-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Hobbit 48fps first impressions
- Thread starter Edmond Dantès
- Start date
- Status
a secret-boss
Banned
imax is not showing hfr.
I watched it yesterday, the 48fps seems fine in certain scenes.
In others it seemed similar to getting video desync on an underpowered PC whilst watching a HD video, the audio would be fine yet the video would look like it had stuttered or slowed and then sped up to catch up, giving that fast forward effect.
In others it seemed similar to getting video desync on an underpowered PC whilst watching a HD video, the audio would be fine yet the video would look like it had stuttered or slowed and then sped up to catch up, giving that fast forward effect.
Wonko_C
Member
Yeah, totally baffling. Especially since there were a lot of scenes where the camera was stationary and 24fps wouldn't make any difference, even scenes with slow movements or characters just talking didn't look that different from a 24fps movie, it kinda made me look forward to the action scenes because the more fluid motion really shined through in those parts.
Cameron's insistence to raise the brightness and change the colour timing to blue on all his film-releases is the blame for that, not the added resolution.
It's funny because in the making of documentary he talks about firing the first lighting director for making too much of the set visible.
In terms of colour-timing meddling in home video releases, he's worse than George Lucas.
This is not true
Certain imax screens are
i think it has something to do with the lighting, and how 3d + HFR add more detail, and our brains knowing its fake, and so it all just looks fake/cheap/odd
PhoncipleBone
Banned
D.Lo
Member
Ah, that could really explain it, thanks. The result is really, really bad.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Yes.
I'm personally for dropping 3D and 48, sticking with 24. Of course for blockbusters (which run cinema anyway) there's probably no going back but I dislike it a lot. I think it'll almost be like a different thing entirely, the summer and winter blockbusters. The rest of cinema, and probably most purists, will stay with 24fps and 2d. GAF seems won over, but then GAF's very in love with technology.
Here's the thing that I've been considering though: Does it look cheap because that "video" look tends to be reserved for cheaper productions and that's the clear association we make, or does it actually look bad?
Cinema has largely been 24 fps for like 70 years, and it's hard to break that association. The HFR seemed very foreign to me for such a high budget film, but it looked absolutely stunning, and several things were more exciting( battle scenes).
I still feel like it may take a few more films before it feels "normal" but I can't objectively say that it looks cheap.
exmachina64
Banned
On Sunday, I went to the closest theater near me that had a 48fps showing. Over 100 miles each way; two hours each time.
It was completely worth it. Adapted to the higher framerate almost immediately. Didn't find it jarring; actually seemed to make the 3D more natural to me.
Unlike others, I didn't notice any problems with the seams of CG and live action relative to other contemporary releases. Didn't find the costumes or sets to look more fake either.
Overall, I loved it.
Once you break that association, it's pure enjoyment. I found the
lent to the higher framerate especially well.
Virtually all recording is going to go digital; you can't deny that. Why should directors be so shortsighted and not take advantage of the advances in technology? Yeah, GAF's in love with tech, but can't it be more than that? Why does cinema and the term "purist" have to be wedded to 2D 24fps?
It was completely worth it. Adapted to the higher framerate almost immediately. Didn't find it jarring; actually seemed to make the 3D more natural to me.
Unlike others, I didn't notice any problems with the seams of CG and live action relative to other contemporary releases. Didn't find the costumes or sets to look more fake either.
Overall, I loved it.
Once you break that association, it's pure enjoyment. I found the
goblin battle scene
Virtually all recording is going to go digital; you can't deny that. Why should directors be so shortsighted and not take advantage of the advances in technology? Yeah, GAF's in love with tech, but can't it be more than that? Why does cinema and the term "purist" have to be wedded to 2D 24fps?
Okay cool, I was looking at theatres on the link someone posted a page back and it didn't say my city had IMAXs that supported that, but then one of my theatres has that option lol.
ZackieChan
Member
This. I honestly don't know what movie the haters saw. The whole thing looked phenomenal in 48fps 3d. No sped up motion, cheap sets, or bad makeup. I was transfixed.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
My impression. 48fps made the 3D work for me. It's incredible!
Loved it.
Loved it.
The technology could have changed at any point. Everyone speaks of how arbitrary 24fps as a choice was, but it was a conscious choice to keep it the standard when filmmakers were capable of changing. If anything, complaints about 3D is the reason it's appearing now. The "purists" have hardly adopted 3D so I don't see why they would want to adopt 48fps now. It looks worse imo, I think the tech takes more off the table than its putting on.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
Edmond Dantès;37252310 said:Pretty significant news regarding The Hobbit and the future of film in general, so a separate thread seems appropriate.
Impressions so far:
http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/24/cinemacon-2012-the-hobbit-underwhelms-at-48-frames-per-secon/
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55212
https://twitter.com/#!/wellshwood
http://movies.about.com/b/2012/04/24/hobbit-footage-screened.htm
====================================================================================================================================
48fps examples - Credit goes to bluerei for the amazing footage.
Video Files
GIF of 24fps
GIF of 48fps
id much rather people stick with 24fps for film and 48-60fps for games/cgi content
the reverse always looks bad.
Fake imax screens are playing HFR.
This is the most strained of all the strained descriptions of 48fps I've seen.
No, HFR doesn't look like DNR.
No, HFR doesn't look like 120hz motion smoothing.
No, HFR doesn't make things move faster.
Yes, HFR looks like HFR.
Also, that article that said being comfortable with 48fps wasn't a "learned behavior" was a bunch of bullshit. Maybe they'd care to explain why myself and the five friends I went to The Hobbit with all enjoy playing games at 60fps, and were able to acclimatize to HFR within the first scene of the movie. "Uncanny Valley" of motion, my ass.
Theonik
Member
Having seen the movie in 48fps 3D and 24fps 2D I must say the difference is quite huge. Only nag with the former presentation was with the 3D itself which is still a pointless gimmick in my opinion. If possible I'd like to see all my films in 48fps from now on.
In all likelihood 48fps will be theatre only as no announcement to the contrary has been made and there is no way to get 48fps out of disks right now. That doesn't eliminate the possibility of a 48fps disk release coming in the next 2-4 years though.
Naked Snake
Member
Highly unlikely on blu-ray if you ask me. Even if it happened, not only your blu-ray player would need upgrading, but your current TV likely doesn't support 48fps.
Edit: Hmm, thinking about it again, with current HDMI 1.4a bandwith, you could theoritically do 1080p 48fps in 2D, right?
I would think movie studios might want to keep the feature until the next home video format (4K+) to drive demand.
Theonik
Member
That's why I said in 2-4 years. They could do it in a revised BD spec as the tech becomes more important especially since they'll need one for 4K BDs. TVs would also have to catch up though so you will possibly have a situation much like 3DBDs were at the start. As of now though we can only speculate however and they may very well just keep HFR as an incentive to visit the theatres for a while.
Edit: There is also HDMI 1.4b in the horizon.
Rubbish King
The gift that keeps on giving
HOLY SHIT, thats not safe for work dude
EDIT: Seriously, i clicked through like 4 gifs and then BOOM, dude getting fucked by a woman
That was also my impression, the 48fps make the 3D on this movie shine and seem different from anything else made until now. I really enjoyed the movie on this format and I'm not fond of 3D movies, with the exception of maybe MIB 3 and Avatar.
Naked Snake
Member
Edmond Dantès;37252310 said:
Video link is dead. Anyone got a mirror?
My views on HFR from seeing it last night:
I still maintain that 48fps isn't enough for the kind of look they wish to go for, and I do believe HFR should be standardised soon, but certainly not forced on people.
I feel I have to see the film in 24fps to fully dissect it.
Brilliant film by the way, I loved it.
It very much felt like a theatre production, but I'm not entirely sure if it works best for all types of films.
I still maintain that 48fps isn't enough for the kind of look they wish to go for, and I do believe HFR should be standardised soon, but certainly not forced on people.
I feel I have to see the film in 24fps to fully dissect it.
Brilliant film by the way, I loved it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked