Do You Like the Look of HFR? - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Do You Like the Look of HFR?
Yes 166 46.50%
No 97 27.17%
I've never seen HFR 94 26.33%
Voters: 357. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 316 Old 12-13-2013, 04:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,339
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 340 Post(s)
Liked: 1163

With the release of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug this weekend, the moviegoing public has its second opportunity to see a major motion picture shot and presented at a high frame rate (HFR)—48 frames per second to be exact, twice the normal rate that everyone has become accustomed to over the last 100 years or so. (The first opportunity was the first installment of the Hobbit trilogy.) Some viewers like the increased clarity of HFR, while others do not, saying it looks more like video than a movie.

 

What's your view? Do you like the look of HFR? If you haven't seen it before, I encourage you to find a theater that's showing The Desolation of Smaug in HFR to see it for yourself; here's a list of HFR theaters (including some Imax theaters). Apparently, there are many more HFR theaters now than there were for the first Hobbit movie, making it easier to find one near you. However, be aware that HFR is only being used with 3D presentations, so if you don't want to see it in 3D, you won't be able to see it in HFR.

 

Like AVS Forum on Facebook

Follow AVS Forum on Twitter

+1 AVS Forum on Google+


Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 316 Old 12-13-2013, 06:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
robnix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post

With the release of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug this weekend, the moviegoing public has its second opportunity to see a major motion picture shot and presented at a high frame rate (HFR)—48 frames per second to be exact, twice the normal rate that everyone has become accustomed to over the last 100 years or so. (The first opportunity was the first installment of the Hobbit trilogy.) Some viewers like the increased clarity of HFR, while others do not, saying it looks more like video than a movie.

What's your view? Do you like the look of HFR? If you haven't seen it before, I encourage you to find a theater that's showing The Desolation of Smaug in HFR to see it for yourself; here's a list of HFR theaters (including some Imax theaters). Apparently, there are many more HFR theaters now than there were for the first Hobbit movie, making it easier to find one near you. However, be aware that HFR is only being used with 3D presentations, so if you don't want to see it in 3D, you won't be able to see it in HFR.

Like AVS Forum on Facebook
Follow AVS Forum on Twitter
+1 AVS Forum on Google+

I don't like it, but I'm hoping that it's more that it's a new technology and the techniques to properly use it haven't been worked out yet. I had a few issues with The Hobbit, most of it I attribute to improperly used lighting.
  • The make up for the Dwarves really stood out at times.
  • There were times where the framerate and the action made the movie look out of sync, most notably in the opening when the book pages flip.
  • Lighting was very stagelike. It brought to mind efforts to put stage plays on TV. Some of the lighting was very direct and harsh when it shouldn't have been.
  • There were some severely overlit scenes that look right in the 24fps version, the moment that Bilbo finds The Ring comes to mind, along with the Gollum/Bilbo chase through the tunnels.
  • It overemphasizes the fact that CGI is used in the battle scenes, making them look almost video game like. Oddly enough they can also be hard to follow.
  • The chase through the Goblin Kingdom looked like plastic. It was just terrible.


On the flip side:
  • The 24fps version doesn't have these issues.
  • It's show us what a beautiful movie it is, one that borders on stunning at times.
  • The night time and underground scenes are lit in a manner that brings out the claustrophobia of being underground when needed, and opens up into an amazingly rendered troll kingdom as well.
  • The characters look convincing from the Trolls to the Goblins to the Dwarves and the Hobbits.
  • Lastly, the action scenes are surprisingly easier to follow.


My son, at 10, had the same complaints. We both walked out of the theater telling each other that we'd watch Smaug at 24fps.

There's an interesting article here that discusses why 48fps is a bad idea, and that 40fps may actually be the optimum frame rate:

http://movieline.com/2012/12/14/hobbit-high-frame-rate-science-48-frames-per-second/

I'm sure there are plenty of people that will chime in with the opposite opinion, a good friend of mine loved the 48fps version. However, as people look back I think a lot of that love comes from the desire for a better technology rather than the technology actually being better.

Looky here!
robnix is offline  
post #3 of 316 Old 12-13-2013, 07:33 PM
Member
 
trab37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 26
While I thought it gave amazing clarity to the majority of the movie, at times it felt a bit difficult to process. Gandalf was running faster than most NFL receivers! I watched both versions and I think seeing the HFR version first ruined the experience of the 24fps version for me later. I could very easliy see the motion blur of the 24fps version and missed the details HFR brought out. I will most likely see the HFR 3D version in my local Dolby Atmos theater for the experience Peter Jackson intended, but would not say it is my preference for all movies to move in this direction.
trab37 is offline  
post #4 of 316 Old 12-13-2013, 07:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
popalock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 3,899
Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 540 Post(s)
Liked: 843
Send a message via Skype™ to popalock
It's an evolutionary step.

One step closer to the ultimate end goal.
cardoski and FilmReverie like this.
popalock is offline  
post #5 of 316 Old 12-13-2013, 07:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 652
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post

It's an evolutionary step.

One step closer to the ultimate end goal.

This. Those who don't like HFR remind me of those who said blu-ray wasn't worth it because it was worse then dvd.
cardoski and raemi38 like this.
FilmReverie is offline  
post #6 of 316 Old 12-13-2013, 08:08 PM
Senior Member
 
degobah77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 221
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Sometimes better isn't always the best. I agree with robnix. And perhaps the artist needs to know when and when NOT to use a certain medium to express their vision.

As far as tech-phobia comments go, it's much like how vinyl still sounds better than CDs, CRTs still have better PQ than most new displays, tube amps sound better than solid state, etc, etc. Just because it's new doesn't mean it's better by default.

Boom
degobah77 is offline  
post #7 of 316 Old 12-13-2013, 08:17 PM
Member
 
jasenj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 16
robnix had pretty much the exact same experience with the HFR version as I did. I did not see the 24fps version, but a friend who did also said it did not suffer the over brightness and fake lighting.

I'm really hoping it was a post-production processing issue.

I plan to see DoS at 24fps and give the HFR version a pass.

- Jasen.
jasenj1 is offline  
post #8 of 316 Old 12-13-2013, 08:23 PM
Member
 
tisserda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Went last night to a double feature midnight showing. Both part 1 and 2 were shown in HFR 3D. It was the first time I saw a HFR movie. I have seen part 1 3 or 4 times, once in the theater in 24p/2D and a couple of times at home.
It was really weird at first. The first movie seemed kind of 'spastic' in some of the shots. There were definitely a lot of details I never noticed in the previous times I had watched the movies, such as the hair and texture of the ponies when they leave The Shire.

Part 2 seemed a lot smoother. The focus and detail still seemed 'unnatural', but I think that may be just something to get used to. Some of the big panoramic shots were absolutely breathtaking. I'm not sure if the 2nd one was actually filmed 'better', or if my eyes and brain were getting accustomed to the difference.

My takeaway, big, large scenery scenes are better in HDR. Close up, especially of face shots can be startling, and not in a pleasant way...
nickbuol likes this.
tisserda is offline  
post #9 of 316 Old 12-13-2013, 08:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
stef2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 39
I saw the Hobbit in HFR and could not get over the fact that it rendered motion unrealistic. At times, it made the scenes look as someone was pressing fast forward for a fraction of a second...maybe 48fps is the future, but the way it looks now seems too unnatural for me.
nickbuol likes this.

Stef
stef2 is offline  
post #10 of 316 Old 12-13-2013, 08:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 371
I find the reaction to HFR...including my own!...a bit frustrating ot discouraging. The reason is: Like any AV-geek, I love the idea of advancing the picture quality (and sound quality) experience of movie watching.
I greet with open arms the increase and clarity and resolution from VHS, to DVD, to 720p HD, to 1080p HD. 4K? Bring it on! (I use a projector, so I'm in the category of more likely to see the benefits).
One of the most obvious brick-walls to clarity, image detail and realism has been the low sample rate of film, so it's just an obvious, natural place to raise the technological bar for a believable image.

But we all know the outcome of that: the dreaded "too real" or "soap opera" effect. I absolutely loathe it like many here, for movies. And it was fascinating watching The Hobbit, how it made the acting look more artificial, as referenced in the article by robnix.

The thing one learns along the way, is that a lot of use have thought we want a more realistic image to make the movie even more believable. It's this mixing up of "realistic" and "believable" (in terms of image presentation) that gets us in to trouble. We've found that a more realistic isn't necessarily more believable; it can actually end in a LESS believable movie experience, being incompatible with the rest of the artifice
of movie making.

So the issue for me is: where do we go from here?

I love the look of 24fps like anyone else for movies. But are we to stay stuck with 24fps and it's obvious compromises forever? Maybe it will just be a case of our getting used to HFR, or the next generation being raised on it (like, ironically, they've been raised on iPods and mp3 quality, instead of CDs, Vinyl and component stereo systems). Hopefully the techniques for HFR, if they can get it to work out, will help us through the "uncanny valley" referenced in that article.
Scott Wilkinson likes this.
R Harkness is offline  
post #11 of 316 Old 12-13-2013, 10:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 911
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Liked: 168
Now that I've escaped from Plato's cave, I don't want to go back in.

It's all a question if you prefer the red pill or the blue pill.
Scott Wilkinson and LDizzle like this.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #12 of 316 Old 12-13-2013, 10:17 PM
Member
 
SirMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
I really do like it. Everything just looks more real to me and I really appreciate the extra detail you can make out in action scenes. I'm sure it will only get better but I think it is the future.

It just takes getting used to like any change. We all prefer and think 24Hz looks "right" only because we are so conditioned to it. There is nothing more inherently correct about the motion of 24Hz compared to something higher. It's just the minimum framerate that can achieve fluid motion thus being cheaper for film originally and less work to edit. Or at least that's what I've been led to believe.
sarvic, LDizzle and MassConfusion like this.
SirMaster is offline  
post #13 of 316 Old 12-13-2013, 11:32 PM
Member
 
pbz06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
HFR looks terrible to me.
prberg likes this.
pbz06 is offline  
post #14 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 05:14 AM
Advanced Member
 
Webmonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Did people not have similar complaints when 24fps was new? :-D
LDizzle likes this.
Webmonkey is offline  
post #15 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 05:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by degobah77 View Post

Sometimes better isn't always the best. I agree with robnix. And perhaps the artist needs to know when and when NOT to use a certain medium to express their vision.

As far as tech-phobia comments go, it's much like how vinyl still sounds better than CDs,

True that perception is the consequence of sentimentality, habit, and myth. 99% of everybody didn't dump vinyl and analog tape just for convenience, no matter what myths are spun. People who prized sonic accuracy all along hated vinyl because of how it trashed the music. Vinyl was abandoned as a primary recording and mastering medium at least 20 years before digital. Analog tape is far better than vinyl, and would have chased it off the market except for its own practical issues. Even though cassette was not all that much better sounding, it was pushing vinyl into a corner.
Quote:
CRTs still have better PQ than most new displays,

Certainly CRT's can still do better under ideal conditions. But in actual use many of their major advantages like higher contrast get washed out by ambient lighting.
Quote:
tube amps sound better than solid state,

Again that perception is another consequence of sentimentality, habit, and myth. 99.9% of everybody didn't dump tubes just for convenience, no matter what myths are spun. Even among my hifi friends very few of us use our tubed equipment but rarely, even if we have it set up in our listening rooms. Fun as museum pieces, not really for serious listening.
Quote:
Just because it's new doesn't mean it's better by default.

Just because it is new, cheaper and smaller doesn't mean its worse, which is what I get out of the post I'm responding to.
arnyk is offline  
post #16 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 07:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
djbluemax1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 2,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 287
Much like finally having 3D for the home, I've been waiting a LONG time for films to move past the archaic 24fps standard. I'm one of the folks who, quite some time ago, realized that I'm REALLY not a fan of the juddery, blurry mess that is 24fps.

I realize though, that the majority of the moviegoing populace has been conditioned to not only accept, but expect all the visual artifacts and anomalies of 24fps, and as mentioned, this has become locked in some minds as a key for the suspension of disbelief. For me, it results in the exact opposite. My eyes don't see that way. When I look around a room or vista, my view doesn't judder like that and my eyes don't blur in that manner.

That link in the first few posts is obviously a non-scientist with a poor understanding of things. Our ocular system can perceive fast movement, and yes, has its own motion blur built-in. Showing a video display at higher rates though, simply leaves it up to the individual's visual system (eyes AND brain) to implemenf its limitations. Producing an image with lower than human perception limitations baked in is what is artificial. But folks are used to it.

Arguments like, "pans of landscapes looked great because of the detail, but closeups looked fake", perfectly illustrate the power of this conditioning to expect the artifacts and anomalies. Yes, the pans of the landscapes show much more detail because motion blur is reduced greatly, but there is no real reason for closeups to look worse.

The resolution in a closeup is the same in 24 or 48 fps, and shaky cam idiocy aside, there's little motion to cause blurring in closeups. It's just the person's brain going, "something's off compared to what I'm used to seeing", so they begin picking on all manner of things, some of which are completely unrelated.

Same thing goes for motion. Before I saw TH in HFR, I asked a friend what he thought, as he'd already seen it both in HFR and 24fps. He had the same impressions as some of the folks here, that the HFR motion looked off and, "looked like it was sped up" when there was lots of action and fast movement. According to him, in contrast, the first scene where Smaug appears and blasts the dwarven stronghold, where everything moved too fast and he had trouble focusing with the HFR, it looked much better in 24fps and he could follow everything.

When I watched it, I had the opposite reaction. When I watched that scene, 2 thoughts immediately popped into my head, "I have NO idea why my buddy felt the way he did because the whole scene was much sharper in HFR than it would be in 24fps. I can see everything clearly!", and, "this scene was OBVIOUSLY shot FOR HFR, because there's way too much fast movement for 24fps". And I was right. A lot of that scene is a juddery, blurry mess in 24p.

As far as the acting, makeup and artificiality of the sets go, well, that's just one thing that directors, makeup artists etc. are going to have to adapt to and raise their standards for.

My personal reaction when I first saw The Hobbit in HFR? I immediately thought, "WOW! It's SO much clearer and the motion is much smoother! 60fps would be EVEN better!".

I see the standards for HDMI 2.0 look to be ready for 4k60p. Can't wait!.


Max
djbluemax1 is offline  
post #17 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 08:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,128
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 267
A lot of folks are negative upfront on HFR. Many years of 24fps makes it hard for folks to even consider an upgrade. Also the LCd fake frames - motion interpolation - which is hated by many is a factor. I myself am not happy with 24fps and want to see some motion improvement, not shure if 48fps is the answer..

the history of frame rates; why speeds vary
john171 likes this.
8mile13 is offline  
post #18 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 08:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ambesolman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,654
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Liked: 459
I'm on the fence about it. Have been since walking out of the first Hobbit. Didn't think they were doing it again since this was the first I've heard of DoS being 48fps. As it's been said already, the increased detail and 3d were big pluses. However, when the movie started I thought, this looks weird but sharp. The motion had less blur, but looked weird too. I'm sure I'll get used to it in a bit. Nope, I noticed it the whole time. I'm sure I'll see the DoS in HFR for the clarity, great 3d and since that's how it was intended to be seen.

In regards to the article, I thought it was great. For better or worse, I'm a very logical and science minded person so the article made a lot if sense to me. It would be nice, if after more research could pinpoint what that magical framerate of perception is, if movies were filmed at that FR. Especially since 40fps is not a multiple of 24, the downside of that is, likely, all new cameras, TVs, BR players, etc. though I don't know enough about that to be 100%. Don't know, would have to see it before deciding to plunk down a bunch of that sweet moolah for all new gear.
ambesolman is online now  
post #19 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 09:27 AM
Member
 
Bob Benson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Parsippany, NJ
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 15
My opinion is best summed up this way - bring on 60 fps.

Everyone who thinks "this looks weird" will likely change their minds over time as this becomes the standard.

Unfortunately there is still too much push back. I have a feeling this is going to not be utilized again for a few more years. But recently James Cameron indicated he was considering it. I wouldn't be surprised if by the time his Avatar sequels come out he has the push to make it so this is the primary way the films are available in the multiplex. After all when Avatar came out most multiplexes were not equipped for 3d but his pull helped greatly accelerate the process.
politby, sarvic, raemi38 and 2 others like this.

XBL Gamertag - PVT Hicks
Bob Benson is offline  
post #20 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 09:48 AM
Senior Member
 
cubbiechris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Benson View Post

My opinion is best summed up this way - bring on 60 fps.

Everyone who thinks "this looks weird" will likely change their minds over time as this becomes the standard.

Unfortunately there is still too much push back. I have a feeling this is going to not be utilized again for a few more years. But recently James Cameron indicated he was considering it. I wouldn't be surprised if by the time his Avatar sequels come out he has the push to make it so this is the primary way the films are available in the multiplex. After all when Avatar came out most multiplexes were not equipped for 3d but his pull helped greatly accelerate the process.

Yes, this and you can bet your ass Avatar 2 is gonna be 60fps. After Avatar 2 and JC blows our eyes again, filmmakers will get on board. You'll see...

I love it and I know that Jackson tweaked it for the newest Hobbit and it was an amazing visual experience. Crazy good.
raemi38 and LDizzle like this.
cubbiechris is offline  
post #21 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 09:51 AM
Senior Member
 
cubbiechris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

Much like finally having 3D for the home, I've been waiting a LONG time for films to move past the archaic 24fps standard. I'm one of the folks who, quite some time ago, realized that I'm REALLY not a fan of the juddery, blurry mess that is 24fps.

I realize though, that the majority of the moviegoing populace has been conditioned to not only accept, but expect all the visual artifacts and anomalies of 24fps, and as mentioned, this has become locked in some minds as a key for the suspension of disbelief. For me, it results in the exact opposite. My eyes don't see that way. When I look around a room or vista, my view doesn't judder like that and my eyes don't blur in that manner.

That link in the first few posts is obviously a non-scientist with a poor understanding of things. Our ocular system can perceive fast movement, and yes, has its own motion blur built-in. Showing a video display at higher rates though, simply leaves it up to the individual's visual system (eyes AND brain) to implemenf its limitations. Producing an image with lower than human perception limitations baked in is what is artificial. But folks are used to it.

Arguments like, "pans of landscapes looked great because of the detail, but closeups looked fake", perfectly illustrate the power of this conditioning to expect the artifacts and anomalies. Yes, the pans of the landscapes show much more detail because motion blur is reduced greatly, but there is no real reason for closeups to look worse.

The resolution in a closeup is the same in 24 or 48 fps, and shaky cam idiocy aside, there's little motion to cause blurring in closeups. It's just the person's brain going, "something's off compared to what I'm used to seeing", so they begin picking on all manner of things, some of which are completely unrelated.

Same thing goes for motion. Before I saw TH in HFR, I asked a friend what he thought, as he'd already seen it both in HFR and 24fps. He had the same impressions as some of the folks here, that the HFR motion looked off and, "looked like it was sped up" when there was lots of action and fast movement. According to him, in contrast, the first scene where Smaug appears and blasts the dwarven stronghold, where everything moved too fast and he had trouble focusing with the HFR, it looked much better in 24fps and he could follow everything.

When I watched it, I had the opposite reaction. When I watched that scene, 2 thoughts immediately popped into my head, "I have NO idea why my buddy felt the way he did because the whole scene was much sharper in HFR than it would be in 24fps. I can see everything clearly!", and, "this scene was OBVIOUSLY shot FOR HFR, because there's way too much fast movement for 24fps". And I was right. A lot of that scene is a juddery, blurry mess in 24p.

As far as the acting, makeup and artificiality of the sets go, well, that's just one thing that directors, makeup artists etc. are going to have to adapt to and raise their standards for.

My personal reaction when I first saw The Hobbit in HFR? I immediately thought, "WOW! It's SO much clearer and the motion is much smoother! 60fps would be EVEN better!".

I see the standards for HDMI 2.0 look to be ready for 4k60p. Can't wait!.


Max

Roger Ebert has been hailing HFR (48FPS) a decade ago with Maxivision. It's about time it's starting to take hold. 24fps is a blurry mess. You can't even pan a shot properly.
cubbiechris is offline  
post #22 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 09:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
nickbuol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Marion, Iowa
Posts: 1,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 221
I love how so many "pro-HFR" people turn to insulting comments towards people. This is a poll, and this is all opinion. Personally, I am stuck in the middle. I like the "feel" of the 24FPS experience, but HATE how it has what I call "stuttering blur"... You know, not even a smooth blur to show action. I then, in turn, love the clarity that you get with the higher frame rate, but hate how artificial things look.

I have not seen Smaug in HFR and won't for 2 reasons,
1) HFR for the previous Hobbit film really messed up the experience for me (I went to Cinemark's HQ theater in the Plano, TX area, saw it on their massive screen, in HFR 3D, with Dolby Atmos sound. It was the "full on" experience, and I enjoyed it much more a couple of days later at a "regular" theater in 24FPS 2D with regular surround sound with my daughter. I want to have that level of enjoyment for DoS.
2) The only HFR theater anywhere near me is about 75 minutes away, and it isn't even on their largest screen, so IF I make that drive, I would rather have it on their biggest screen than HFR.

I have heard that the HFR in Smaug is MUCH improved over the previous Hobbit movie, so it will get better and I am not so anti-HFR that I don't want it to succeed. I do, but I just don't think that it quite there yet. I mean, this is only the 2nd mainstream movie to use it (3rd overall), and in 2014 we will get the 3rd Hobbit movie and rumors of X-Men: Days of Future past as another possibility. James Cameron wants to do the next 3 Avatar installments at 60 FPS, but even then we are only talking a small handful of offerings total. Not enough to really get all of the kinks and mental issues worked out.

Mental issues? Yes, and I don't mean some people's opinion that HFR "dislikers" have mental issues, I am talking about how the human brain perceives motion. When something moves, the mind anticipates some level of blur to it until your eyes catch up to the moving object, refocus on it, and process that it is in motion. This may take just a tiny fraction of a second, but it is there. The brain processes this blur and then focus as acceleration. So now, take a movie displayed with the clarity of HFR, like at the beginning of the first Hobbit movie where "old" Bilbo is digging through a chest of items in his home. He reaches in, and you see zero blur and super clarity.... Since there is no sense of that fractional second of "blur," the brain processes it as "super fast" movement. Even though it is actually taking a "normal" amount of time to do what is being done on screen, and the time is the exact same as the non-HFR version, your brain is fooled into processing it otherwise. This is NOT a "you are just used to 24FPS from years of watching that way." This is just our brains trying to outsmart reality. Scott Wilkenson did an episode of Home Theater Geeks (#182) about the Room as a video component, and at 20 minutes in, it talks about how the brain gets fooled based off of what it sees. At 23 minutes in, it shows some of the mind created illusions, and even after you KNOW that the colors are what they are, your brain still can't process it correctly. So even though, at least with the first Hobbit movie, people KNEW that things weren't really going at 100 miles per hour, your brain is still fooled by it. Now, I have heard that on the flip side, you CAN become accustomed to this perception if you already were watching movies at home with some sort of "smooth motion" setting turned on that some people like because of their desire for that "soap opera" look or whatever you want to call it. So once you cross that mental "acceptance" line, you are more apt to tolerate the illusion given by not having blur.

So there is actual science behind what all of those "dumb, stuck in the past" HFR "dislikers" are experiencing, and it shouldn't just be discounted. Here is what I think will really improve the whole experience:
1) With increased frame rates, add a touch of blur to the very beginning of motion sequences, this does NOT go through an entire screen, but just aids the brain in processing it and thus makes it actually MORE realistic.
2) With the increased clarity, higher resolution, and higher frame rates, studios need to go that extra step in lighting, make-up, sets, and CGI polish (or unpolish to make it not SO much better than the practical sets).

Again, most of this is just my opinion, however the mental hurdle about the motion/acceleration blur is real and was discussed in length a year ago when the first movie came out.

I would guess that some of these items have been addressed with Smaug, and thus the reason people are liking it more.

I embrace new technology, and look forward to when HFR is just the "normal frame rate," but more-so when we get that super high definition on the big screen (whether that screen is in a theater complex or at home). For now though, I am just one of those "dumb HFR-haters who is stuck in the past" as some previous posters would put it.

Just remember, when you only have mud to sling, you are the one who gets dirty.

(For those of you offering your positive experience with HFR without the name-calling, I am glad that you like it. You will be the one driving this technology to its potential. Thank you for that!)


****EDIT****
I just went out and read the article that robnix posted (2nd post in this thread) about 40FPS instead of 48FPS. Good stuff. I am linking it again here:
Hobbit High Frame Rate Science 48-Frames Per Second
Mfusick likes this.
nickbuol is offline  
post #23 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 10:03 AM
Senior Member
 
cubbiechris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
I think we just trained ourselves over the years to think that 24fps is normal. "It's how our brain works". 24fps has nothing to do with this at all. It was only set as a standard to sync sound with film when film starting using sound. We know nothing but 24fps so it feels normal to us.

There's nothing realistic about blur. If you pan a shot and get blur that's not normal. Turn your head do you see blur?

I totally disagree with that movieline article.
raemi38 and LDizzle like this.
cubbiechris is offline  
post #24 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 10:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,128
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by cubbiechris 

There's nothing realistic about blur. If you pan a shot and get blur that's not normal. Turn your head do you see blur?
wave your hand in front of your face smile.gif
nickbuol, Ryan1, chirpie and 2 others like this.
8mile13 is offline  
post #25 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 10:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
wxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Liked: 243
The human brain can process so much faster than 24fps. We see the motion blur because 24fps is of such poor quality. I look foward to the day of standard 60fps and higher.
sarvic and raemi38 like this.
wxman is offline  
post #26 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 10:41 AM
Senior Member
 
degobah77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 221
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


Just because it is new, cheaper and smaller doesn't mean its worse, which is what I get out of the post I'm responding to.

But just because it's new doesn't make it automatically better either, and that was more of my point. The 1% is why we have sites like this. People care about quality first and foremost and it's not just "sentimentality, habit, and myth." Case in point; not only are there are 8 vinyl record stores in a 5 mile radius of my house, but I bought the "Mastered for iTunes" Pink Floyd The Wall, listened to it in pure disgust, then put on my original vinyl and the proof is in the pudding. First hand experience sways my opinion to the 'sometimes older is better' side of things.
nickbuol likes this.

Boom
degobah77 is offline  
post #27 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 11:23 AM
Senior Member
 
cubbiechris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by degobah77 View Post

But just because it's new doesn't make it automatically better either, and that was more of my point. The 1% is why we have sites like this. People care about quality first and foremost and it's not just "sentimentality, habit, and myth." Case in point; not only are there are 8 vinyl record stores in a 5 mile radius of my house, but I bought the "Mastered for iTunes" Pink Floyd The Wall, listened to it in pure disgust, then put on my original vinyl and the proof is in the pudding. First hand experience sways my opinion to the 'sometimes older is better' side of things.
[

and I still play 8 bit games just for kicks.
chirpie likes this.
cubbiechris is offline  
post #28 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 11:30 AM
Member
 
kentex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirMaster View Post

I really do like it. Everything just looks more real to me and I really appreciate the extra detail you can make out in action scenes. I'm sure it will only get better but I think it is the future.

It just takes getting used to like any change. We all prefer and think 24Hz looks "right" only because we are so conditioned to it. There is nothing more inherently correct about the motion of 24Hz compared to something higher. It's just the minimum framerate that can achieve fluid motion thus being cheaper for film originally and less work to edit. Or at least that's what I've been led to believe.

I agree. Moving forward is a good thing and change is inevitable. Perhaps Jackson should have released The Hobbit in 16mm black and white silent format. There was a time when the introduction of color sound widescreen digital and 3d was met with the same resistance.
raemi38 and LDizzle like this.
kentex is offline  
post #29 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 12:56 PM
Senior Member
 
degobah77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 221
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 52
I can recall a movie in the last 2 years that was released in a B&W silent format that also won multiple academy awards (including Best Motion Picture).
Scott Wilkinson likes this.

Boom
degobah77 is offline  
post #30 of 316 Old 12-14-2013, 01:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
dargo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 43
I have good vision and love 3D so HFR is a welcome addition, I remember people saying they hated stereo is was just a gimmick. In Feb 1986 I saw Douglas Trumbull HFR demo at Showest
and it blew my mind only took 27 years to see it used for a movie.
raemi38 and LDizzle like this.
dargo is offline  
Reply Community News & Polls

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