Support NeoGAF

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Its 48 Frames Per eye. Cinema 3D doesn't work that way (For most theaters at least).

No. No! Fuck that!! I won't believe!

 

[Jarmel]

3 really positive impressions and 1 negative.

eh?

I wouldn't really define a couple of those as positive. They're very reserved and more optimistic rather than impressed.

 

[Shorty]

Many people knew it would look like a daytime soap the minute the 48fps news came out, so I'm not surprised at this at all.

It's a shame a filmmaker of Jackson's caliber has fallen for the Cameron-ization of film trend, which is more focused on making tech demos than good films.

The fact that you outright dismiss the movie because of a technical aspect rather than waiting for the movie to come out and rate it based on its script, cinematography and actor's performance makes you look more "cameronized" than anything.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

I have the same RED camera used to shoot The Hobbit. I can do a test shot for you guys at 48fps, but is there a video provider online that can display video at that frame rate?

 

[krameriffic]

Many people knew it would look like a daytime soap the minute the 48fps news came out, so I'm not surprised at this at all.

It's a shame a filmmaker of Jackson's caliber has fallen for the Cameron-ization of film trend, which is more focused on making tech demos than good films.

Yeah, running at a higher framerate than the one established as the standard like a hundred years ago is a huge technological leap.

Do I have to start making the bad analogies about using 100 year old versions of other technologies?

 

[gcubed]

Yeah, running at a higher framerate than the one established as the standard like a hundred years ago is a huge technological leap.

Do I have to start making the bad analogies about using 100 year old versions of other technologies?

this thread is full of them, whats stopping you?

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

I have the same RED camera used to shoot The Hobbit. I can do a test shot for you guys at 48fps, but is there a video provider online that can display video at that frame rate?

Upload it to mediafire. Current PC monitor can display up to 60fps.

Record some city sequences. I'll convert it to 24p so people can see the comparison, I suppose.

 

[Jokergrin]

There's no denying it seems odd at first. Once you adjust to it you'll wonder how in the hell people were satisfied with 24 fps for so long.

I hope ur right

 

[Loofy]

It always pains and entertains me to read that "soap opera" effect is due framerate.
Crude lighting set/design and camera framing (editing too and even set quality sometimes) are responsible for it.

Well, according to the first guy it is cause of the framerate. It seems hollywood production values do nothing to stop it from looking like a soap opera.

The sets looked like sets. I've been on sets of movies on the scale of The Hobbit, and sets don't even look like sets when you're on them live... but these looked like sets.
The other comparison I kept coming to, as I was watching the footage, was that it all looked like behind the scenes video.

And heres IGNs impressions for anyone interested.

It just looked ... cheap, like a videotaped or live TV version of Lord of the Rings and not the epic return to Tolkien that we have all so long been waiting for.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

Upload it to mediafire. Current PC monitor can display up to 60fps.

Record some city sequences. I'll convert it to 24p so people can see the comparison, I suppose.

4k RED RAW files are huge, I'll have to downsize it to 1080p.

I can convert it to 24p too, no prob.

 

[Wiggum2007]

Well if you don't like it maybe you should just blink really fast so you don't see half the frames

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

4k RED RAW files are huge, I'll have to downsize it to 1080p.

Ahh yeah you have to. One to two minute video would be enough I suppose

 

[Jarmel]

And heres IGNs impressions for anyone interested.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html

I sure as hell don't trust their opinions but what is worrisome is that it seems quite a few journalists there weren't happy.

 

[a Master Ninja]

I have the same RED camera used to shoot The Hobbit. I can do a test shot for you guys at 48fps, but is there a video provider online that can display video at that frame rate?

I think seeing a fast camera pan and an object being thrown in 24fps versus 48fps would show people why higher framerates are an improvement.

 

[Grakl]

I won't buy in to the anti-hype. I'm still on board.

 

[Loofy]

Upload it to mediafire. Current PC monitor can display up to 60fps.

Record some city sequences. I'll convert it to 24p so people can see the comparison, I suppose.

Vimeo does 60fps I believe.

 

[THE-Pink-Dagger]

4k RED RAW files are huge, I'll have to downsize it to 1080p.

I can convert it to 24p too, no prob.

It's useless, it will cause more harm than good, unless you can replicate The Hobbit or a big production, nothing will show us exactly how it looks, and you'll end up loosing a lot of quality. This needs to be seen in a movie theater.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

It's a significant difference. People would notice.

And yet people on gaming side can't tell the difference between 60 or 20 and so many people say SD and HD have no differences.

I think you overestimate the general audience.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

I think seeing a fast camera pan and an object being thrown in 24fps versus 48fps would show people why higher framerates are an improvement.

Yeah I can do that.

 

[mclaren777]

I have the same RED camera used to shoot The Hobbit. I can do a test shot for you guys at 48fps, but is there a video provider online that can display video at that frame rate?

Keep it under 400mb and I'll host the file for you.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Well, according to the first guy it is cause of the framerate. It seems hollywood production values do nothing to stop it from looking like a soap opera.


And heres IGNs impressions for anyone interested.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html

I really wonder how many of these we're going to have until people realize that suddenly applying it to a hollywood full theatrical production isn't going to change the look out of magic. We've had examples for decades of what 60hz does to the look of something outside of a soap opera.

 

[RamzaIsCool]

So has this any effect on the 24fps version of the movie? I mean people who don't like 3d can just stick with the 2d version of a movie. Doesn't the same apply for this.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

It always pains and entertains me to read that "soap opera" effect is due framerate.
Crude lighting set/design and camera framing (editing too and even set quality sometimes) are responsible for it.

It's The Hobbit. If it's looking cheap on a $200 million dollar movie, then it's too unforgiving for anything but nature documentaries.

These are, of course, extremely early and premature impressions though, hence the big "if".

 

[bud]

if that looks weird at 48fps, then avatar 2 running at 60fps (right?) must look... weirder!

 

[jett]

I have no idea what to expect. What's something comparable that this could look like?

Looking at Resident Evil 5's cut-scenes on a PC at 60fps, maybe? I've searched for professionally-shot high framerate content on the interwebs and I can't fin dit.

I wouldn't really define a couple of those as positive. They're very reserved and more optimistic rather than impressed.

"Wowed", "beyond awed", "never seen a movie that jumps off the screen like this one"

sure, ok

The thing is that obviously it looks very different from a traditional 24fps movie.

 

[krameriffic]

And yet people on gaming side can't tell the difference between 60 or 20 and so many people say SD and HD have no differences.

I think you overestimate the general audience.

I don't think people would notice either. Maybe the 3D version if it really does improve the fuzziness of the visuals.

 

[Marty Chinn]

if that looks weird at 48fps, then avatar 2 running at 60fps (right?) must look... weirder!

The difference will be almost unnoticeable by most.

 

[Grakl]

And yet people on gaming side can't tell the difference between 60 or 20 and so many people say SD and HD have no differences.

I think you overestimate the general audience.

Eh, maybe. I don't want to overestimate the general audience, though, heh.

 

[Allard]

You say that, but consider the amount of people even on GAF who can't tell the difference between 30 and 60fps in gaming, where it directly affects their input. I think I've even seen people say it's tough to tell the difference between SD and HD resolutions.

The difference is games often times have varied frame rates so 30 vs 60 experience varies from person to person where the differences just seem to blend. Furthermore most of the cinematic 'Cutscenes' in console games are locked at 30 FPS whether in game or FMV. Basically a disjointed experience that unless your hardcore PC gamer that only plays games 60 FPS and above probably won't be as noticeable. A drastic and constant doubled frame rate should make a very obvious difference. It seems from all the early impressions it took people time to get adjusted to the jarring difference but once they got settled in 'most' absolutely loved it but remain restrained. I said it in the Hobbit thread but this tech is going to be a love it or hate it with little middle ground.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

It's useless, it will cause more harm than good, unless you can replicate The Hobbit or a big production, nothing will show us exactly how it looks, and you'll end up loosing a lot of quality. This needs to be seen in a movie theater.

Not at all. The point is to see the difference in motion between a cinematic feeling 24p and the same shot in 48p.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

if that looks weird at 48fps, then avatar 2 running at 60fps (right?) must look... weirder!

Yeah I can do that.

Oh yeah, what about also doing a 60 fps comparison as well?

 

[Loofy]

And yet people on gaming side can't tell the difference between 60 or 20 and so many people say SD and HD have no differences.

I think you overestimate the general audience.

Football runs in 60fps HDCam. They can definitely tell.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Oh wait, nvm!

 

[Pachterballs]

I absolutely hate the digital video look. A lot of movie cheapies are shot HD and look digital and I hate watching them. If this has that look, uh oh....l

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

Eh, maybe. I don't want to overestimate the general audience, though, heh.

If I hadn't read so many stupid posts on GAF I'd agree that most people would notice, but I've come to realise things like resolution and framerate are things even "enthusiasts" are ignorant of, not to mention the general population.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Football runs in 60fps HDCam. They definitely tell.

People cut the cord for ESPN3 and other streaming sports so they either can't tell or don't care.

 

[Jarmel]

"Wowed", "beyond awed", "never seen a movie that jumps off the screen like this one"

sure, ok

The thing is that obviously it looks very different from a traditional 24fps movie.

To be honest, it kind of terrified me at first. In his pre-recorded intro, Peter Jackson said that the reason we were seeing 10 minutes of content was that "it takes your eyes a little bit to adjust", and that is absolutely the case. The immersive experience was not immediate, but gradual. I felt much more comfortable toward the end of the presentation, but still disconcerted and outside a comfort zone.

I have major reservations,

I think it will take a bit of adjusting our expectations

They're positive but it seems with qualifiers. People are going to have to adjust and I'm not sure how well that's going to go over.

 

[THE-Pink-Dagger]

By the way, and it's a big information, the footage was UNGRADED. Any movie in raw footage looks cheap. So, seeing positive reactions already is a good sign, it will look massively better obviously oncer color graded and finished.

It is said though that the helicopter shots, vistas, troll scene, and Gollum-Bilbo scene in the cave all looked incredible, like you were there kind of real.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

Oh yeah, what about also doing a 60 fps comparison as well?

48 to 60 isn't that big of a leap compared to doubling the frames of 24 to 48. Not worth the effort really.

 

[a Master Ninja]

So has this any effect on the 24fps version of the movie? I mean people who don't like 3d can just stick with the 2d version of a movie. Doesn't the same apply for this.

The 2D version is still 48fps.

I still crack up when I think back to the first time I saw "TrueMotion" in action on a TV at Best Buy. Batman Begins was playing, and seeing Bale in rubber bat costume at that level of clarity made it completely hilarious. I hope that movies that are actually made to be displayed at higher frame rates do a better job of hiding the figurative seams and zippers.

Motion interpolation shit doesn't add detail or clarity, it just blends frames in attempt to make motion look smoother. It harms the presentation because your TV is faking those frames. Content actually filmed at higher framerates doesn't look like that.

 

[pxleyes]

People cut the cord for ESPN3 and other streaming sports so they either can't tell or don't care.

You can't cut the cord and get ESPN3.

 

[Oppo]

Is there much more to it then becoming accustomed to it? I would think that if there was some reverse world where 48fps was the norm and then someone suddenly said fuck it were going to 24fps there would be similar reactions of "it doesn't look right".

I think this is absolutely true.

Somehow we associate the frame rate with the "silver screen". That's just how movies look. Proper movies, the movies you grew up with. Soap operas and video material has that higher framerate; besides the big difference in contrast and light, somehow it is the frame rate that we notice, even subconsciously.

Although at the same time, my dad has that MotionFlow shit turned on his TV, and looks at me like I'm crazy when I say "ugh how can you watch that".. he has no idea what I'm talking about. Doesn't see it. But I bet he would still say that some of this 48FPS stuff looks "more soap-opery".

Even stuff shot in recent years on digital video - and there are plenty of feature releases - break it down to 24fps. There's a good reason for that.

It's like ... the vinyl effect, but times 10.

 

[FStop7]

I still crack up when I think back to the first time I saw "TrueMotion" in action on a TV at Best Buy. Batman Begins was playing, and seeing Bale in rubber bat costume at that level of clarity made it completely hilarious. I hope that movies that are actually made to be displayed at higher frame rates do a better job of hiding the figurative seams and zippers.

 

[Loofy]

If I hadn't read so many stupid posts on GAF I'd agree that most people would notice, but I've come to realise things like resolution and framerate are things even "enthusiasts" are ignorant of, not to mention the general population.

The general population probably wouldnt be able to point it out if asked outright. But thats a different matter. Most COD enthusiasts wont know that the game runs in 60fps. But I bet the game wouldnt be nearly as popular if it ran at 30.

 

[cutmeamango]

Why do we assume it's the crude lighting, set design, and camera framing that people are referring to? I'm talking about the same look that is applied to games, soap operas, live news, live events, sports, some sitcoms and so forth.

Because the "Soap Opera" is mainly visual elements incoherence (dark background and direct light on actors) in the frame. The (not so) higher framerate could argueably be influential only for the fact you are seeing more of it.

Sole framerate discussions is like discussing grain on film.

It's The Hobbit. If it's looking cheap on a $200 million dollar movie, then it's too unforgiving for anything but nature documentaries.

These are, of course, extremely early and premature impressions though, hence the big "if".

Has it reached post-production yet?
And only one of the quotes only says it gives a bad effect!

 

[jett]

The 2D version is still 48fps.

Only in digital theaters, I assume it will also be available at "analog" ones.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

48 to 60 isn't that big of a leap compared to doubling the frames of 24 to 48. Not worth the effort really.

James Cameron wants to do it! But that's ok if you don't have the time. We are years away from Avatar 2.

 

[Branduil]

There's no denying it seems odd at first. Once you adjust to it you'll wonder how in the hell people were satisfied with 24 fps for so long.

Have you seen it?

 

[Artanisix]

Would love to see a 24 versus 48 comparison.

 

[Allard]

By the way, and it's a big information, the footage was UNGRADED. Any movie in raw footage looks cheap. So, seeing positive reactions already is a good sign, it will look massively better obviously oncer color graded and finished.

It is said though that the helicopter shots, vistas, troll scene, and Gollum-Bilbo scene in the cave all looked incredible, like you were there kind of real.

And suddenly that first quote makes sense. No wonder he thought it looked so real and they were all on sets. In some of the first small clips that came out of the Hobbit production they talked about the unique approach they needed to do for the set design to counter the higher FPS and 3D in general. They over saturated the sets and even in the "30fps" version of the video you could tell it was set due to that. If this footage is raw and hasn't gone through much post-processing then no wonder it looked like a set.