Will movies filmed in 48fps require new home theater equipment? - Page 4

My LG does a good job with interpolation, but it does exhibit very occasional artifacting, depending on the content. Like aliasing and haloing on moving objects in busy scenes. But for the most part it's very good indeed.

Anyway, I was quite disappointed with The Hobbit. It was dreadful. Not so much because they unnecessarily altered a perfectly serviceable story line, which they did. For the worse. It was the cartoonish, gratuitous effects that bugged me. The movie would have been vastly improved by some severe editing to get it under two hours. I was reminded of Star Wars Episode 2; idiotic characters (Radagast, anyone?) amidst a special effects orgy.

I intended to see it in HFR, but the nearest theater that can display it is over an hour away, so I saw it in RealD on opening day. Now I don't think I'll bother going to see it at 48 fps.

Why ''The Hobbit'' looks bad at 48fps.

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


http://www.jameskerwin.com/biography.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kerwin

One movie does not settle anything. I kind of doubt HFR === FI because I've never seen FI that gives that SOE but does not cause other artifacts, like stutter during pans. I assume HFR does not have that.

Some reviewers have said it makes things, like props or background, look fake. It is because they ARE fake. Movie makers need to spend more on production if they're going to film in HFR. Or, they can do now what TV producers do -- use softening filters,which kind of defeats the purpose. I think scripted shows are often shot in 24fps to give it the film look. Of course then they are up converted to 60fps or 30fps for broadcast, which makes a hash of it.

I don't know where this will go. We have lots of things shot in 60fps now, like sports. They do not look weird or fake, not like what you see with FI, where people seem to be floating around the screen. I think some films will benefit from HFR. I want to see a Pixar film in HFR. Or stuff like Avatar 2, or Zero Dark Thirty.

I'm sorry, I my eyes tell me that HFR and FI looks alike.

critics do not like 'The Hobbit 48fps
http://www.vulture.com/2012/12/critics-on-the-hobbits-high-frame-rate.html


Whats next? 60fps 3D -120fps 3D >Hy percinema
http://www.48fpsmovies.com/hfr-movie-list/
Edited by 8mile13 - 12/17/12 at 10:51am

120 native frame rate is absolutely the sweet spot, and in my opinion will likely blow away anything you've ever seen at 24 interpolated up to nearly anything. Interpolation just doesn't cut it.

I'm also *very* sensitive to flicker, and persistence of vision for you and I apparently just doesn't help much at lower rates.

But remember though: You don't need to be the tortured few that sees the endless strobe with still images to see horrible strobe effects with nearly any kind of moving images. By strobe in this case, I of course mean jitter. Put an action scene on the big screen and part of me just reels in pain.

Mod edit: This link contains major spoilers to the film, please note before opening.


Here there is strong ouput why, from the total cinema experience point, HFR 3D and 4K are really bad ideas - at least for some.

No, I don't believe this guy knows what he's talking about, or at least is confusing a couple things. I think he's just not *used* to seeing *better* cinema; it's that it's different that threw him. Here's what he says that I find alarming:
This does not address a bunch of things.

1. First of all, persistence of vision is what aids in seeing a non-moving scene as a continual picture and not a flicker, it does not help enough with motion, particularly when fast. (By the way, Persistence of Vision is an eye phenomenon. Perception of Motion is a brain phenomenon). If you clock yourself at precisely the persistance times you still are forcing the brain to figure out what's going on with motion....all you've done is removed the apparent flicker, not solved the transition of objects across the screen. At low FPS, as things move from one end of the screen to the other in, say, a fight scene, often you end up instinctively squinting trying to see just WTF is happening because your brain has ended up with an (effectively) jumping image.
   
   Taking a further step and pushing the argument regarding motion blur, let's assume for a minute that somehow blur saves the day. Imagine a shutter set at a full second, with no gaps, so that we end up with a 1 FPS image. Each frame a 1 second blur capture, and each frame turned on in the theater for a near full second before a near-0 second advance to the next (so there is no persistence of vision issue....no flicker). In the theater you'd see a mess.
   
   So let's say we don't want motion blur. His usage of "persistence of vision" is still wrong. Imagine a 1/1000th second shutter on the film every 1 second, each frame stutter-displayed for a second each in a theater. The frame goes on, waits a second, then advances. You get 1 FPS. And no flicker. Persistence of vision has won. But the image has lost.
   
   
2. Even for slow moving scenes, in HFR you have an increase in apparent resolution as there are more frames to draw items even as they move within a single pixel.
   
   
3. He's using his own definition of "cinematic" as a self-defining bottom line. "Cinematic" using his argument should be named "24 FPS Cinematic". Of course 24 FPS is important in making something seem "24 FPS Cinematic".

Without igniting a flame war on this, let me make the stand that I believe at least that particular reviewer has the cart before the horse.
Edited by tgm1024 - 12/20/12 at 6:38am

You miss his point completely and probably are unable to grasp it at all: film is not necessarily about WHAT you see—but it's almost more an exercise in what you DON'T or CAN'T see. By default nobody who is fixed on megapixels and fps can understand this. What he says in fact is that 3D/48fps has too much detail to produce the effect of mental immersion in the content, for him the HFR was kitsch-like: Every costume, makeup job, set, and VFX element was more front and center—out there naked, for everyone to see that this filmmaking biz was nothing but an elaborate hoax. Kind of like what you feel when you see the models or costumes from your favorite films in a museum or on the walls of ILM...the magic is all gone. This is perceptual problem since there was no such effect in standard 2D.

Where Vincent Laforet is truly missing the point in his criticism is that his complains are only pointing to the "faults" of the HFR 3D image when he compare HFR 3D to 24fps 2D.
He doesn't make any distinction between the HFR effect and 3D, made in a way and at a quality with high resolution cameras he has never seen in a cinema before.
He also fails to mention the type of 3D projection, projector type and screen size when he compare the two versions he saw, which must have been seen in two different cinemas.

The only way to make a real comparison where any criticism can be levelled solely on HFR would be to see a 24fps 2D version and a HFR 2D version under similar screening conditions. Sadly, a HFR 2D version is not released.

This goes for all people who "complains" about the HFR version of The Hobbit. It is so many other parameters that can contribute to the things they don't like. Many people that are also experienced film makers and have heard the same complains have reported back that they have hard time seeing the same things the complainers have seen.
Some things obviously don't add up.

NB; Vincent Laforet owns the same camera type that shot The Hobbit.

You are wrong on the facts, he makes comparison of 3D HFR, 3D and 2D and says:

In 3D HFR—I couldn't stand the scene—everything felt plastic, over-light, and far too sharp.

In 3D—I got into it and I actually liked it just fine. The 3D was so well done that I almost didn't even notice it was in 3D after the assault on the senses that 3D HFR can be.

In 2D—I made the closest connection with the actors even though one was but a CGI character of the pioneering and amazing actor Andy Serkis who's defined motion capture.

So the problem is indeed HFR in 3D and it does not seem to be related to projection.
You are right that it would be necessary to evaluate 2D HFR vs. 2D to conclude if this is unique 3D problem or not.

And in my opinion, all this states is that the problem is not HFR (2, 3, 2 1/2, whatever)D, but with the movie creation itself. If they're unable to hide the strings from the puppets, then they need better strings. If the rocks look like 1969 Star Trek foam blocks, then get better rocks. If they haven't yet learned how to hide what the extra frames show, then the problem is not with the extra frames, it's with the hiding itself.

What he was quick to do was to come up with a concept of "cinematic" that seems only a term definable at 24 FPS. That is what made me throw the alarm on his article so quickly. As I said before: when he says "cinematic" he should be saying "24 FPS cinematic".

If film makers give it enough of a chance, so that they can get used to it, high framerates will be the way forward. 24fps is just horrible to watch.
It might feel "too fast" at first, but if you give it a bit of time you get used to it, and then you can never go back.

While it's not the same thing, I've been gaming on my PC at 60fps for years now, and I find it intolerable to go back to 30fps which is the standard on consoles. I have a headache within half an hour.
If I spend a while at 30fps and go back to 60, it doesn't feel sped up at all, it just feels natural.

The same will be true for film. You just need some time to adapt to it.

All this talk of sets looking fake etc. is nonsense. That has nothing to do with framerate, and everything to do with how it was shot.
Part of the problem is people confusing interpolation with natively high framerate content. It's not the same thing at all.

More detail consequence is that fake looks fake and real looks real, in other words, sets and make-up will always look fake in a ''as real as life'' format because in the real world they are fake We are heading towards disaster
Edited by 8mile13 - 12/21/12 at 6:15am

You're right in that it's not the same thing, but it's not that far off in some concepts either. Sometimes you get anti-aliasing in the engine, but you don't get open-shutter motion blur (there was no camera), but regardless you DO get to see what's critically important regarding resolution vs. frame rate, and it's amazing how low in resolution you're willing to go to just increase frame rate even simply for visuals. In some ways it's a particularly good acid test for display technology, because when you're deep in a first-person-shooter, you hardly blink and with adrenaline are paying attention to absolutely every detail. I hesitate with this because much of the need for higher frame rate is for player response time, but the display effects on the eyes is pronounced all on its own.

Yes.

I am not wrong. There are a myriad of different 3D systems, projectors, screen sizes, screen material, calibrated and not calibrated projectors, throw distances, lumen on screen, resolution and add that the 3DHFR version probably has a bounced brightness to counter lightloss through glasses/polarisers. How would he know how much was part of it. The various released formats are "one size fits all" screened at very different cinemas. How much of the general complains of HFR are similar to the complains of 3D from it first entered the Digital cinema screens?

Would he have had the same complains if he had sat through the 24fps. 2D version first and familiarised himself with the story?

He bounced through four screenings of the movie in one day/night.
Did he sit through the whole film in all the formats to let his brain adjust?

From the comments in the replay section on his original blog post; http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/19/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-hfr-fails-and-a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/ Read the comments on his blog....and his replays........how the experience varies greatly between people that also have seen The Hobbit both 3DHFR and regular 2D.
It is obviously a matter of aesthetics opinion/experience and a matter of letting the brain adjust to some unfamiliar way of seeing a movie. Like many in the commentary report that they almost left the cinema in the start of the movie, suffered HFR for a while,...and then suddenly the brain adjusted.......and they enjoyed the new way of seeing the movie.

I don't say the HFR 3D doesn't have faults. Putting the aesthetic opinion aside for a moment.........does the "faults" lay on the fact that Weta has had too little time to test out the variouse copies on different screens/projector systems and make adjustments? The movie was finishing edit/render 2-3 days before the New Zealand world premier.
Would they have adjusted some scenes so they "didn't look so fake" if they had been able to see the movie outside of the WETA screening room before release?

Laforet saw the movie with shutterglasses. Normally 3D is shown with triple flash to "smooth" the left eye/right eye flashing. From the XPAND website we can see that shutterglasses can only do double flash? From this we can assume that also passive HFR 3D only does double flash.
Which brings us to the newly developed and installed HFR IMB's that are needed. Are they properly tested and function in properly sync in all scenes?
Are 3DHFR suffering even more from lack of resolution than regular 3D? Would 4K HFR3D for each eye dampend some of the criticism?
Is the learning curve steeper than anticipated for a 3DHFR production? All new film-making techniques have to be learnt and experience over time and has to be absorbed by the artists. Regular 3D production problems haven't even be solved yet.

This is what I mean by "a myriad of causes that can affect the HFR 3D experience".

I have great respect for Vincent Laforet as a photographer and director, but I think with his great influence he himself, his followers and technological advancements a disservice to post such a harsh critic and pompously call it a "Masterclass" after rushing through four screening in a day/night without giving himself time to absorb something truly new in cinematic experience.
As a side point; He didn't even know he could have seen the movie with Dolby Atmos or that Dolby Atmos even exist.

He could even have been so curious of his own experience that he made a HFR 3D short to figure out what it is all about before criticising. He has easy access to the equipment.

Yes....and that was really my main argument.
And that would be the version I would be most interested seeing.

Maybe The Hobbit was not the right kind of movie to introduce HFR 3D and it certainly isn't for all movies. But it is needed for a brave director with a "sure" box office franchise to push the cinemas to invest the $10000 for new equipment for HFR to even be possible to exhibit such movies.
Avatar or Transformers would maybe have been a better choice of being the first. But Peter Jackson, always a fronter of new developments in cinema wanted to do it, so much that he through WETA absorbed the extra cost of HFR production without asking the producing studios for extra funds.

I am sure everybody from Weta through projector manufacturers, IMB manufacturers, 3D exhibit equipment manufacturers are tracking the technical positives and negatives of this first 3D HFR screening and do adjustments for the next Hobbit part.

By the summer of 2014 we will se if some of the eventual "problems" are sorted out and should save the harshest critics to then. But by then I believe several HFR3D movie will be in production.

It is without question that HFR equals "Soap Opera" effect. That could be good or bad depending upon an individual's preference.

I expirenced eye fatigue. I wish they had shown this film in HFR 2d. 3d is a gimic, it was designed as face lift for bad movies.

No. Movies are sometimes used as a crummy vehicle to deliver 3D for 3D sake, but when done properly, 3D becomes a seamless way to further immerse you into the story itself.

A good 3D movie is a good movie regardless. In such a movie, the 3D is transparent in that it's not there to take your attention away from the movie. It's there to better land you within that movie. In that way it's entirely transparent and the very first time I saw that accomplished to that wonderful degree was with Avatar, where I actually found myself completely forgetting that it was 3D.

Going to the Hobbit with an open mind.

I can see it in ETX 48fps with Atmos, or IMAX 48fps. Any idea which would be better? Atmos should be interesting, but I believe IMAX has higher resolution (unless the ETX theater is using a different projector for High Frame Rate)
Edited by taichi4 - 12/22/12 at 9:17pm

When I think of IMAX theaters, I think of the two local large wrap-around ones. They always distort the image uncomfortably for me (they have to). I don't know if the theater I saw Avatar was technically IMAX or not, but it was huge, and only slightly curved, if at all----I don't remember the physical screen and that proves it was the right choice. It was utterly spectacular.

But those curved things I've sworn off of. Totally irritating experience for me.

Interesting you say that. In LA there are the "orthodox" IMAX screens which are almost too big for my eyes (I have to move my eyes round the screen) and the smaller IMAX screens at some AMCs. I actually prefer the smaller screen (which is not curved). I saw Avatar there, as well as Tintin, and Skyfall. There are some IMAX enthusiasts that consider the smaller version heretical!

So it will either be the smaller IMAX for me or ETX, which has Atmos. Atmos is supposedly fantastic in how it places sound, but if I'm going to see the 48fps "phenomenon" I want the best visual experience.

I'm calling shenanigans on this one. HFR equals soap opera effect depending on one's opinion, not "without question."

I stand by what I said. 3d is a gimic to give a face lift to a bad movies. Why else would Silent Hill 3D and Texas Chain Saw Mascre 3D be coming out. Also, 3d is another reason to charge to the heck out of the masses. Having said all of that, I will agree with you about Avatar. The problem is, how many James Cameron's do you have out there that will do it right? Very few.
Edited by Auditor55 - 12/31/12 at 4:22pm

Well, OK. I think "Soap Opera Effect" was used to discribe the look of a movie that resembles the look of video more than it does the traditional film look. That discription was used in the advent of LCD's that featured Frame Interpolation.

Having said that, based upon the above discription of "Soap Opera Effect" (unless you have a different mean for soap opera effect), it is without question that HFR equates to Soap Opera Effect.

I agree with your analysis of the "soap opera effect" to an extent. To me, SOE can be prevalent through any source displaying any content, i.e. sports, broadcast TV, etc.

I do appreciate the "rustic" and unique feel film gives you, however I welcome HFR with open arms because to me it's not an unnatural, smoothing, frame interpolation effect. It's rather more information being captured in the first place which gives the potential to eliminate some nasty things while watching film on FP's today, such as judder when being displayed at 60Hz, or flicker at 48Hz.

I guess HFR means high frame rate?

For awhile I thought yall were talking about LCDs built into home refrigerators.

If All My Children was on the refrigerator I'd just make a baloney sandwich!

Well THAT clobbered the thread. LOL.


I'm bumping this only because I'm curious if anything has shaken out regarding this since CES-13.

The PS4 (or whatever it will be called) might be unveiled on 20th February this year., so we might find out a bit more about things then. Though if it is the actual video standards could still be changed ie. it would probably use software playback.