48fps 3D preview of 'The Hobbit' gets mixed reaction at CinemaCon - Page 4

I'd definitely check out The Hobbit in 2D as long as it was the 48 fps version.

Not a fan of 3D... even the natively shot Hugo had many children's pop-up book looking scenes that took me out of the movie, and I also don't like the other annoying visual artifacts associated with today's 3D technology.

Do we know for a fact that all D-Cinema versions (whether 2D or 3D) will be 48 fps?

I'm willing to give higher frame rates a chance. It could give you a "wow" experience without having to deal with 3D glasses. I remember seeing Oklahoma's Todd-AO 30 fps version on home video and thought it was an improvement. 48 fps and 60 fps have a lot of potential.

It's called the soap opera effect for a reason.

I don't think it would work. On a 3DTV the set displays the left eye, then the right eye, then the identical left image is repeated once more, then the right again.

The order the frames would be displayed in would be something like:

Frame 1/48
Frame 2/48
Frame 1/48
Frame 2/48
Frame 3/48
Frame 4/48
Frame 3/48
Frame 4/48

I honestly can't understand why the "wagon wheel" effect is such a bad thing, I honestly don't care about such things.

I am an early adopter at heart so I am all about using new technology whenever possible and if its not working 100% yet then we make it work, we don't go back. Which is why I support 3D, etc.

The problem here is the type of movie this is being used with. If you told me this was being used in Avatar (a film with a lot of great cgi in it and live action at the same time) I would be happier but LOTR is basicaly a costume drama, you see a lot of people with ridiculous costumes and make up walking around and I don't like to be reminded of that when I watch a movie.

When you see a movie like the dark knight, you see batman and go "OMG, SWEET" but then you see the "making of" featurete and you see christian bale just standing there talking to the director and he looks ridiculous with the bat suit on, looks like somebody missed halloween.

I am a bit afraid of this happening in the hobbit but to be honest, a big part of the reason LOTR looked so good was because of the post production effects, specialy the color of the whole movie, so if they handle the post, as good as they did in the first 3 movies, then I am sure Peter Jackson will surprise us all.

But I have to be honest, I am a bit worried, not sure this was the movie to start experimenting with

I think the negative reaction at CinemaCon to the 48fps is a HUGE over-reaction. The director uses post-production to author the look and effects best suited for any particular scene. 48fps actually give the director MORE freedom to implement the desired look and feel. The footage shown at CinemaCon was raw footage BEFORE any post-production effects. I'm very confident that viewers of the final product will be very pleased with the result. I think people need to just mellow.

Really? How?

For one thing you could add motion blur in scenes making them look 24fps (or any frame rate you choose) for artistic reason (just like adding grain of lens flares) while still having smooth motion for pans.

Here is a good article by Douglas Trumbull about the move.

"...He could. With the stroke of a key. He could change film rates all through the film...."

Gamers have been all about high frame rates for decades. I simply can't fathom a gamer saying they want a slower frame rate...but it's not a media that's had 100 years of history where it's been done at low frame rates. It has generally always been 2D though, so there's just as much backlash against 3D.

Either way, high frame rates have never been controversial in games, because the association is the opposite. High frame rates are associated with high quality games...but low quality cinema/video.

Make enough high quality cinema at high frame rates, and the association will change over time. It has to start somewhere.

Yeah, I realized that yesterday, even had a post ready to submit, but bailed because I sounded whiny and confused.

Not that I'm any different today.

So the media "could" handle it, and perhaps a software update for displays to not display frames as you describe, but rather as 1/1/2/2/3/3/4/4, could be done without requiring more "horsepower". But It seems to be a moot point, and has drifted well off-topic for the 3D Content forum, even if the concept uses the 3D data packing format as a start.

shinksma

So the wagon wheel effect is okay, but HFR is not?

Why do people constantly bring up "making of" footage to compare to HFR or FI? The completed film has color grading and other effects applied, that mask a lot of what is being complained about. The resolution is still the same. Why in the world did some people upgrade from DVD to BD, if a better picture is a bad thing?

But it's not just better picture we are talking about. Changing from DVD to BluRay is quite different than changing to a higher frame rate. Hence the complaints of people that saw the clip

Ill wager that once people become accustomed to 48fps, they won't want to go back to 24. People just need time to adjust. I bet the same things were once said about color, just as theyre said now about 3D. Eventually 24fps will be used for artistic effect, just as black and white is today.

Because that is what it basically looks like. Everytime I see fi in action, that's what I can't help but think of. I have faith though that Peter and co will work their magic, and the post production will look great. I hope that when I see the movie, I'll be amazed, and say now that's how 48fps is supposed to be done!

But better is not what most filmmakers want. They don't want the clean, sharp, grain-free look that often comes directly out of a camera like the Red Epic.

People already are intentionally choosing 24fps for artistic reasons. DSLR community, for instance, all shoot at 24fps despite having the capability to shoot at 60. 24fps adds texture, it hides camera shake, subjects move more gracefully. Judder is not a big deal, it is an issue that has been blown out of proportion by a select few.

If a low frame rate has so many benefits and it's drawbacks are no big deal, why not go lower?

Obviously you can't just say "lower is better." There's a framerate at which the lack of fluidity starts to become bothersome for the average person.

Aren't there games that use 60 fps for gameplay and drop to 30 or below for cinematics?

If HFR does become the new mainstream look, I can already see all the kids refusing to watch "old" movies like The Matrix because they look all choppy 'n' blurry 'n' stuff. Maybe some day FI will be able to restore fake detail to motion blur.

The average person isn't bothered by the low resolution of DVD either...but they'll probably take the higher resolution given the choice.

A few do, but it's more to do with the difficulty of storing and playing back 60fps HD video on the current consoles.

Theaters have been higher resolution than DVD forever, so people are used to Blu-ray quality. There is the problem of being TOO sharp though- a camera like the Red Epic for instance outputs images that need to be aged in post so that it regains some the filmic texture.

So...24fps forever then?

No, just not right away. I think it'll be like 3D for a while, where only certain major films get it. Then Scorsese will waltz by and do a drama in 48fps and blow us all away with a new way of approaching higher framerates in film.

I dunno....I see 3D as a new art form, things can be done in 3D that just simply can't be done in 2D. HFR 2D/3D is just a mere improvement on our current tech. It's just a higher frame rate....I don't see how or why it needs a new approach to filmmaking.

I guess action movies will benefit greatly from actually being able to see what's going on in fast action and hard pans...I don't see what it really does for drama.

I think most action might benefit. But things like fight scenes Id imagine will look more... fake.

Possibly those who prefer 24FPS just don't see it the same way. 24FPS hurts my eyes on pans and when trying to track fast moving objects in a scene. Literally 24FPS can make my eyes tear up.

If there is one thing that should have been left in the dust decades ago, it's the 24FPS standard.

As an aside, it seems that some people have more of a love for the medium of film than they do for the content being filmed. They want all the grain and they want the strobing de-rezzing 24 FPS, who knows why.

I think most people over time have associated a certain "look" with movies and filmed TV series versus live-action TV. 24 fps movies and TV gives the images a layer of abstraction that makes it easier to disconnect the literal reality of actors standing around on a set and can make it easier to imagine that there are fictional characters living in the movie's universe.

Nobody needs or wants that layer of abstraction when watching live sports, news, or documentaries, so that works out. But when you use video for dramas, it can look weird. There have been some poor looking videotaped TV episodes (the six Twilight Zone episodes that were videotaped come to mind) and so you tend to associate higher a frame rate with that look.

I imagine it's just a matter of getting used to the higher frame rates and slowly breaking those old associations.

Dead on!

Hated the "soap opera" effect at first, and still turn it off most of the time while watching a movie, but have to admit it kind of grows on you after a bit.

Please elaborate. What makes you think that people are like that? Is there something in this thread specifically?

I tend to agree with the comments Sean_O has made.

For me, anything that improves the visual clarity and sense of realism is a welcome improvement. Far from wanting separation, I want to get as close to the action as I can. I want to feel as if I am observing and experiencing the drama that unfolds before me in the same way I would if I observed an event in the real world. 48 Frame and 3D gets me two steps closer to that goal.

I feel though that people who prefer 2D and 24 frame, purists if you like, have a different opinion, a rather clinical viewpoint of what cinema should be where technical considerations established historically are more important factors.

If there is a word in the hobby of cinema that describes a reluctance to embrace change, the latter group of people could be labelled with that word in my opinion.