because it jumps into the scene. It means adrenaline, but there is no realism to it. By pretending that you don't know about the future while you narrate, you take an impossible position. So in a narration, it can't be kept over longer passages. You don't follow, you get bored.

What higher framerates are good for, imho: Stephen King (to name a widely known author) often uses present tense for some scenes to make them feel live, breathless - how would [i]Breathless[/i] (À bout de souffle) look in 48 fps? Once all digital projectors have the presets for 48 fps, it should be easy to change the framerate also within one film, according to the feel of the scene.

I must say, I enjoy this conversation. Very interesting topic.

[Axel]

[quote author=Axel link=topic=637.msg4825#msg4825 date=1335597689]
[quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4809#msg4809 date=1335568567]
I've addressed this in an article on my site (partly inspired by this discussion) on [url=http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/frame-rate-artistic-choice-silent-movies/][u]frame rate as artistic choice[/u][/url], which also expands a bit on the topic of silent films.
[/quote]
48 fps feel more realistic, because the time is fluent, (almost) uninterrupted. I appreciate you have an analogue background, the name Shutter Angle of your site seems to refer to the 180° shutter of classic film cameras. They didn't record the whole motion, they threw away 50% (OMG, it's hard to find the right words that early in the morning, excuse germanisms). And we continue to do so. This is one of several reasons for the film-judder one endures particularly with pans. [i]The Hobbit[/i] was filmed with a "shutter angle" of 270°, that means with a exposure time of [color=red]1/36[/color] second per frame (please correct me, mathematics are also not my hobby over my first cup of coffee), throwing away only one-fourth of the motion-phases.
[/quote]

Wrong of course. @48 fps 360° would be 1/48, 180° (the standard) would be 1/96, and 270° would be 1/72. The rest of the explanation was correct.

EDIT: Wrong again, I have just learned. 270° would mean 1/64 s. But then again, the Epic [i]has[/i] the shutter preset of 1/72 ...

[cpc]

[quote author=Axel link=topic=637.msg4825#msg4825 date=1335597689]
[quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4809#msg4809 date=1335568567]
I've addressed this in an article on my site (partly inspired by this discussion) on [url=http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/frame-rate-artistic-choice-silent-movies/][u]frame rate as artistic choice[/u][/url], which also expands a bit on the topic of silent films.
[/quote]

Your arguments are flawless. I like to stress the difference between [i]realistic[/i] and [i]realistic feel[/i]. Not to contradict you, just to nail down why there is such a problem at all.

48 fps feel more realistic, because the time is fluent, (almost) uninterrupted. I appreciate you have an analogue background, the name Shutter Angle of your site seems to refer to the 180° shutter of classic film cameras. They didn't record the whole motion, they threw away 50% (OMG, it's hard to find the right words that early in the morning, excuse germanisms). And we continue to do so. This is one of several reasons for the film-judder one endures particularly with pans. [i]The Hobbit[/i] was filmed with a "shutter angle" of 270°, that means with a exposure time of 1/36 second per frame (please correct me, mathematics are also not my hobby over my first cup of coffee), throwing away only one-fourth of the motion-phases.

You could say "live" instead of "realistic". Higher framerates, bigger shutter angle (or interlaced video) make the images look like continuous real-time. I doubt that this is only a viewing habit. Will it disappear after a period of acclimatization? I don't think so.

Because 24 fps, as coincidentally as they became standard, [i]now[/i] are accepted as narrated time, in the same way that a novel is coincidentally told in past tense. [i]Once upon a time[/i] promises a story that's worth listening to, we accept that it's logic is completely arbitrary, and only because we accept it early on, we engage with it.

In modern literature, european more than american, novels are sometimes narrated in present tense. This is exhausting, because there is no relative future. Godard said, the cinema showed death at work. In a movie we are like passengers in a train who sit in the travel direction. You see things coming, you watch them develop, unfold. Would you sit opposing the direction of the train, every object that passes your field of vision would almost shock you, because it jumps into the scene. It means adrenaline, but there is no realism to it. By pretending that you don't know about the future while you narrate, you take an impossible position. So in a narration, it can't be kept over longer passages. You don't follow, you get bored.

What higher framerates are good for, imho: Stephen King (to name a widely known author) often uses present tense for some scenes to make them feel live, breathless - how would [i]Breathless[/i] (À bout de souffle) look in 48 fps? Once all digital projectors have the presets for 48 fps, it should be easy to change the framerate also within one film, according to the feel of the scene.

I must say, I enjoy this conversation. Very interesting topic.
[/quote]

Interesting analogy with present tense texts. It is indeed used often to involve the reader. Especially in first person narrated texts. Also, often found in non-fiction (documentary) prose.
Using higher frame rates only for certain sequences certainly makes sense. After all, the intensity of the scenes in a single movie changes a lot.

One thing that I find mildly amusing is that we think of today's audience as sophisticated, what with the dynamics, the flash cuts, breaking line rules, etc. All of these would be unthinkable back in the days of the silents. On the other hand, we now take the frame rate of cinema for granted - and we are a bit afraid of changing it, or introducing alternatives - while back in the silent days frame rate was all over the place.
(This isn't really an argument. Just an observation that strikes me as curious.)

Btw, [url=http://www.reddit.com/r/TheHobbit/comments/sthk5/so_there_have_been_a_lot_of_negative_48fps/][u]here is a scene[/u][/url] shot in both 24fps and 48fps. Makes a good reference.

I also find this discussion stimulating. :)

[quote author=Axel link=topic=637.msg4827#msg4827 date=1335608836]

Wrong of course. @48 fps 360° would be 1/48, 180° (the standard) would be 1/96, and 270° would be 1/72. The rest of the explanation was correct.

EDIT: Wrong again, I have just learned. 270° would mean 1/64 s. But then again, the Epic [i]has[/i] the shutter preset of 1/72 ...
[/quote]

Yes, the easy way to calc it is 1/96 + 0.5/96 = 3/192 = 1/64.
Apparently, Jackson uses this shutter speed (there is no rotary shutter on the Red Epic, so shutter angle would be techincally inaccurate :) ) because it enables him to deliver a 24 fps version through dropping every other frame. This will result in a 24 fps movie shot with the equivalent of 135 degree shutter angle. Most people don't really notice any difference in strobing between 1/60, 1/50 and 1/48 (in 24 fps), so I think 1/64 will yield a pretty good 24 fps version.
If, instead, he would make a 24 fps version through blending frames down to 24 fps it would be unnaturally fluid. In fact, no different than the 48 fps version in terms of fluidity.

Btw, one thing that isn't being mentioned often in regard to The Hobbit is that Jackson is radically altering the appearance of an already established franchise. This will introduce visual discontinuity in the series. A move like this (3D + 48fps) would probably be better suited for a new project. Then again, Cameron is doing the same with Avatar.

[Axel]

[quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4837#msg4837 date=1335638417]
One thing that I find mildly amusing is that we think of today's audience as sophisticated, what with the dynamics, the flash cuts, breaking line rules, etc. All of these would be unthinkable back in the days of the silents. On the other hand, we now take the frame rate of cinema for granted - and we are a bit afraid of changing it, or introducing alternatives - while back in the silent days frame rate was all over the place.[/quote]

The very best examples of cinema didn't care about continuity, lighting rules, framing rules and the like. They were made with intuition and empathy, they were inventive and changed a lot of what was accepted as the trade of filmmaking. As you see in [i]Hugo Cabret[/i] (I liked the 3D, which I is rare), film in it's early days was a box of toys and silly tricks. The simple stories that were told used bold mental leaps, jump cuts. The frame that held together all the elements was not the film frame, it was time. Time for cinema is what the soul (or what it is that lets us live) is for life. Sounds pompous, I know.

[quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4837#msg4837 date=1335638417]Btw, [url=http://www.reddit.com/r/TheHobbit/comments/sthk5/so_there_have_been_a_lot_of_negative_48fps/][u]here is a scene[/u][/url] shot in both 24fps and 48fps. Makes a good reference.[/quote]

As an amateur I have no problems using 50p or 60p, if I want to *record* something handheld. The 48p version is exactly what I have expected. Yes, it looks cleaner. But it also looks dead. The motion is not accentuated, not dramatic. It looks like a reality soap about compulsive hoarding with some grungy guy (Jackson?) kicking things around. I must admit that the 24p version is only a little better.

The typical cinematic situation is someone who is in a hurry, pressed for time. He has to reach the bus, for example. There is a bomb on board, and he knows it will explode if ... you know. Does this work in sedate 48p? The framerate that stops motion aesthetically by smoothing out it's "aura" (motion blur).

[cpc]

I actually made a simple experiment.
I showed both clips to 4 different people (all in their 30's), all moviegoers, but none of them technically proficient about films, and asked them which one appears more "cinematic" to them (without briefing them about the difference).
Guess what... Two of them said the 48 fps version is more cinematic. Two of them said the 24 fps version is more cinematic. Nothing scientific about this, obviously, but still offers some food for thought. Apparently the average moviegoer doesn't care about frame rates. Or at least, doesn't care as much as we do.