48fps is better max'd out http://maxgif.com/mf
-
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
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.
Though it's all dependent on the film maker, budget etc. I'm still not a fan of 48fps or anything higher.
Theonik
Member
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
Member
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.
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
I am Korean.
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.
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
Member
Ya, Peter Jackson.
ThatCrazyGuy
Member
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.
48 will not give anybody cancer.
Marty Chinn
Member
Too much detail exposes flaws. PJ makes elaborate sets so it might be ok.
Reiko at B3D asked me to post this link to help show the improvements over 24fps.
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/362094116/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_Trailer.mp4.html
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/362094116/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_Trailer.mp4.html
Wonko_C
Member
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
Member
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.
He claimed it was 60fps, I didn't even bother checking the video.
Just playing the messenger here =D
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
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I don't know what you're watching, but it's not the Aliens Blu-ray.
mclaren777
Member
I'm on the phone with 1&1 right now...
anonymous_abc
Member
Wonko_C
Member
It looks the same to me as The Hobbit video, I would venture to say this one has more consistent motion interpolation.
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
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
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
Banned
For safety of the public, my foot is not meant to be seen in that big of a resolution.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
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
Member
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.
That said, change is hard for many people.
UltimaPooh
Member
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
I am Korean.
Takes time to get over unreasoning prejudice.
Barkley's Justice
Member
Higher resolution like say, oh, 35mm film?
Manabanana
Member
What makes Hugo a benchmark for anything?
meltingparappa
Member
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.
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.
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.
I hope the numerous negative impressions don't kill HFR and there winds up being some way to get it on blu-ray.
csquared587
Member
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?
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
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
LieMAX is showing it at 48fps. Actual IMAX isn't.
No, they're not.
Only some imax theaters will be 48fps.
http://www.imax.com/community/blog/...n-high-frame-rate-3d-in-select-imax-theatres/
a secret-boss
Banned
that scene made me blink. lol
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.
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.
Have you ever been to a club?
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.
I saw it last night in a regal 3D HFR "RPX" theater in times square. They used the dolby atmos logo but I haven't found anything that says it's an atmos theater.
Whatever the sound technology was, it was definitely something different. During the scene with the snoring dwarves, the snores sounded like they were coming from a point a few feet away rather than a speaker 50' away. If tickets weren't $20 each, I would want to see more movies in that theater.
As for HFR, I think every 3D movie should use it. 24 fps 3D always felt like the first iteration of a technology that wasn't quite where it needed to be. 48 fps allows the technology to get out of your way once you get used to the look of it.
One weird thing I noticed though was that the very beginning with old bilbo looked sped up. It seemed too extreme to attribute to being unfamiliar with the framerate because it really looked like he was walking too fast and moving around too fast. Also, for most of the movie, the first half second of almost every shot it felt like things were moving too fast. Almost like a when a video player gets behind and has to catch up. The second thing was more subtle, but I noticed it a ton.
I don't agree with claims that it made the movie look cheap. The only times it looked cheap was during bad CG, which probably looks just as cheap in 24fps. I was looking for flaws in sets and makeup and I didn't really notice any at all.
Whatever the sound technology was, it was definitely something different. During the scene with the snoring dwarves, the snores sounded like they were coming from a point a few feet away rather than a speaker 50' away. If tickets weren't $20 each, I would want to see more movies in that theater.
As for HFR, I think every 3D movie should use it. 24 fps 3D always felt like the first iteration of a technology that wasn't quite where it needed to be. 48 fps allows the technology to get out of your way once you get used to the look of it.
One weird thing I noticed though was that the very beginning with old bilbo looked sped up. It seemed too extreme to attribute to being unfamiliar with the framerate because it really looked like he was walking too fast and moving around too fast. Also, for most of the movie, the first half second of almost every shot it felt like things were moving too fast. Almost like a when a video player gets behind and has to catch up. The second thing was more subtle, but I noticed it a ton.
I don't agree with claims that it made the movie look cheap. The only times it looked cheap was during bad CG, which probably looks just as cheap in 24fps. I was looking for flaws in sets and makeup and I didn't really notice any at all.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked