Another nail in the coffin for film - Page 5

wow, blew me away.

absolutely gorgeous!

CinemaCon 2012: Fox Will Stop U.S. 35mm Film Distribution Within Two Years


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ibition-315688

Seems apropos to this thread:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118053075

http://www.reelz.com/movie-news/1373...-at-cinemacon/

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movi...pp-gatsby.html

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column...-lacking-37254

There are many reports on Peter Jackson's preview of The Hobbit shown at it's higher frame rate (48 fps). Turns out it's getting quite mixed reviews, with many people reporting it looked "too crisp/too real" such that it no longer looks like a movie but a cheaper, filmed stage play.

""Some of the closeup shots looked like an old soap opera on TV," ...

IGN reported: "So what does 48fps movie footage look like as opposed to your usual 24fps theatrical movie experience? In this reporter's opinion, it looks like live television or hi-def video. And it didn't look particularly good. Yes, this is shocking, but I was actually let down by the Hobbit footage, as were a number of the other journalists that I spoke with afterward."

This outcome shouldn't be too surprising, given the distaste many of us have for frame interpolation on TVs and projectors, which produce a similar effect by effectively aping a higher frame rate.

Interesting times ahead for the direction of greater image quality in movies...

Not surprising at all. Wrote this over a year ago in the Hobbit thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=145

If people didn't like how the smooth motion feature looks on a TV then why were they expecting to like it any better on a big screen (where there is an even greater expectation of 24fps cadence)?

Most of us welcomed the increase in resolution that came along with HDTV. Right at this point there isn't a whole lot of visible difference between 1080i60 HDTV and 1080p24 from BluRay. There is of course SOME differences due to lossy MPEG2 compression and the interlacing artifacts seen on moving objects.

For the next video advance I would rather see a higher frame rate than additional resolution. The facts are that once you get about 1 diagonal screen size away from a flat panel, you can't tell if it's 1080p or Quad HD. But you can easily distinguish the higher frame rate as smoother motion with fewer artifacts.

I'm not anybody hung up on the "look" of movie film. Video is a different medium, is all.

Were those screenings in 3D? I would imagine they would look that way in 2D, but there was a valid reason behind doing 48 fps for 3D.

Only when discussing "movies", would "too crisp/too real" be considered a bad thing. I wonder if the same thing happened decades ago with advancements in photography. "It's not fuzzy enough."

I understand concerns based on personal tastes, but to compare hi-res images to "an old soap opera" is laughable. Those shows were standard definition, and blurry compared to today.

I'm in my 50's, but I love the FI on my projector. I don't use the full blown setting on feature films, but it is so nice to not see stutter/judder during every panning shot.

My view is that in coming years 24fps will be a thing of past. Younger people will be used to, and prefer, a smoother look to films.

Art

Yes and no on this one. I'd like to keep "film" or movies at 24fps whenever possible. However, I could see some great benefits to 48fps for live recordings of things. Auto racing and sports would greatly benefit, imo. Stuff like that. I would like to get a bump up in resolution someday though. I know I would benefit from 4k resolution on my screen.

ESPN HD - 1280 x 720 x 60 frames/sec

The fact is that movies were never intended to look like "real life". They were always intended to look like an artistic interpretation of real life. There's about 80 years worth of films that define for people what a movie should look like. That's going to be difficult for 48 fps advocates to overcome.

Ahhh.. Good catch. I didn't even know anyone actually did broadcast (or record) at those rates. Not that I watch any sports though.

Yes, because movies are an art form, a mediation of reality. Always has been. Directors and cinematographers have for decades and decades made decisions as to how much they want you to see, how soft or sharp or detailed they want for the movie, or "real" or unreal etc.



It's not an issue of "it's not fuzzy enough" per se. There have been large frame film formats that have produced extraordinary resolution and sharpness for much of film's history. And a good blu-ray transfer can produce incredible sharpness and detail on home systems (sometimes I can't believe how clear and detailed movie images are on my RS55 projection set up).

However, there is something about the motion of 24fps that seems to still produce an artistic effect, a mediated reality, in which the artistic choices of sets, lighting, acting, makeup somehow blend coherently and believably together into the film-world on screen.

What I (and others, I think, whether they realize it or not) am talking about is the distinction between "realistic" and "believable." When we are talking about an artificial art form, that is trying to convince us that what is on screen is believable, "realistic" in terms of reproducing an unvarnished reality look, does not always suit that goal. A simple example would be a make-up job in a horror film that looks entirely believable on film, but if it were reproduced "realistically" in terms of how it actually looks if you are staring at the actor, you see the pancake makeup, or seams, or waxiness of the prosthetics etc, and though it now looks more "realistic" in terms of being so vivid it's like you are on the set with the actor, it has actually become less BELIEVABLE, ruining the very reason for the make up, and the intent, in the first place.

This is why many who saw the Hobbit footage reported disappointment: they said the sets that had looked believable on the previous LOTR movies shot at 24fps now looked like actors standing on sets, and hence lost BELIEVABILITY despite looking "more real, like you are right there."

People can be confused by this experience (you see this confusion in so many of the reports). "48fps is supposed to look more real, and it DOES look more real...but...why does it actually look LESS believable?"

I encountered this long ago even just calibrating settings on my plasma with standard movies. I set a goal to calibrate for sheer realism - the most realistic image I could get. It was amazing just how realistic an image I pulled out of my display. But over time I started to realise that, although things looked more real, I had a harder time actually "buying" what was happening on screen.


That is missing the point of the comparison. The issue is the 48fps footage produces the same EFFECT on those viewers as watching those old soap operas shot on video. And part of that effect not only had to do with video's contrast characteristics, but with the same issue: Old Soaps shot on video had "high motion" in terms of the video frame/field rate vs film, hence the sensation of extra clarity despite video not having the resolution of film.

That's something we always noticed when switching on Soap Operas - that the character of the image on video had an unvarnished, "too real," actors standing in sets quality that made them seem cheaper and less believable.
Exactly the effect being reported for the Hobbit at 48fps (some also likening it to the reduction in believability you get when you switch from watching LOTRs on film, to the behind the scenes extras shot on HD video...suddenly it doesn't feel like a believable world).

So it's good to keep in mind the difference between image realism and believability in terms of a viewer believing the STORY and drama being offered in a movie.

Can this issue be overcome in 48fps? I hope so. I like the idea of added benefits of a higher frame rate (having shot short films for many years, before getting into film sound, dealing with the low frame rate of film when blocking camera movement was always a curse as much as a blessing).

Cheers,

That's a superb post, Rich. We can only hope that Peter Jackson is fully cognizant of these issues and will not push 48 fps regardless of the believeability factor.

I think the confusion comes down to cadence (temporal resolution), since visual resolution is no longer an issue with digital vs film. It's not that 24fps is more believable than 60fps or that 60 is more realistic than 24. Most of the people viewing the 'Hobbit' footage have spent a lifetime being conditioned to see a higher frame rate as video/TV and a lower frame rate as film. At this point in their lives, it's a reflex reaction.

Anecdotally, I've noticed that younger people aren't as bothered by this, maybe because their exposure to various cadences has been more mixed (movies, TV, YouTube, video games, motion smoothed displays, etc). The cadence distinction that we take for granted may evaporate in the next generation or so.

He already shot the movie at 48 fps. I'm not sure that removing the extra frames for conversion to 24 fps will undo the "video" look. If you take a soap opera and frame-rate convert it to 24 fps, it still looks like a soap opera.

Uh oh....this could be trouble. It would be a huge shame if a lot of people turn out to hate the look of this movie because of the frame rate issue.

I understand, and can appreciate, what you are saying. However, 24fps was not initially chosen for its artistic effect. It was done to save money, as film was expensive. I fully agree about "mediated reality", but that is also achieved via color grading, filters, etc.

Since I've had access to FI, I prefer something in between the regular 24fps look, and video. Mostly due to the smoothness of motion. I can't stand stuttering panning shots anymore. I enjoy the look of film otherwise.

I'm with ya there.

Not only film but you can put a better quality stream on a DVD and BD if you use 24 fps. It saves space too and the players have always been able to interpolate for that. Same with scripted TV. Many network streams, especially NBC, would flag that the transport file was 24 (actually 23.97) fps.

What is the difference between shooting a movie (with a digital camera) at 24 FPS then transferring to 35mm film at 24 FPS and shooting at 48 FPS and "skip printing - transferring every other frame" to 35mm film at 24 FPS?

Qube Cinema Brings 120 fps 3D to CinemaCon


http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=2794

The shutter angle is hugely important here.

I find it strange that people are quoting comments about The Hobbit footage. The comments talking about unrealistic sets would make absolute sense since the footage hasn't gone through colour grading and is essentially unfinished. Personally, I think it was either a bad idea to show this footage or a great marketing ploy if they show some fully completed footage soon. The finished film will be the final say and if it all works out, there will be some avs'ers eating words...

The paradigm for what constitutes "good photography" in a movie is bound to change. The production of movies on film is ending. The distribution of movies on film prints is ending. In a few years, the only place one could even see film as a standard of comparison is in a museum.

I personally became aware of the potential of HD video when viewing the BBC series Planet Earth on HD-DVD and on my first 120Hz display in 2007. It was the first time I had the utterly convincing illusion that my HDTV was a window into another part of the Earth.

MY new paradigm for "good video" has been whatever most resembles real life since that moment. It is HD video shot at a high frame rate and displayed on a very high refresh display, as to better replicate the smooth analog motion of reality.

Losing the "look of film" is like removing a sheet of dirty glass that has always been between us and the movie.

I realize thaty everyone has an opinion here, and many opinions will differ from mine. But comparing a display image to real life is the new paradigm for "good".

You don't seem to understand how the RED camera works. Everything will already be graded. Everything. You shoot with the RED, a colorist works on it and then it is edited.

And there is no way in hell Jackson would present that footage without making special, final tweaks to it. Not a chance.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...nemacon-317755

^ thank you Lee.

And I do know how the RED cameras work, Matt.

I'm a little confused by what's shown in the Hobbit trailer online. I don't notice anything all that "different" from other movies (I guess we'll have to stop saying "films" pretty soon). Was that footage shot ar 24 fps? Converted? Manipulated?

Filmed at 48fps and removed half the frames in post.

Ok. Sounds like those of us who aren't in love with 3D have hope for the movie to look good.