The Hobbit - Page 14

I have never seen anyone, even total Blu-Ray newbies, have that reaction to a Blu-Ray movie on a display that is properly calibrated, without frame interpolation. Every person I know, including guests watching Blu-Rays on my projection screen, have loved the image over any DVD image.

I've yet to see a reaction of "Blu-Ray looks to clear and weird" that did not trace to the fact the display was poorly calibrated or, by far most likely, some sort of frame interpolation processing was activated on the display - and the person attributes that "too weirdly sharp and clear" look to Blu-Ray itself rather than the display device.

So I'm curious: do you use any motion smoothing/frame interpolation settings?

^ My Elite 150fd has been professionally calibrated and there are no frame interpolated options on these displays. She just hates change, like many people, except she really has a problem with change. It's an extreme example, I know. However, human beings tend to not like change and problems with change incerease exponentially when they've gotten used to the same thing for such a long time.

Well I agree generally about the problem of "changes." It is a sobering reminder that virtually every advance or change, in this case dealing with the history of film, has come with people pushing back and a fare share of detractors. This issue with HFR may be yet another example and of course may come to be accepted.

However, that doesn't in of itself simply negate the substance of people's negative reactions. Whether we, or people in the future become accustomed to HFR as the norm, it's still a subjective fact that many people experiencing it NOW find it to be counterproductive to the believability of the viewing experience. "It's the future of film" type proclamations do not help this in any way, right now, if it still has the effect NOW of looking more fake to the current audience.

We'll have to see the finished product, though.

Agreed. The final product will be the determining factor. Once you're engrossed in the film, the experience should be heightened by the realism and the beautifully created Middle Earth should be delivered in a more vivid and enveloping way. I was floored when I saw the trailer on a Barco projector in RealD. The 3D was leaps better than Avatar's in terms of depth, so I'm truly looking forward to seeing the final full product the way Jackson intended.

The important word there is "reactions". It's not like people went into the demo wanting to find something negative, nor were their remarks an intellectual analysis that they pondered for a long time. Instead, many of the negative comments were a reflexive reaction to what they saw; and some of the comments weren't negative, merely pointed out that it looked more like TV than a typical theatrical movie. It's not a question of right or wrong, good or bad; it's just a lifetime of conditioning that makes us react a certain way, by reflex, to differences in cadence. A generation of viewers may grow up without that conditioning, but this current one isn't it.

People always forget that not every technical improvment will be implemented and the people supporting this new technolgy will be proven right. 3D has failed several times earlier, faster framerate could have been implemented 50 years ago, cinerama failed, smell-o-vision etc. Just because its closer ot real life, doesnt equal that it improves the movie experience. Is the next step that we cut music in the movies because there is no music in real life? Should we stop having soundeffects in space because there is no sound in space?

The filmmaking skills of today has been centered around 24P 2D for so long, that the entire process of making movies need to change if a new format should work. We had artificial lighting that 100% aimed for making the 2D content look 3D. Depth of field to create sense of depth on a 2D screen. We can create unrealistic fighting scenes look believable by changing the framerate during recording, we can create slow motion effects that work seemless with non slow motion fps.

When I watched Avatar in 3D, the scenes that looked best for the 3D format was actually the scenes with long depth of field. Because it felt more real. When we have scenes with the more classic depth of field it didnt work as good, it was like my eyes wanted to focus themself but the filmmaker had already decided the focus for me.

So just adding an extra camera and double the framerate will not work if you handle the rest of the movie like a 2D movie. You must rethink everything to make the illusion work. Just like they did when sound came, or colors for that matter (or cinerama), its not just business as usual. You must give the new format a soul of its own.

With any cinema technical advancement, there is always a learning curve. It takes time to experiment with what works and what doesn't work and how to use the new process to advance story-telling to the point that the technical advancement becomes transparent to the audience. It has to be a tool and not a gimmick for it to survive and flourish.

Someone has to be the first to use it. And that someone's creation is going to be put under a microscope. They couldn't have picked a better person; Peter Jackson or a creation; THE HOBBIT to usher in HFR movie production. It's long overdue.

^ +1

Something "new" can mean "improved", but I see people often make the mistake of assuming that "new" must mean "improved". Not so.

I can also see people confusing change with a bad thing until they get used to it and have a hard time going back. This is a normal reaction and I'll reserve judgment for the final product. When I first watched Avatar, the 3D took about 10 minutes to settle into. After that, any discomfort or unease completely vanished and I was brought into the world as Cameron intended. That was only for the first viewing. I saw it another 7 times in different formats and had no issues at all.

I've argue that for years with vinylphiles.

Capture above 24fps isnt anything new to be adapted to. The reason its called the soap opera effect is that soaps was often shoot in 50i/60i. It was actually expensive to shoot 24fps.

People have watched +48hz content for so long, it shouldnt be any problem watching this. And I dont think color grading is the problem.

View this 30p capture full-frame on your monitor while panning your eyes to try to read the signs going by:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdKVOASKOkc

Are you folks seriously trying to tell me that the even worse 24fps is something to be desired? And before you start arguing "shutter angle" remember that a large shutter angle masks the stroboscopic effect by increasing the motion blur in each frame, resulting in even less legibility.

Really, this is what people want? I don't think so.

The idea that people are "used" to this is just stupid, IMHO. It's something they put up with, not something they want. Give them a better option and the traditional "cinematic look" will soon be as popular as scratchy old analogue records.

Yes many of us prefer something worse then 30p. Just like we prefer colors that are desaturated, depth of field that is limited, grain in the image, lens flares, soundeffects, music etc. These are just tools to tell a story. Its like complaining on a painting , that its bad because it doesnt look like a photo.

"Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder"

"One man's junk is another man's treasure"

Honestly, that argument is weak. 24 frames were the most cost-effective way to shoot movies with high quality film and it became the standard. Digital doesn't have this limitation and we can finally move past this comprimise. Don't say it is an artistic choice and that people don't want to see everything on screen. Why would movie makers strive for such high quality special effects if they weren't trying to fool the audience that what they're seeing is as close to being real as possible? Obviously they can grade the colours and make their own adjustments, which is fine. However, 24fps has not been an artistic choice. It's been the comprimised standard that everyone has grown accustomed to. For example, colour, surround sound, widescreen, just to name a couple. These were all enhancements, as HFR is.

HFR has been rejected before because of artistic reason. While economy was a factor in the beginning, studios could very well have implemented HFR if they wanted to 40 years ago.

But when you film inside a studio HFR is less forgiving when it comes to protecting the illusion that is film. Because every little detail that isnt right will be much more obvious.

Er..no...it's actually a fact that people are used to the look of 24fps for movies. It's the fact that explains the poor reactions to the Hobbit footage, and the many poor reactions to frame interpolation on HDTVs.

Whether this changes in the future or not, it's a fact now.


Yes and no. Yes it's an artifact from the original limitations of film. Yes there are some attractive things about the concept of HFR, at least in theory, getting rid of blur etc.

But currently, IF the choice is between an image that makes it harder to believe what's happening on screen (HFR), it's a fact that many people actually want the lower frame rate. All the shouting of "Luddites" and it's theoretical advantages won't mean squat if in fact people find it is off-putting and reduces their ability to enjoy the drama on screen.

Many of us have displays with optional frame interpolation which mimicks just the qualities you get with a higher frame rate, and the look is excactly as many people described from the Hobbit preview.

I've tried watching movies with the frame interpolation on, on my projector. Pans lose the blur, camera movement and on screen movement is smoother and clearer, the image looks clearer and more detailed. All wonderful sounding stuff and all the stuff attributed to higher frame rates. But for me it brings a marked reduction the cinematic feeling, and in believability. It looks cheap. Like actors on sets, not a real world. (And it also doesn't look as the cinematographer intended it either).

So you are wrong: I'm aware of the look of higher frame rates. I do indeed want to watch 24ps.

(Maybe that will change some day, but it's a fact at this time).

It's a real problem, no matter how much people are labeled old reactionaries. Which would most people rather have: A picture so real it's obvious that the objects in the scene are props and sets, and the makeup people are wearing shows clearly as such, or a picture with just enough UNreality to it that what they see on screen is more believeable?

To help answer this question, let me ask another question: What would the result be if the technology existed to make images SO real that they were indistinguishable from actually being on the set?

Do not pretend that all reactions to THE HOBBIT footage were "poor" or negative. That would be an outright lie.



This is a common misnomer. Thinking that multiplying existing frames is the same as shooting and presenting at 48 FPS.

It's like saying you can upscale a DVD to 1080P. A Bluray is 1080P also so they must be the same right? 1080P = 1080P.

So you can go see THE HOBBIT at a theater in 2D and 24 FPS. Me - I want to see it in 3D at 48 FPS. And there is no reason in the world for people like you to deny me that because you have some nostalgic love for a crippled cinema process that is 75+ years old.

You are making a bad assumption. That the production team would allow that to happen. Oh wait - sorry - that happens ALL THE TIME and has nothing to do with HFR or 24 FPS. It's just sloppy production values.


That was Douglas Trumbull's concept behind BRAINSTORM

Actually no - Studios couldn't implement HFR 40 years ago if they wanted to. They need (just like today) the blessing and cooperation of the theater owners, who didn't give a hoot about any artistic reasons. Showscan was frightfully expensive and they wanted nothing to do with it. It was ALL about economy.


Each new cinema process has new requirements. And as you have repeatedly said, they have been shooting in HFR for quite some time . . . 1080 x 60i. So why is that OK . . . but for 1080 x 48P - there are all kinds of issues

"Hoist with his own petard"

What concept? That he thought he could make people literally believe that they weren't watching a movie? That could not be literally true.


The potential problem is that this will change what constitutes "sloppy production values" to an unreasonably high level.

Never saw BRAINSTORM huh?


Innocent . . . . until proven guilty . . . not the other way around.

Filmreels are already running at duplicate frames. It would be easy to create a new hfr format. One of their problem was that the filmmakers didnt like the estetic look of hfr.


They still have a problem with 50i/60i productions, they look fake. But since they dont even pretend that they are making an Epic. They get away with it.

You honestly believe that native 24P shot and shown double flashed is the same as natively shot 48 FPS shown at 48 FPS?

BTW - THE HOBBIT will be shown 48 FPS 3D double flashed to 96 FPS per eye. The highest today is RealD which is 24P triple flashed to 72 FPS per eye.

So how many filmmakers saw Showscan? You got a list?


They look fake . . . to you. You really should use . . . IMO . . . more often in your posts.

I know there are some who will go to a movie and specifically look for errors and mistakes. I wonder how can you lose yourself in the story while at the same time concentrating on finds errors and mistakes.

Did that. Never talked to anyone who saw the movie who believed he was "there". Did you really think that?


But the case WILL go to trial, and a guilty verdict won't require unanimity.

What you are describing is exactly what happened when the broadcast industry switched from SD (standard definition) to HDTV. Exactly. See: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1...406700,00.html

Did this force the industry to stick with SD? Of course not. Instead they beefed up the props and makeup to cope with it.

Why on earth would anyone here think that the movie industry is going to be any different?

were did I write 24p?


So? The problem here isnt the lack of frame.


was showscan even first on this.


Yes, those BBC production were all praised for their fantastic sets the last 30 years.


the trick is to watch good movies. They use to come in 2d only.

I have a hard time believing that you actually watched that clip, tried to read the writing that was panning by, and say that it's the way you'd prefer to see that material.

Your arguments sound like those of an "analog purist" - too invested in the past to accept new, better ways of doing things. History will pass such people by.