Would you buy the 48 fps (HFR) version of the Hobbit? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Would you buy a 48 fps version of the Hobbit on Blu-ray?
Yes - I'd buy a 48 fps version of the Hobbit on Blu-ray 96 48.98%
No - I'd only buy the 24 fps version 46 23.47%
I'd buy both versions (24 fps and 48 fps) 34 17.35%
I'd wouldn't buy any version of it 20 10.20%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 196. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 102 Old 01-06-2013, 03:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
d3code's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 11
will buy it instantly. love the 48 FPS. cant wait to see how that would look at home if i had all the equipment that is.

good plan to safe money smile.gif
d3code is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 102 Old 01-07-2013, 02:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Thebarnman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scottsdale AZ
Posts: 3,179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

I wasn't saying it shouldn't look any different. I was saying if he had shot it at 48 fps with a 360 degree shutter and then used every other frame of that for the 24 fps version that in theory it shouldn't have looked any different to other 24 fps films (360/2=180).
Since he shot it at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter, in theory it (the 24 fps version) should look like a 24 fps film shot with a 135 degree shutter (ie. a slightly shorter shutter than normal). 270/2=135. Films normally use a 180 degree shutter. So, using every other frame of the 48 fps original in this case (assuming nothing else was done) would give slightly less blur for the 24 fps version than in a normal 24 fps film, and therefore slightly more strobing.
Normal 24 fps films: 180 degree shutter (normally). Shutter is open 1/48th of a second per frame.
The Hobbit 24 fps version: 135 degree shutter (270/2=135, if they used every other frame of the original 48 fps version). Shutter is open 1/64th of a second per frame. A little bit less blur (unless they added some fake blur) and more strobing.
With even shorter shutters (eg. 45 to 90 degrees) it would have a "Saving Private Ryan", "Gladiator (battles)" or "Robin Hood (2010) (battles)" type look.

Now I understand how those effects are made.

Fast shutter speed played back at 24 fps, (less blur per frame) = strobing effect with fast movements.

Slower shutter speeds played back at 24 fps, (more blur per frame) = more fluid motion during fast movements.

I've always said, the 3-D HFR format would be great for porn and sports because of the realism portrayed by that format. Soap Operas would not fair because the portrayal on those afternoon shows pictates unrealistic situations and would come across even worse in the HFR format (3-D or flat) than they already do!

On the other hand, 3-D HFR could also be useful at major Amusement Park Attractions such as Disney Land, Universal Studios, Kings Island and for documentaries.

At the end of the day, I personally believe the HFR (3-D or flat) format is horrible as a movie presentation format.

Movies must be OAR, sports and movies must also have 5.1 audio, No EE or NO SALE!
Thebarnman is offline  
post #93 of 102 Old 03-07-2013, 11:11 AM
Member
 
Pyronaut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I watched both the 24 and 48fps versions, and the 48fps version was MUCH better. A couple weeks later I watched Life of Pi in 3D and it was painful because of all the stuttering and lack of smoothness that the Hobbit had spoiled me on. Sadly, the only way I'll get close to it for now is to get the 3D Blu Ray of The Hobbit and turn on motion interpolation on my projector. It does an OK job, but I see frequent artifacts, which take me out of the experience. I'd much rather have a true 48fps version, or at the very least a way to pre-interpolate it with as much processing time as necessary in order to avoid artifacts around the edges of objects in scenes with fast motion and lots of objects. I wonder if there is a way to convert it to a h.264 version with pre-interpolated HFR.

Edit: I imagine there should be a way, since they've done it with the Hobbit and Avatar trailers, even at 60fps.
Pyronaut is offline  
post #94 of 102 Old 03-09-2013, 05:01 AM
Advanced Member
 
davcole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 936
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If the format was available in home theater, Yes!

I loved the HFR presentation. Does it look like video? YES! Is it still a great presentation? Yes!

The detail in the picture and especially the pans make it worthwhile!

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
davcole is offline  
post #95 of 102 Old 03-09-2013, 09:54 PM
Member
 
Pyronaut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I don't get why people keep saying that 48fps looks like video. What video format is 48fps? I thought video was 30fps, and that does NOT look the same as 48fps.

Behind the scenes stuff, that looks like video. The actual movie however looks quite different. Seeing the hobbit set in the video blogs make it look like a set (e.g. when Jackson is inside Bilbo's home), and the picture looks much different than in the film itself.
Pyronaut is offline  
post #96 of 102 Old 03-10-2013, 01:54 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyronaut View Post

I don't get why people keep saying that 48fps looks like video. What video format is 48fps?
720p50 and the 50 fields per second formats are similar.
Quote:
I thought video was 30fps, and that does NOT look the same as 48fps.
You can have 60 frames per second too, as well as 60 fields per second. 48 fps is closer in terms of temporal resolution to the 50/60Hz video formats (if they are being used for 50/60 different images a second) than to the 24Hz of normal films. Though there's more to it than just the frame rate (eg. shutter angle, colour grading, colour format, 2D/3D etc.).
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #97 of 102 Old 03-10-2013, 09:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 49
The "cheap video" that they're referring to was shot at 60i for CRT TVs. Effectively 60fps. 48fps is much closer to that.

I'm still waiting for some kind of official word on this.. has anyone even bothered to ask if they plan to release any kind of HFR version? I'm fairly certain it would have to be some kind of digital file on a disc or downloaded, but I'm okay with that. As it is, I can turn on motion interpolation on my TV, which gets some of it back, but it's far from perfect.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #98 of 102 Old 03-10-2013, 01:59 PM
Member
 
Pyronaut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I see. I guess I'm just not used to that, since most video on TV that I've see is 30fps max.

Having said that, turning on a TV's motion interpolation on something like a TV sit-com or a low-budget movie doesn't look the same at all to me than doing the same on a Hollywood feature length film, so I don't think I would see an HFR film as looking like cheap video even at 60fps for both.

I've been looking for any news on an HFR version of the Hobbit being released even on a digital file format, but haven't heard anything. Perhaps when Sony or RED get their 4k digital distribution system in place we might get something, since RED's player at least can do HFR 3D.
Pyronaut is offline  
post #99 of 102 Old 03-10-2013, 10:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
IanD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Very few displays and virtually no domestic standalone players will handle 48fps (or multiples).

IMO it was a waste of time filming Hobbit at 48fps when very little equipment currently supports it: it would make more sense to film at 60fps as then at least current Bluray standards would support it and make a meaningful distribution.

I view 48fps as simply an experiment before the move to 60fps.

So, no, I would not buy a 48fps version of the Hobbit.

I would consider buying a 60fps version, since it would help with juddering of low frame rates without the artifacts of interpolation.

Film was a product of its time and the limitations therein. Ultimately I think we have to migrate to a system that is closer to our human visual experience: it shouldn't reduce creativity in any way, but will mean more intelligent sets etc.
IanD is offline  
post #100 of 102 Old 03-11-2013, 06:37 PM
Member
 
Pyronaut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
In the absence of a real 48fps version, there has been a frame interpolated 48fps version released. I guess that's as close as we'll get for now.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The.Hobbit.An.Unexpected.Journey.2012.48fps.Edition.720p.Blu-ray.DTS-ES.6.1-UberHD
Pyronaut is offline  
post #101 of 102 Old 03-12-2013, 06:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyronaut View Post

In the absence of a real 48fps version, there has been a frame interpolated 48fps version released. I guess that's as close as we'll get for now.

Mine runs at 96fps using SVP. wink.gif
nathanddrews is offline  
post #102 of 102 Old 03-12-2013, 08:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
IanD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 22
The blog on the bonus disc of "The Hobbit" is quite interesting because it mentions the 48fps and a commentator says something like:

"Recorded at 48fps as an interim on the path to 60fps, which is closer to human vision"

I do wish they had gone straight to 60fps as it's not a huge increase above 48fps, but makes all the difference in actually being able to distribute it to the consumer and allow them to see what it looks like (without interpolation artifacts).
Joe Bloggs likes this.
IanD is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off