[666]

I'm having a hard time understanding this, really. I don't understand how simply seeing more of a set makes it look cheaper. How does seeing twice as many still images of a set in a second make it look cheaper than it would with only half as many frames? The frames themselves don't have a clearer image.

I take it you haven't seen any sets in real life? Without 'movie magic' they look pretty shoddy.

PJ puts the work into his sets though so he's as good a guy as any to try it.

[equap]

48fps is better max'd out http://maxgif.com/mf

[Ripclawe]

I take it you haven't seen any sets in real life? Without 'movie magic' they look pretty shoddy. PJ puts the work into his sets though so he's as good a guy as any to try it.

Are we talking Motion interpolation or the soap opera effect here or is 48fps much different? Looking around thats all I am getting from it unless PJ has a different method, the set does look like you are a live audience watching a play..

[itxaka]

So why 48 and not 60? And 60 per eye in 3d?

I mena the 24 is because old tech isn't it? We can see much higher that that, so why not jump to something much higher instead of just doubling it?

[ConvenientBox]

As someone who has taken photos of sets before the cameras/lights are added in, I can say they look absolutely shoddy. The amount of post processing in the end makes a shitty set look like a million bucks.

Though it's all dependent on the film maker, budget etc. I'm still not a fan of 48fps or anything higher.

[Theonik]

So why 48 and not 60? And 60 per eye in 3d? I mena the 24 is because old tech isn't it? We can see much higher that that, so why not jump to something much higher instead of just doubling it?

Because you will still need to make 24p versions of the film for several reason and that is very hard to do on a 60p source whereas it's almost trivial from 48p.

[LaserBuddha]

ITT: People using what 48fps is on paper to tell others that they're wrong about not liking it.

This has gone on in every single thread regarding 48/60fps. "You say you don't like it? That's not true!".

There are a whole lot of people that need to eat a lot of crow if I could be bothered to search old posts.

[Freshmaker]

ITT: People using what 48fps is on paper to tell others that they're wrong about not liking it. This has gone on in every single thread regarding 48/60fps. "You say you don't like it? That's not true!". There are a whole lot of people that need to eat a lot of crow if I could be bothered to search old posts.

Nah. It's the "48 can't possibly look good!" arguments that make no sense.

[StuBurns]

Given how hugely variable the reactions to 3D are, I expect a similar thing here. There won't be any 'crow eating', some people will say it's a revolution, some an atrocity, and everything in-between.

[Sobriquet]

Nah. It's the "48 can't possibly look good!" arguments that make no sense.

The "48 can't possibly look bad!" arguments are equally ridiculous.

[Raistlin]

The "48 can't possibly look bad!" arguments are equally ridiculous.

True, but for the most part that argument didn't exist until it was a response to the former.

It's quite obvious what side was the aggressor here.

[Marty Chinn]

True, but for the most part that argument didn't exist until it was a response to the former. It's quite obvious what side was the aggressor here.

Ya, Peter Jackson.

[ThatCrazyGuy]

There will be no "crow" eating. Some people will like it and some won't. There is not "right" I think. Look at the initial posts and the tone of negaitivity "just like I thought" and stuff like that. The extremes on both sides.

48 will not give anybody cancer.

[jett]

There will be no "crow" eating. Some people will like it and some won't. There is not "right" I think. Look at the initial posts and the tone of negaitivity "just like I thought" and stuff like that. The extremes on both sides. 48 will not give anybody cancer.

[Raistlin]

Ya, Peter Jackson.

it existed way before PJ


nice try though

[Marty Chinn]

it existed way before PJ nice try though

Existing isn't the same thing as being the aggressor.

Plus, it was a joke.

[666]

Are we talking Motion interpolation or the soap opera effect here or is 48fps much different? Looking around thats all I am getting from it unless PJ has a different method, the set does look like you are a live audience watching a play..

Too much detail exposes flaws. PJ makes elaborate sets so it might be ok.

[KageMaru]

Reiko at B3D asked me to post this link to help show the improvements over 24fps.

http://www.peejeshare.com/files/3620...ailer.mp4.html

[Wonko_C]

Reiko at B3D asked me to post this link to help show the improvements over 24fps. http://www.peejeshare.com/files/3620...ailer.mp4.html

That looks like 30fps montage through a motion interpolation filter, artifacts and all. Motion interpolation never looks as good as true 60fps, on the contrary, it's too distracting.

[D.Lo]

Too much detail exposes flaws.

This is an argument that makes sense against the higher framerate. I experienced something similar recently with the Aliens Blu ray, the clean image and higher resolution made the film look like absolute garbage, such incredibly bad props and sets, like a cheap TV show. Of course it would have looked like this in the cinema in 1986 too, but for many years the film's bad quality visuals were hidden to me behind lower resolution and interlacing etc.

What if every film looks like crap once we 'reveal' more of it? Espescially CGI stuff, which still looks pretty bad at times in mid-budget films (and even sometimes in mega-budget films).

It's like we've been viewing films like Instagram pictures, through filters can be used artistically, but which also hide the flaws of bad photography.

So I guess it's a risk for a filmmaker to 'reveal' more with a better framerate, it might be too much.

[KageMaru]

That looks like 30fps montage through a motion interpolation filter, artifacts and all. Motion interpolation never looks as good as true 60fps, on the contrary, it's too distracting.

He claimed it was 60fps, I didn't even bother checking the video.

Just playing the messenger here =D

[pottuvoi]

That looks like 30fps montage through a motion interpolation filter, artifacts and all. Motion interpolation never looks as good as true 60fps, on the contrary, it's too distracting.

It's from the trailer so it's from 24fps to 60fps conversion which adds all the joys of uneven scaling of framerate.

At least it's actual hobbit footage so the motion blur isn't quite as long as it is in normal 24fps films.
Motion interpolation on footage with long blur is kind of counter productive as you do not get any additional detail in moving objects and you get several frames long blurs on anything that moves. (+ horrid artifacts as most algorithms do not separate backgrounds from foregrounds..)

[TAJ]

This is an argument that makes sense against the higher framerate. I experienced something similar recently with the Aliens Blu ray, the clean image and higher resolution made the film look like absolute garbage, such incredibly bad props and sets, like a cheap TV show. Of course it would have looked like this in the cinema in 1986 too, but for many years the film's bad quality visuals were hidden to me behind lower resolution and interlacing etc.

I don't know what you're watching, but it's not the Aliens Blu-ray.

[KageMaru]

That looks like 30fps montage through a motion interpolation filter, artifacts and all. Motion interpolation never looks as good as true 60fps, on the contrary, it's too distracting.

He asked me to pass another message:

Could you please tell Wonko_C that the framerate is actually 60fps. This isn't no 30fps interpolation. It's a pure 60hz vid. Even better... I'll prove it. Look at this Avengers clip I interpolated. http://www.peejeshare.com/files/3621...ps%29.mp4.html 30fps cannot replicate that. Period. Please send that over.

[jett]

Those motion interpolated videos look awful, plz stop.

[jason10mm]

[QUOTE=D.Lo;37484531]This is an argument that makes sense against the higher framerate. I experienced something similar recently with the Aliens Blu ray, the clean image and higher resolution made the film look like absolute garbage, such incredibly bad props and sets, like a cheap TV show. Of course it would have looked like this in the cinema in 1986 too, but for many years the film's bad quality visuals were hidden to me behind lower resolution and interlacing etc.
/QUOTE]
I haven't seen the aliens BR yet but I did see it in the theater and it looked great. It is a dark film with a lot of film grain though, so if they added a lot of noise reduction and edge enhancement to the BR that might cause it to look weird to you now. That is a problem with the production of the BR though, not with the original theatrical print.

I detest the 120 frame motion artifact and find that 3D makes a lot of scenes look cheap and "toy like", so I really hope they do a traditional 24 fps 2D version that will match up well with the LOTR cinematic style.

[mclaren777]

I'm on the phone with 1&1 right now...

[FliXFantatier]

I'm on the phone with 1&1 right now...

Ouch,
I hope you can work something out....

[Wonko_C]

He asked me to pass another message:

It looks the same to me as The Hobbit video, I would venture to say this one has more consistent motion interpolation.

[TronLight]

Reiko at B3D asked me to post this link to help show the improvements over 24fps. http://www.peejeshare.com/files/3620...ailer.mp4.html

He asked me to pass another message:

God, why they look like they've been speeded up, like, 2x?
I watched the "rock comparison" posted by another user (24vs48fps) and they didn't looked like this.

[Darkmakaimura]

Has anyone posted a link here in this thread of the Hobbit in 48fps? I mean, is there a trailer or a clip to see what this movie will look like in 48fps?

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

48fps is better max'd out http://maxgif.com/mf

For safety of the public, my foot is not meant to be seen in that big of a resolution.

[Edmond Dantès]

Has anyone posted a link here in this thread of the Hobbit in 48fps? I mean, is there a trailer or a clip to see what this movie will look like in 48fps?

Nothing so far, it seems like we may have to wait until the film itself. Although, there is rumoured to be a 48fps version of the trailer to be shown in France.

[civilstrife]

Higher framerates are intrinsically better. Any talk of loss of "cinematic" quality is because we've associated film with lower framerates for so long.

That said, change is hard for many people.

[UltimaPooh]

Higher framerates are intrinsically better. Any talk of loss of "cinematic" quality is because we've associated film with lower framerates for so long.

It's not better. Neither frame rate is. It's how you want to use that frame rate to set your universe and tell your story. So the more options the better, but 48fps is no intrinsically better.

[Freshmaker]

Man, I called it. Just exactly as I feared.

Takes time to get over unreasoning prejudice.

[Barkley's Justice]

This is an argument that makes sense against the higher framerate. I experienced something similar recently with the Aliens Blu ray, the clean image and higher resolution made the film look like absolute garbage, such incredibly bad props and sets, like a cheap TV show.

Higher resolution like say, oh, 35mm film?

[Loxley]

(Just a reminder that this thread was made back in May discussing the CinemaCon footage and that no one outside of the production has seen The Hobbit running at 48fps since. In case some think we're talking about something new.)

[Manabanana]

Filmmakers are learning by experimenting with that. Hugo is still the absolutely benchmark.

What makes Hugo a benchmark for anything?

[meltingparappa]

Just got back from the movie and had to share my impression:

Because the film has been getting mixed reviews, I decided to take the plunge for HFR just for the spectacle of it all. Interesting that for the majority of people, 3D is an experience exclusive to the theater, and adding 48 fps on top of that just drives that wedge further into an experience you can only have in a theater.


So when the film first started, I was shocked at how distractingly terrible it was. My mind was racing with thoughts of" How could anyone see this and think it actually looked good? What have they done?" All the scene in Bilbo's house looked strangely hyper-real, like home video footage of my grandmother's house. All the cinematic movie-magic seemed completely gone from the world. It was suddenly very apparent that you were watching a play unfold on screen, which seemed such a bizarre clash for a fantasy film.

But then the very minute that a cgi creature showed up, it broke my brain and suddenly it felt "real" along with everything else in the frame. A lot of credit goes to the team on the film and their incredible job on the effects, but seeing them in that same "home-made video camera" made my jaw drop in a way that I probably haven't felt since seeing the CGI brachiosaurs in Jurassic Park.

Having seen a fair share of 3D films in theater, I then started to realize that the 48 fps DOES make a difference. It's embarrassing, but there was a point when a character shot an arrow at the screen and it made me jump. Suddenly I'm eight years old watching Captain EO at Disneyworld again.

And then once I got "used' to the 48, I started getting sucked further into the immersion. For the last hour or so of the film, my eyes were wide and I was constantly getting goosebumps. Partly because I haven't read the book and so I'm naively getting surprised by everything that happens, but by the sheer scope and eventually epic nature of the actions scenes looking so "real". So often I found myself unable to determine whether an orc was CG or a stuntman in a suit. I'd be thinking it was a real person with makeup until they seamlessly fall over a cliff. Granted there might be a pretty great transition from one in the other, but I honestly couldn't tell.


Like the other thread title implied, I DO think 48 fps is a game changer. It certainly makes the film feel significantly aesthetically different, but for that bizarrely "hyper-real" look while still being in bombastic 3D simultaneously takes the whimsy out of films, but then has the potentially to draw you in, in a way I was blindsided by.

I think it was a surreal yet perfect decision for The Hobbit to be the first showcase seen in this format. The intimate "real" nature of the format makes me think it would have been more suitable to a drama like a Richard Linklater or even David Fincher film, but then you'd be scratching your head going "so why is this in 3D?" The Hobbit has more intimacy than a typical blockbuster, but then once those action scenes get going, you really get to see the format stretch its wings.


If nothing else, I think I'm absolutely going to see the next two Hobbit films in HFR format. I can't imagine that magical little world being seen any other way.

[RoboPlato]

Meltingparappa just summed up my experience perfectly. Initially I thought it looked really bad, and I'm someone who was super excited for 48fps, but once action scenes and wide pans started I was 100% there. It immersed me way more in the movie and it really made the action scenes and effects look incredible. The CG animation definitely benefitted a lot, especially Gollum.

I hope the numerous negative impressions don't kill HFR and there winds up being some way to get it on blu-ray.

[csquared587]

Are all the showings of the Hobbit in Imax 3d 48 FPS? I went to see it for a second time at my theater on their imax screen, it looked the same as the 2d, 24 FPS version to me.


I can tell the difference between framrates in games, maybe it is just a subtle effect or my theater wasn't showing it in 48 fps?

[RoboPlato]

Are all the showings of the Hobbit in Imax 3d 48 FPS? I went to see it for a second time at my theater on their imax screen, it looked the same as the 2d, 24 FPS version to me. I can tell the difference between framrates in games, maybe it is just a subtle effect or my theater wasn't showing it in 48 fps?

Most theaters aren't showing it in 48

[shagg_187]

Are all the showings of the Hobbit in Imax 3d 48 FPS? I went to see it for a second time at my theater on their imax screen, it looked the same as the 2d, 24 FPS version to me. I can tell the difference between framrates in games, maybe it is just a subtle effect or my theater wasn't showing it in 48 fps?

LieMAX is showing it at 48fps. Actual IMAX isn't.

[agrajag]

Are all the showings of the Hobbit in Imax 3d 48 FPS? I went to see it for a second time at my theater on their imax screen, it looked the same as the 2d, 24 FPS version to me. I can tell the difference between framrates in games, maybe it is just a subtle effect or my theater wasn't showing it in 48 fps?

No, they're not.

[Loofy]

Are all the showings of the Hobbit in Imax 3d 48 FPS? I went to see it for a second time at my theater on their imax screen, it looked the same as the 2d, 24 FPS version to me. I can tell the difference between framrates in games, maybe it is just a subtle effect or my theater wasn't showing it in 48 fps?

Only some imax theaters will be 48fps.
http://www.imax.com/community/blog/p...imax-theatres/

[a secret-boss]

. Having seen a fair share of 3D films in theater, I then started to realize that the 48 fps DOES make a difference. It's embarrassing, but there was a point when a character shot an arrow at the screen and it made me jump. Suddenly I'm eight years old watching Captain EO at Disneyworld again.

that scene made me blink. lol

[yogloo]

Oh!! There's a thread for this.
For some reason, I don't mind the hfr when the camera is zoomed out. But it sort of weird when the scene is close up, the movement looks too fast. The clarity in hfr is mindblowing though
I kept thinking how much better hfr movies would be if the screen is 180 degrees enveloping us like the 3d disney ride that I saw in hongkong.

[yogloo]

I'm having a hard time understanding this, really. I don't understand how simply seeing more of a set makes it look cheaper. How does seeing twice as many still images of a set in a second make it look cheaper than it would with only half as many frames? The frames themselves don't have a clearer image.

Have you ever been to a club?

[megateto]

Oh!! There's a thread for this. For some reason, I don't mind the hfr when the camera is zoomed out. But it sort of weird when the scene is close up, the movement looks too fast. The clarity in hfr is mindblowing though I kept thinking how much better hfr movies would be if the screen is 180 degrees enveloping us like the 3d disney ride that I saw in hongkong.

I watched a dubbed version and my mind kept on telling me during mid shots that I was watching some sped up film. It sticks out too much still, but in the end it definitely pays out.
I am going for a rewatch just to force my mind to it lol.