At the Premier of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-11-2013, 06:17 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,345
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 353 Post(s)
Liked: 1185

Last week, Dolby invited me to the world premier of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, but I was under embargo until this week, which is why I couldn't post anything about it until now. The screening was held at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood, CA—the home of the Academy Awards ceremony. In fact, it's not a movie theater, which, I believe, might have led to some of the problems I experienced.

 

 

Seats were assigned, and mine was on the main floor, way over on the left side of the room. Fortunately, I was able to snag an unused seat closer to the center just before the movie started. I was still too close to the screen, looking slightly upward, but it was much better than my assigned seat.

 

The presentation was in high frame-rate (HFR) Dolby 3D at 48 frames per second (fps) for each eye. The projection system used four Christie CP4230 4K projectors in a quad configuration—two projectors for one eye firing directly toward the screen and two more at a right angle firing at mirrors that reflected the light toward the screen for the other eye. This setup is designed to get the projectors' lenses as close together as possible for better alignment, but it might have been the cause of some problems I saw with the 3D, which I'll get to in a moment. Also, even with four digital-cinema projectors, I'm told the measured peak white level from the 60x32-foot screen through the 3D glasses was only 7 foot-lamberts—better than most 3D presentations, to be sure, but only half as much as the DCI (Digital Cinema Initiative) spec for commercial movies.

 

As many of you probably know, Dolby 3D does not use polarization like RealD or Imax to isolate the image for each eye through glasses. Instead, the wavelengths of red, green, and blue are slightly different for the left and right eyes, and the glasses allow only the correct wavelengths to reach each eye. This is not my favorite 3D technology because of the reflections between the 3D glasses and my prescription glasses, which are much more obvious and distracting to me than RealD or Imax polarized glasses. Also, the colors seem a bit more muted to me than RealD and Imax. However, Dolby 3D does not require a polarization-preserving screen, so in that respect, it's better for theaters that show both 3D and 2D in the same auditorium.

 

All three Hobbit movies were shot in native 3D, using two Red cameras on a stereoscopic mount, so I was surprised to see some problems in the 3D here. For example, some shots weren't really 3D at all—they used a very short depth of field with blurry backgrounds. (I moved the glasses out of the way to check this.) Even worse, some objects—especially the subtitles, end credits, and things in the mid distance behind the screen plane—appeared as a fuzzy double image. This seemed to be crosstalk with the subtitles and credits, which were only slightly out of the screen plane, but the double image of objects in the mid distance should have been much more widely spaced if it was crosstalk. Finally, there are lots of gimmicky 3D shots—things like swords jutting out from the screen—which is not a problem with the presentation, only with the artistic choices made by director Peter Jackson.

 

Things were much better in terms of HFR. I saw the first Hobbit movie in HFR, and some scenes clearly looked like they had been shot for a PBS TV special, while other scenes did not. In the second movie, I did not see any of this inconsistency. Many people complain that HFR looks more like video than a movie, and that may be true, but I have no objection to it—if it's consistent. In fact, I thoroughly enjoyed the greater clarity and detail in all motion, whether it was moving objects, camera movements, or both.

 

As you might expect in the Dolby Theatre, the soundtrack was mixed and played in Dolby Atmos, with the overhead speakers on trusses suspended above the audience. This was very effective—for example, the dragon snaking around the great hall, falling rain, and battle scenes engulfed the audience wonderfully. However, the dialog intelligibility was quite poor, especially when music was mixed with the dialog in the front channels. This could have been due to the room's acoustics, which are not optimized for movies.

 

I was anticipating very high sound pressure levels, but they was surprisingly reasonable. The average level over 2 hours and 41 minutes was only 82.5 dBA with a maximum 1-second level of 97.9. The level remained over 87.3 dBA 10 percent of the time, 80.3 dBA 33 percent of the time, and 75.8 dBA 50 percent of the time, with an OSHA dosage of 6.68%.

 

I won't give any spoilers here. Suffice to say that, like the first movie, I think this one is too long, and I see no good reason to stretch one book across three movies—except, of course, that it triples the revenue.

 

As for the problems I experienced, I suspect moviegoers might not encounter them. For one thing, few if any commercial theaters will use four projectors, which might not have been perfectly aligned—though some of the 3D was perfectly sharp, so I doubt that was the cause of the strange crosstalk-like effect. Also, the DCP (digital-cinema package, the digital file with the video and audio data) we saw was not the one that the public will see. The day after the premier, I ran into someone who works at Technicolor, who said they were working 24/7 to get the DCP ready for release; the DCP we saw was created in New Zealand for the event, so it might have had some problems.

 

BTW, my friend at Technicolor said that in the process of finalizing the DCP, some people watch the HFR version up to 100 times, after which they can't tolerate 24 fps any more!

 

In any event, if you're planning to see The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, I recommend HFR and Dolby Atmos if possible. However, if you already know you don't enjoy HFR, do try to see it in a Dolby Atmos theater—I'm sure you won't be disappointed in that!

 

Like AVS Forum on Facebook

Follow AVS Forum on Twitter

+1 AVS Forum on Google+


Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-11-2013, 06:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
DeadEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Thanks for the review. I love how detail oriented you are. Your articles are always very clear and precise.

Dyslexics are teople poo.
DeadEd is offline  
Old 12-11-2013, 07:08 PM
Senior Member
 
ch1sox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I'll be seeing this in a HFR Atmos theater. I welcome the 3 movies. The more Middle Earth, the better.
MANiaC3173 likes this.
ch1sox is online now  
Old 12-11-2013, 07:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 423
Will Dolby Atmos ever be used in a non-HFR, non 3D environment?
RobertR is online now  
Old 12-11-2013, 08:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,880
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1421 Post(s)
Liked: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Will Dolby Atmos ever be used in a non-HFR, non 3D environment?
My local Atmos theatre in Monrovia is playing 'Desolation of Smaug' without HFR and without 3D. When I saw the first Atmos movie, Pixar's 'Brave' at the Arclight in Sherman Oaks, it was not in 3D.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Old 12-11-2013, 09:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 423
Thanks Sanjay, Glad to hear that such an animal exists. smile.gif
RobertR is online now  
Old 12-12-2013, 12:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 586
I'm interested to see what hfr will actually look like in a home application; frame interpolation isn't working for sure.
mo949 is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 08:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
cardoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Beyond The Wall.
Posts: 923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Liked: 110
Seeing as how I have a bad back and a new JVC on preorder, I may just wait for this movie on Blu-ray. Big fan of all the movies but that is too long to sit in my crappy local cinema. We have older equipment and uncomfortable seats. As for the HFR I really like the look, I even like the FI on some TVs and use my PC to achieve a similar result. It is the future.

James Reid:D
cardoski is online now  
Old 12-12-2013, 10:50 AM
Member
 
fstanek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I'm at the other end of the spectrum, I suppose. Saw the first in HFR, and I will be avoiding it like the plague for future versions. It just didn't 'feel' like a movie when I was watching it.

I have no doubt that HFR may be the future. Maybe if everything I see is in HFR, it will feel more natural, but we're nowhere close to that point today.

fstanek is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 11:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lordcloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas Area
Posts: 2,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by fstanek View Post

I'm at the other end of the spectrum, I suppose. Saw the first in HFR, and I will be avoiding it like the plague for future versions. It just didn't 'feel' like a movie when I was watching it.

I have no doubt that HFR may be the future. Maybe if everything I see is in HFR, it will feel more natural, but we're nowhere close to that point today.

Same here. The worst movie going experience of my life was watching the Hobbit in HFR. Worse than when I walked out of the Avengers(Connery and Thurman) and In The Name Of The King. I truly hope HFR is not the future. Or at least not 48 fps. Maybe higher than 24, but not much higher would work?

I LOVE MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

lordcloud is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 11:37 AM
Member
 
dochollerin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by fstanek View Post

It just didn't 'feel' like a movie when I was watching it.

I don't understand this mentality. That movie "feel" is just you being used to something for your whole life.

Imagine if 48 fps was the standard since the beginning. Do you think film makers would ever think for a second to lower the frame rate? I can just imagine it: "We have to go check out that new movie, it's half the speed of a regular movie so when there's any action everything becomes a blurry mess! It's like you're on drugs!"

Jackson is trying to better cinema for us all. Yet some people will vehemently defend lower frame rates, probably unaware that the only reason 24 fps was the standard was because the studios were being cheap.
NxNW, Taranteacher and TorTorden like this.
dochollerin is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 11:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lordcloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas Area
Posts: 2,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by dochollerin View Post

I don't understand this mentality. That movie "feel" is just you being used to something for your whole life.

Imagine if 48 fps was the standard since the beginning. Do you think film makers would ever think for a second to lower the frame rate? I can just imagine it: "We have to go check out that new movie, it's half the speed of a regular movie so when there's any action everything becomes a blurry mess! It's like you're on drugs!"

Jackson is trying to better cinema for us all. Yet some people will vehemently defend lower frame rates, probably unaware that the only reason 24 fps was the standard was because the studios were being cheap.

I don't get that people don't understand that what we are accustomed to isn't bad. There are problems with 24fps, yes, but there are problems with 48fps. Namely in that it looks like another format, video. 48 fps isn't the standard. If it were, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. 24fps is, and it looks good in that it doesn't look like real life. There is a very strong separation between what you see everyday, and what a movie looks like. It's the difference between watching Master Chief move around in Halo, and Soap move around in Call of Duty. The realism is a help in video games, but not in movies. IMO.

If you like 48fps, good, but that does not make it better, just like me liking 24fps doesn't make it better. It makes it better to me though. If Jackson were truly trying to better cinema, then he would be championing better stories and better storytelling. Or better picture quality. I'd prefer more colors and higher resolution over higher frame rate. They just look too much like video, and I have no desire to go to the movies to watch a video.

I LOVE MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

lordcloud is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 12:03 PM
Member
 
dochollerin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

I don't get that people don't understand that what we are accustomed to isn't bad. 48 fps isn't the standard. If it were, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. 24fps is, and it looks good in that it doesn't look like real life. There is a very strong separation between what you see everyday, and what a movie looks like.

If you like 48fps, good, but that does not make it better, just like me liking 24fps doesn't make it better. It makes it better to me though.

Do you realize that celluloid is very expensive? That 24 fps is the standard because it's the slowest they could reasonably run the film, to save money? That's why the standard is 24 fps, no other reason. You like that films don't look like real life for some reason, but wasn't that the goal of film from the beginning? There is a separation between life and film, not because that's what the science of film is about, but because film was made to look cheap to save money. I can only imagine how beautiful 35mm would look shot at 60 fps.

Also, I don't understand the constant video references. Just because your only experience with higher frame rates is on TV, that somehow makes HFR bad? Free your mind from this silly notion.
dochollerin is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 12:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by dochollerin View Post

You like that films don't look like real life for some reason, but wasn't that the goal of film from the beginning?
Films have never been about being like real life. They have always been meant as an artistic interpretation of real life. That's why color palettes vary, or sometimes color isn't used at all. That's why sound effects are used that don't sound like the real thing. That's why movie physics don't conform to reality, and the hero has endless rounds of ammunition. That's why enormous monsters stomp around that couldn't exist in real life, people can be shrunk to miniature size, dragons breathe fire, and some guy from another planet flies around and performs impossible feats of strength.

Etc. etc. etc.
RobertR is online now  
Old 12-12-2013, 12:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lordcloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas Area
Posts: 2,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by dochollerin View Post

Do you realize that celluloid is very expensive? That 24 fps is the standard because it's the slowest they could reasonably run the film, to save money? That's why the standard is 24 fps, no other reason. You like that films don't look like real life for some reason, but wasn't that the goal of film from the beginning? There is a separation between life and film, not because that's what the science of film is about, but because film was made to look cheap to save money. I can only imagine how beautiful 35mm would look shot at 60 fps.

Also, I don't understand the constant video references. Just because your only experience with higher frame rates is on TV, that somehow makes HFR bad? Free your mind from this silly notion.

I don't understand what you're basing your argument on, and why you feel it's valid. The reasons behind 24 fps being choses as the standard for shooting movies doesn't matter at all in the argument for it's validity today. Today, and yesterday, and many years before, 24fps has been the standard and it's worked out extremely well. One huge reason for that is the visual disconnect from reality. If movies were meant to emulate reality, than I'm glad they failed. Movies are a beautiful medium, one reason being is that they only resemble reality, but are still very much disconnected from it. It would be much more difficult to fall into the dream that is a well crafted movie, if they all looked like what's going on in my living room, but with special effects. Again, I don't care why film looks different, I only care that it does. I care that movies do. Why is immaterial.

I have no doubt that movies may all move to higher frame rates. I only hope that something else is done visually to separate them from the look of video. And I don't see how you don't understand the video references, 48fps looks like video, not film. And not just the movements. Because of how much clearer it is, it looks more like HD video than a movie. These might be things you prefer, but I personally do not. And it doesn't matter that video might be my only higher frame rate frame of reference (although I cited video games as well, and how it is a benefit there), it still looks like video. I wouldn't pay to go watch what looks like a video, in a theater.

But that's me. Your opinion is different. Not any less valid, but different.

I LOVE MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

lordcloud is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 12:40 PM
Member
 
dochollerin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Films have never been about being like real life. They have always been meant as an artistic interpretation of real life. That's why color palettes vary, or sometimes color isn't used at all. That's why sound effects are used that don't sound like the real thing. That's why movie physics don't conform to reality, and the hero has endless rounds of ammunition. That's why enormous monsters stomp around that couldn't exist in real life, people can be shrunk to miniature size, dragons breathe fire, and some guy from another planet flies around and performs impossible feats of strength.

Etc. etc. etc.

I agree with you entirely about artistic interpretation; however, that has nothing, whatsoever, to do with frame rate.

And what do you mean films have never been about being like real life? Was that not its entire purpose? To record life? To preserve moments in time? That was what film was created for, the art came soon after.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

I don't understand what you're basing your argument on, and why you feel it's valid. The reasons behind 24 fps being choses as the standard for shooting movies doesn't matter at all in the argument for it's validity today. Today, and yesterday, and many years before, 24fps has been the standard and it's worked out extremely well. One huge reason for that is the visual disconnect from reality. If movies were meant to emulate reality, than I'm glad they failed. Movies are a beautiful medium, one reason being is that they only resemble reality, but are still very much disconnected from it. It would be much more difficult to fall into the dream that is a well crafted movie, if they all looked like what's going on in my living room, but with special effects. Again, I don't care why film looks different, I only care that it does. I care that movies do. Why is immaterial.

I'm just not sure "the visual disconnect from reality" actually means anything, or has any real effect. To be honest, I don't even know what this means. Some of the most intense scenes in film are static shots of dialogue. No motion. No different than some Joe sitting in your living room. It's the story we connect to, the characters, not the blurry disconnect from reality. Though I guess that could be the case for you. You articulated yourself well and I respect your opinion, I still just can't help feel like it's just that you are used to it.
dochollerin is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 12:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by dochollerin View Post

I agree with you entirely about artistic interpretation; however, that has nothing, whatsoever, to do with frame rate.

And what do you mean films have never been about being like real life? Was that not its entire purpose? To record life? To preserve moments in time? That was what film was created for, the art came later.
You're contradicting yourself. You simultaneously want high frame rate so the movie "can look like real life", while admitting that movies are NOT real life, but an artistic interpretation of it. If you're really that concerned about movies being like "real life", why aren't you demanding absolutely realistic sound effects, no variation in color palettes, realistic physics, etc. etc?
RobertR is online now  
Old 12-12-2013, 12:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 586
I look forward to motion being able to be better captured with higher FPS. However, it is very clear that with higher fps there are elements of some scenes that will lose some of their 'magic' with the introduction of 'video like' sequences.

Could it be possible that you can have the best of both as directors play with the new medium and devise tricks to bring back the 24fps magic to some scenes while utilizing the higher fps benefits in others? I think its kind of analagous to directors utilizing the 'soft filter' as advancements in Resolution were made.
mo949 is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 01:01 PM
Member
 
dochollerin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

You're contradicting yourself. You simultaneously want high frame rate so the movie "can look like real life", while admitting that movies are NOT real life, but an artistic interpretation of it. If you're really that concerned about movies being like "real life", why aren't you demanding absolutely realistic sound effects, no variation in color palettes, realistic physics, etc. etc?

I've not contradicted myself in the slightest. I want HFR for realistic motion, so that it can look as real as static shots. I'm not sure where you're going with the artistic interpretation bit, as I mentioned before, HFR has nothing to do with artistic interpretation. As far as sound effects, isn't the goal realism? To make a lightsaber sound real, even though it isn't? To make a dinosaur sound real, even though no one could know what it actually sounded like?
dochollerin is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 01:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lordcloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas Area
Posts: 2,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by dochollerin View Post

I'm just not sure "the visual disconnect from reality" actually means anything, or has any real effect. To be honest, I don't even know what this means. Some of the most intense scenes in film are static shots of dialogue. No motion. No different than some Joe sitting in your living room. It's the story we connect to, the characters, not the blurry disconnect from reality. Though I guess that could be the case for you. You articulated yourself well and I respect your opinion, I still just can't help feel like it's just that you are used to it.

I'm not disagreeing that it's what I'm used to, because I definitely am. Everyone is. There has only been one movie released in large numbers with higher frame rates. Now it doesn't help that that movie wasn't that good. But the real point is just that I don't like the movement. Even when the camera moved slowly and very little was going on onscreen, I just didn't like it. It pulled me out of the movie too much. I felt as thought I was watching another medium, which I was. Digital is in fact not film, and I accept that and enjoy it. But higher frame rates I just don't accept. At no point watching the Hobbit did I get used to it, like I can with 3D, which I also hate. And it's not as though I'm an old guy with an aversion to new tech. Far from it. I'm 37 and I love technology. I'm typing this on my rooted Note 3 that I got on day one, with a custom launcher. But HFR just doesn't speak to me like 24fps does. The motion just looks wrong to me. I'm fine with movies all being shot in it, as long as I can still see them at 24fps. Maybe I'll grow to love 48fps. Maybe.

And for me, the visual disconnect from reality refers to the fact that while watching a movie, I'm very mush aware of the fact that it is a movie I'm watching. It has almost an ethereal feel to it, which I don't see 48fps being able to replicate as easily. Video smacks of realism to me. It's sharper, less blurred, closer. A big part of that is because of the movement. Even small movements. 24fos is just more beautiful to me.

I LOVE MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

lordcloud is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 01:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by dochollerin View Post

As far as sound effects, isn't the goal realism? To make a lightsaber sound real, even though it isn't? To make a dinosaur sound real, even though no one could know what it actually sounded like?
There are plenty of foley effects in movies that have nothing to do with light sabers or dinosaurs, but are used instead to enhance everyday sounds to achieve a certain effect, even if it would not sound like that in real life. You still haven't answered why you're not up in arms about that fact. You also haven't answered why you're ok with changed color palettes, such as giving night scenes a blue look, even though real life doesn't look like that. What about slow motion? Freeze frame? Are you ok with those techniques? Of course, real life isn't in slow motion.

With respect to dinosaurs, let's get real here. Filmmakers aren't interested in making "realistic" sounds of dinosaur footsteps. They want to make something that sounds "cool", "dramatic", "impressive" for storytelling purposes (and to help sell subwoofers). A Trex stomping around would no more shake the ground than an elephant does (both weigh about 5 tons). The same goes for light sabers. It's not about being "real", it's about being dramatic.
RobertR is online now  
Old 12-12-2013, 01:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,880
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1421 Post(s)
Liked: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

You still haven't answered why you're not up in arms about that fact. You also haven't answered why you're ok with changed color palettes, such as giving night scenes a blue look, even though real life doesn't look like that. What about slow motion? Freeze frame?
You're starting from a false premise that, if someone prefers higher frame rates because it looks more like real life, then that person has an absolute requirement to unflailingly stick to that exact same preference when it comes to every single aspect of movies.

That's not a requirement for liking higher frame rates.

Peter Jackson can tell a story based completely in fantasy while simultaneously using a frame rate that more closely resembles how we see motion in real life. He's not required to apply that realism to other aspects of his movies. Woody Allen can use realistic lighting in some of his movies while simultaneously having them in unrealistic monophonic sound. He's not required to match the realism of the visuals to the sound.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 01:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

You're starting from a false premise that, if someone prefers higher frame rates because it looks more like real life, then that person has an absolute requirement to unflailingly stick to that exact same preference when it comes to every single aspect of movies.

That's not a requirement for liking higher frame rates.

Peter Jackson can tell a story based completely in fantasy while simultaneously using a frame rate that more closely resembles how we see motion in real life. He's not required to apply that realism to other aspects of his movies. Woody Allen can use realistic lighting in some of his movies while simultaneously having them in unrealistic monophonic sound. He's not required to match the realism of the visuals to the sound.
Required? No. But it is interesting when someone demands "realism" for one aspect of a movie, but happily decides "real life" is of no importance for others.
RobertR is online now  
Old 12-12-2013, 01:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 19,346
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2285 Post(s)
Liked: 2144
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

You still haven't answered why you're not up in arms about that fact. You also haven't answered why you're ok with changed color palettes, such as giving night scenes a blue look, even though real life doesn't look like that. What about slow motion? Freeze frame?
You're starting from a false premise that, if someone prefers higher frame rates because it looks more like real life, then that person has an absolute requirement to unflailingly stick to that exact same preference when it comes to every single aspect of movies.

That's not a requirement for liking higher frame rates.

Peter Jackson can tell a story based completely in fantasy while simultaneously using a frame rate that more closely resembles how we see motion in real life. Woody Allen can use realistic lighting in some of his movies while simultaneously having them in unrealistic monophonic sound.

 

Quite so. Another point is that in real life we do actually see motion as blurred anyway. If someone passes their hand in front of their face while looking directly ahead (simulating a camera pan) they will spot that their outspread fingers are in fact blurred.   I'm not putting this up as a defence of 24 fps which, of course, was chosen for practical purposes originally and we have just gotten used to it when watching movies, to the point where many people now see it as essential to convey a 'filmic' or even a fictional reality. If movies had been invented today, I expect we would have chosen much higher frame rates since they are now easily possible.  

 

I personally am in the camp of liking the motion blur that 24 fps introduces, having grown up with movies looking this way to me for over 5 decades. I can see that younger people who have grown up accustomed to video might see things differently and actually prefer the 'soap opera effect' induced by various forms of frame interpolation etc. I actually went to see The Hobbit twice - once in 48 fps and once in 24fps and I did prefer the latter, although a friend who saw it in 3D said that the 48 fps seemed to help the 3D effect.

 

I do, of course, agree with your general point above that simulating real life in one way has no bearing on other aspects of the movie. In fact, it is an odd view to think otherwise IMO - 48fps might simulate real life really well, but if the movie is about a man who can fly, where does that leave this argument? ;)

kbarnes701 is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 01:45 PM
Member
 
dochollerin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

There are plenty of foley effects in movies that have nothing to do with light sabers or dinosaurs, but are used instead to enhance everyday sounds to achieve a certain effect, even if it would not sound like that in real life. You still haven't answered why you're not up in arms about that fact. You also haven't answered why you're ok with changed color palettes, such as giving night scenes a blue look, even though real life doesn't look like that. What about slow motion? Freeze frame? Are you ok with those techniques? Of course, real life isn't in slow motion.

With respect to dinosaurs, let's get real here. Filmmakers aren't interested in making "realistic" sounds of dinosaur footsteps. They want to make something that sounds "cool", "dramatic", "impressive" for storytelling purposes (and to help sell subwoofers). A Trex stomping around would no more shake the ground than an elephant does (both weigh about 5 tons). The same goes for light sabers. It's not about being "real", it's about being dramatic.

You seem to misunderstand my entire line of argument. I don't care about realism in the literal sense. I care about realistic motion. And by that, I simply mean I would prefer a picture that doesn't fall apart in motion. This has notion to do with artistic integrity, creativity, sound effects, color palettes, etc...

And just because a sound effect is louder, doesn't make it an unrealistic sound. I don't even care about this anyway as it is not what I'm arguing about. Have any sound you want. Have any physics you want, as long as the motion isn't a blur. Edit: And about lightsabers, it's not necessarily about being dramatic, it's about being believable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

I'm very mush aware of the fact that it is a movie I'm watching.

I thought one of the tell-tale signs of a good film was that you don't even realize you're watching one. You're completely captivated.
dochollerin is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 01:49 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 19,346
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2285 Post(s)
Liked: 2144
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

You're starting from a false premise that, if someone prefers higher frame rates because it looks more like real life, then that person has an absolute requirement to unflailingly stick to that exact same preference when it comes to every single aspect of movies.

That's not a requirement for liking higher frame rates.

Peter Jackson can tell a story based completely in fantasy while simultaneously using a frame rate that more closely resembles how we see motion in real life. He's not required to apply that realism to other aspects of his movies. Woody Allen can use realistic lighting in some of his movies while simultaneously having them in unrealistic monophonic sound. He's not required to match the realism of the visuals to the sound.
Required? No. But it is interesting when someone demands "realism" for one aspect of a movie, but happily decides "real life" is of no importance for others.

 

This makes no sense to me. You can have realism in the way the video is presented as one objective and totally unrealistic fantasy as another objective - eg in the plot.  If Minority Report had been filmed at 48 fps, or 96 fps or any other high frame rate, it would still not have even remotelyt reflected real life - especially in the scene where he has his eye replaced and so on...

kbarnes701 is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 01:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,880
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1421 Post(s)
Liked: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

But it is interesting when someone demands "realism" for one aspect of a movie, but happily decides "real life" is of no importance for others.
Preference isn't a demand. And inconsistencies in preference aren't interesting, because they're as normal as human beings.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 01:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by dochollerin View Post

You seem to misunderstand my entire line of argument. I don't care about realism in the literal sense. I care about realistic motion
Then you're agreeing that movies aren't about capturing "real life". You're simply expressing a preference for the look of HFR. "Real life" has nothing to do with it.
RobertR is online now  
Old 12-12-2013, 01:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,345
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 353 Post(s)
Liked: 1185
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadEd View Post

Thanks for the review. I love how detail oriented you are. Your articles are always very clear and precise.


Thanks so much for your kind words!

gamermwm likes this.

Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is offline  
Old 12-12-2013, 01:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,880
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1421 Post(s)
Liked: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I personally am in the camp of liking the motion blur that 24 fps introduces, having grown up with movies looking this way to me for over 5 decades.
Same here. I've found that a 24fps cadence does more to trigger the idea of a "movie" in my head than something like film grain would.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
 
Thread Tools


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