One of the reasons they're using 48p with the wide shutter angle is to provide a low-impact method to create a 24p print. So yes, there will definitely be 24p prints available to theaters assuming they get less than unanimous backing of the theater operators for the switch up to 48p.
-
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
One of the reasons they're using 48p with the wide shutter angle is to provide a low-impact method to create a 24p print. So yes, there will definitely be 24p prints available to theaters assuming they get less than unanimous backing of the theater operators for the switch up to 48p.
Vire
Member
:lol
ZombieSupaStar
Member
"As the Middle Earth Turns", ha these jokes write themselves!
You do that now, but if seeing Frodo again is that awkward lol feeling you got watching the Star Wars kid for the first time....well now I have ruined it by giving you that image to associate it with. BWAHAHA!
oo oo do another
I think I need to make a margarita, kick back and watch some TV, then go to bed early. <_<
You just compared 50-year-old episodes of a TV show shot on ancient video technology for budget reasons to a $200 million dollar movie made with the most advanced technology available today.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
(as I answer my own question) My best guess is they'll invent a vaguely appropriate name for it without really explaining anything, like CinemaScope.
SEE THE HOBBIT IN CineReal(tm)
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
One thing I am already dreading the possibility of is going to see The Hobbit and hearing audience members calling out for the projectionist to fix shit.
Marty Chinn
Member
Or we just compare a 50 year old TV show running at one refresh rate and the same 50 year old TV show running at the other refresh rate to understand how refresh rate affects the visual look of the content. You know, something we could do for the last few decades instead of trying to pretend that moving to 48 fps is something magical because it's now a big budget Hollywood movie.
Sounds like something they would probably do. 48 FPS isn't going to mean jack to Joe Blow, but yeah, if they sell it as CineReal (or whatever), "the way it was meant to be seen!" or whatever, that will probably work.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
OK now I've really really solved it. There will be a 48fps short before the film to ease everyone in. Mark it down.
You're suggesting that the difference is entirely framerate... Why? Surely the change in media might have been a factor?
Marty Chinn
Member
That would not surprise me one bit.
I'm suggesting that regardless of media, because there are plenty of examples in different forms of media, the change in framerate has resulted in a consistent look. I don't see why that consistent look suddenly is different when being applied to a Hollywood blockbuster movie. In fact, what people who have actually have seen the footage are saying is just confirming that notion compared to people here who haven't seen it yet they are defending it.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
That's actually what I was thinking they might do. PJ talking to the audience before the movie.
'Everybody be cool. I GOT THIS SHIT.'
That would actually be pretty brilliant. It would start at 24 FPS, end at 48 FPS. I really could see this being the most doable, easy solution.
Or there will be such an uproar that they'll cut the fps in half and show it that way starting the following week.
Pixel Pete
Member
so many people asking why it's 48 and not 60. I got too frustrated reading the thread so forgive me if it's already answered: it's because Peter Jackson wanted a middle ground between traditional 24fps and full blown 60fps, and a double of 24fps is what appears to be a logical place to put that middle.
TruMotion style technology on TVs is horrid for anything other that Sports, IMO. Coincidentally, it makes LOTR look like a made for TV documentary, so while I'll be at the Hobbit day one with bells on, I'll be apprehensive for sure.
TruMotion style technology on TVs is horrid for anything other that Sports, IMO. Coincidentally, it makes LOTR look like a made for TV documentary, so while I'll be at the Hobbit day one with bells on, I'll be apprehensive for sure.
Them be fighting words.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
PJ introducing it and explaining himself sounds a little pre-apologetic and also reminds everyone of the artifice. (One thing for Hitchcock to do it, another to do it before an epic fantasy.) A short just to show off the wowness of 48fps is a little more indirect.
No way dude, prototypical videotaping equipment in the '50s obviously produced identical visual quality to film. The ONLY difference was framerate, duh.
Exactly what people need to grasp when they see this footage is that 24p has no inherently greater artistic merit. If you prefer it at first, it's only because it's the status quo.
You will get used to it.
It should become standard.
If people think that prostheses, wigs, etc. look more fake at 48p, then that should result in a push to improve make-up technology, not to take a step farther away from capturing reality and hide things behind blur.
cutmeamango
Banned
Think like this:
Frame rate:
I have 30 (case A) and 60 (case B) unique (they represent different points of a motion) pictures that I took in the space of a second.
Refresh rate:
I have 60 slots to completely fill with pictures.
---
While either way you'll see 60 pictures, one is replicating frames which gives a longer retention of equal frames on screen (bear in mind 24fps have an even longer retention and judder!), while the other will give you an increased amount of unique frames that stay what they are supposed to on screen.
The cinematic feel and soap opera feel are not directly tied to the frame rate and its display rather than production values and actual filming.
As Solo brought up the digital x film discussion and film grain I said, "cinematic feel" does not concern or live solely on this technicalities.
You'll see more unique frames for less time on your display, the 'effect' would be less pronounced.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
Does not sound good. I don't care what the progressives say, I don't want my movies looking like soap operas and that tru-motion shit.
Could be another thing. Imax projectors max out at 48fps dont they?
I want to point out that this precise line of argument was used to express worry about the transition from film to digital shooting. The answer, of course, is that it WASN'T the same. Shooting at home with your camcorder is not like a professional shooting with a RED camera. Very old analog video recording being mangled through 3:2 pulldown for interlaced TVs will not be the same as this process.
300+ responses in under 2 hours -- yikes, people are pretty passionate about this stuff.
I suspect that my response will be the same way I respond to new artificial sweeteners like Splenda and Truvia -- "Yeah, this might not seem so bad if I hadn't spent 30 years of my life getting used to refined sugar. But since I already know sugar, this tastes like garbage."
I suspect that my response will be the same way I respond to new artificial sweeteners like Splenda and Truvia -- "Yeah, this might not seem so bad if I hadn't spent 30 years of my life getting used to refined sugar. But since I already know sugar, this tastes like garbage."
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
That's great as an end result but as I said earlier, the real concern is what do we do in the meantime while everyone figures this shit out? Does the industry take a break for a year or five? Or do we just have weird-looking Hobbits for a while? I can barely deal with weird-sounding Muppets as it is.
Again. Not the same.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
haha yeah, that family guy skit is hilarious.
I for one cannot wait until Fincher's first 48 or 60 FPS film. Has he given any indication if he will test those waters with 20,00 Leagues? I know he's doing 3D, which will be a first for him, but if he does that AND a higher framerate for the first time at the same time........my god, I may need to bring several changes of boxers to the movies when it opens.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
notsureifserious
I've been in a theater where they left the slide projector for the pre-movie local ads on during the feature and I was the only person who noticed anything weird.
How do you know?
EVERYTHING YOU HAVE EVER WATCHED ON TV IS SHOWN AT 60hz, UNLESS YOU HAVE A NEWER HDTV THAT IS 120hz OR HIGHER.
I REPEAT, ALL MATERIAL SHOWN ON TV IS 60hz. WHEN YOU WATCH FILMS ON TV, THEY ARE TELECINED TO 60hz TO MATCH THE REFRESH RATE OF THE TV.
Sorry for the caps but I want to make sure everyone gets this.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
And every movie you've ever seen on film at a theater was being projected at 48Hz. What does that have to do with anything?
We gonna do them all Witcher n' Strigga style, Zel.
I'm late to the thread and this has probably already been pointed out, but the main reason it looks soapish is because they've moved from film to digital. It's not the frame rate. Look at Avatar it has that same look, but because it's the first movie in a franchise and in a sci-fi setting, that digital look matched the movie. With the Hobbit the reduction in palatte quality jumps out because we're used to looking at the Lord of the Rings on film. We have a particular look already in our mind's eye.
It seems to be an on going misconception, there are actually three major technology changes happening here. The first is the jump to digital, the second is the jump to 3D and the 3rd is of course the jump to 48FPS. None of these reviews seem to be taking a step back and realising the comparison they're making is with the Lord of the Rings and they need to take all of these changes into account. One very big reason Nolan went 2D Imax for the new Batman movie rather than 48FPS 3D was to keep the look of the trilogy consistent. I'm a huge fan of 3D and can't wait to see The Hobbit at 48FPS, but I think that look digital technology imbues in the picture is going to be the greatest issue. The big fear I have is people confusing it with 48FPS.
Just quietly, I wish Nolan had filmed Batman on film and at 48FPS 2D over Imax. An argument for another thread though.
At present 24FPS film still looks better than 24FPS digital and it probably always will even with digitals increasing resolution. That is except for the major advantage in fast moving scenes digital can jump up in frame rate and get rid of all the nasty blur and judder effects that cripple a hi resolution format like Imax.
I'm a bit put off when watching a movie on a 3DTV, and for a few brief moments, there is a strange, unsettling "video recorded" look to what I'm watching (like when watching a live broadcast). I noticed it while watching live action films, and it was strange to see it happen while watching Tintin a few months ago.
Regarding the quotes in the OP about 48fps looking akin to something from 120Hz/TrueMotion, I hope this isn't what they're talking about. I don't think I could watch a whole movie that way, it's just too jarring.
Regarding the quotes in the OP about 48fps looking akin to something from 120Hz/TrueMotion, I hope this isn't what they're talking about. I don't think I could watch a whole movie that way, it's just too jarring.
Marty Chinn
Member
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. I understand how all that works. Just like I understand that a 120hz TV is holding the frame for a number of refreshes before changing when showing a 1080/24p movie. All I care about is unique information being show which is why I'm always talking in hz instead of fps because that gets confusing with interlacing and what not. If you show a 30 fps source at 60hz, it's going to be refreshing at 30hz. I don't think either of us disagree on what refresh is.
I understand that. See above. I'm talking about the source material, not the display technology because well there are different display technologies that show at different refresh rates.
ZedIndyLil
Member
I'm VERY interested in seeing this footage. I remember Ebert raving about 48fps (using special film stock, if I remember correctly) more than a decade ago.
I think introducing it with The Hobbit is risky, though, because it will already have to deal with living up to the LOTR trilogy, which has essentially achieved modern classic status and has firmly established the cinematic "look" of Middle Earth for millions of people. Anything that breaks from that "look" may be controversial. I expect the movie to be pretty polarizing for that reason.
I think introducing it with The Hobbit is risky, though, because it will already have to deal with living up to the LOTR trilogy, which has essentially achieved modern classic status and has firmly established the cinematic "look" of Middle Earth for millions of people. Anything that breaks from that "look" may be controversial. I expect the movie to be pretty polarizing for that reason.
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
Doubtful. It's TruMotion gone wild.
Again, no, its not. Motion interpolation takes two frames and, as the name says, interpolates what happens between them. True 48 FPS doesn't do that. All 48 frames are legit instead of motion interpolation's 24 legit frames and 24 fudged frames.
Artificial vs real.
bluerei is editing right now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked