or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › 'The Hobbit' will not be widely released in 48 FPS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'The Hobbit' will not be widely released in 48 FPS - Page 5

post #121 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Gaming has more in common with motion rides then they have with movies. I have no doubt you can see the difference between different framerates. Its just that more frames doesnt help the cinema experience. Cinematography/filmmaking has been evolved so long for the 24fps rule, that you just cant add more frames or 3D and think it will improve the experience.
You have to create a whole new set of rules how to shoot a movie with the the new framerates. Alot of thing in movies gets masked by the low framerate that is used when you film. Few people seems to notice stuff like artifical lighting in movies, despite its right there in their face. Because 24fps creates an "unatural" look, we seem to ignore everything that looks unatural to our eyes.

you say this as if its a negative. I personally would like to see it and don't give a damn what anyone not working with the format thinks. We're talking about a tool. Learn to use it and let the rest of us be the judge. I actually think the audience being, "weirded out" will be sort of a phenomenon and a positive one at that.
post #122 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by rantanamo View Post

I actually think the audience being, "weirded out" will be sort of a phenomenon and a positive one at that.

We been plauged by 50i/50p productions so long in europe I dont think anyone is going to be amazed by 48fps movies. It just doesnt work for dramatic content. But I guess it comes down to if you like or not the motionplus/soapopera/truemotion/jadajadaja setting on your display. Because thats close to what any movie will look like at 48-60fps even if true frames of course is always better then fake frames.

But I wouldnt use a movie with lots of studio shoots as the first movie to introduce the new format. Because I believe its those scenes that will hurt the movie the most at 48fps.
post #123 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by [KYA]Mega View Post

I do think that if they convert The Hobbit from 48 FPS to 24 FPS it is probably going to be a problem too. They will probably have to computer generate the motion blur that is missing due to the higher shutter speed, and that algorithm will probably be just different enough from real motion blur to put off the audience a bit. Then there are the folks that will see it in 48 FPS, and not realize that the non-"cinematic" nature of the film is because it looks MORE REAL and will balk at it (such as the press reactions mentioned in the top post here).

According to Variety, that is exactly what they are doing to Hobbit24 - adding CGI motion blur to every scene.

I too am jarred out of a movie when I see a beautiful landscape strobing across the screen.

Hopefully Hobbit48 will get a good reception when shown full length with completed post-production. I'm sure Peter Jackson took the higher framerate into account when making the movie. Sure, there will be a learning curve, but give the man some credit. Return of the King practically swept the Academy Awards. I think he knows what he's doing. If he made a mistake, it was in showing footage that had not gone through post-production.
post #124 of 266
I absolutely love high framerate. I don't care about soap opera effect - I'll get used to it before 30 minute mark.

Few days ago, I watched The Dark Knight Rises in theater. Great movie but all the time I thought "God, I with this was shot in 48 fps or more.". I can't stand fight scenes where everything is blurry. You miss half of the stuff.
post #125 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

I can't stand fight scenes where everything is blurry. You miss half of the stuff.

Thats actually the point with Batmans fight scenes, they dont want you to see everything. They have previosly stated that they wanted you to see it from the bad guys point of view.
post #126 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

I absolutely love high framerate. I don't care about soap opera effect - I'll get used to it before 30 minute mark.
Few days ago, I watched The Dark Knight Rises in theater. Great movie but all the time I thought "God, I with this was shot in 48 fps or more.". I can't stand fight scenes where everything is blurry. You miss half of the stuff.

Could go either way. A fight scene has the most potential to look stupid with HFR.
post #127 of 266
Quote:
Increasing the frame rate to 48 fps from 24 fps is going to increase the storage requirement accordingly. It may not be a 100% increase but it will surely be more than a 50GB BD could handle..

compression efficiency improves exponentially as you increase frame-rate because of increased redundancy frame-to-frame. It's possible current 50GB disc storage could handle it.
Edited by DaViD Boulet - 8/22/12 at 7:19pm
post #128 of 266
Theater Owners Aren't Expected to Raise Prices for 48 fps Showings of 'The Hobbit'
Quote:
While exhibitors currently charge several dollars more for 3D movies than the same movies screening in 2D, there has been a question of whether they would also charge more for 3D, 48 fps showings of The Hobbit, which will be playing in select theaters, than for regular 3D showings projected at the usual 24 frames-per-second. (While The Hobbit also will be presented in 2D, it will screen at 48 fps only in its 3D versions)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/peter-jackson-hobbit-movie-48fps-frames-per-second-364937
post #129 of 266
RED Digital "Reducation" department just put up an article explaining HFR with examples; http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/high-frame-rate-video
post #130 of 266
Some of us have been fans of HFR interpolated video for years. There are in fact THREE types of video material which I find improved by a display with a high refresh rate and interpolation:

1) 2D Nature documentaries. I have a few HD-DVDs (the original 2007 BBC Planet Earth series) which are 1080p60 native and look very good at 1080p120 interpolated. The TV screen takes on an ultra-realistic appearance that makes it look like a window onto another part of the Earth. Note that I have the two later BBC series Life (2010) and Frozen Planet (2012) on BluRay. The BD's are simply inferior low frame rate 1080p24 recordings, not nearly the equal of the (now unavailable) HD-DVDs.

2) Live 2D HDTV sports broadcasts at 720p60 look very good on my newer Samsung 1080p120Hz display. On my original 2007 1080p120Hz Samsung, moving 720p60 objects have a "halo" artifact which often is noticeable. This is I believe a scaling artifact. The later Samsund display corrects this and has become my favorite HDTV for live sports.

3) 3D PC games at 120Hz refresh. I only have one display that will accept such video and it is a 23" 1080p 3D computer monitor. It has a great (low frame rate) 3D image on normal 24fps BD's, but I doubt the compatibility of the display, the video card, or the BD software at 48fps.

I suppose I could be wrong depending upon the gear that you own and the vintage of it., but my guess is that if there is EVER a 48fps BD disk released for home video, that it will require you to upgrade your BD player, your 3D display, and your 3D glasses.

But don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting to buy my over-the-counter 3D version of Avatar three years later. The latest date for that is October 16, 2012. I am guessing that a 48fps BD will take longer than that, seeing as how it must first wait upon a new 3D standard for HFR home video.
post #131 of 266
I want to repeat that he aim Peter Jackson has with The Hobbit is to make the screen more into a "window to Middle Earth" by using HFR and 3D. I also want to remind people that the target of a movie is the large Cinema screen, not TV size screens.

Even with 48fps in 3D with full 4K resolution for each eye on a Cinema screen, it will probably look less of a "window to Middle Earth" than the movie in 2K 3D 24fps. on a 50" TV.

The new technical developments in Cinema is all about trying to make the Cinema experience better match what people experience on their TV in their homes.

Note from the RED article that show the negative impact of 24fps. on a big Cinema screen;
Quote:
HFR also minimizes the appearance of motion artifacts — especially when viewed in a theater. Moving objects may strobe or have a “picket fence” appearance as they traverse a large screen.

At 24 fps, a 50 foot screen shows an object as jumping in 2 foot increments if that object takes one second to traverse the screen.

This can appear as “judder” with fast panning and other types of camera movements.

2 foot jumps for each frame is a lot, and very visible and disturbing.

I believe that the "negative effect" of HFR that some "24fps. purists" rather aggressively argue is vastly exaggerated.
post #132 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

2 foot jumps for each frame is a lot, and very visible and disturbing.
That tells us absolutely nothing without sitting distance. Instead of "jumps" expressed in number of feet, more scientific way would be to express it in number of degrees of viewer's field of view.

But yes, naturally jumps will be more apparent in theater since screen (usually) occupies larger part of viewer's field of view at theater than at home.
post #133 of 266
I invite you guys to my home for the most realistic movie ever. I'll act the whole thing out in front of you, every once in a while hurling things at your face for that "full immersion" effect.

P.S.

I kid because I care. biggrin.gif
Edited by gremmy - 8/23/12 at 8:59am
post #134 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

That tells us absolutely nothing without sitting distance. Instead of "jumps" expressed in number of feet, more scientific way would be to express it in number of degrees of viewer's field of view.
But yes, naturally jumps will be more apparent in theater since screen (usually) occupies larger part of viewer's field of view at theater than at home.

I have a 40 degree field of vision in the front row of my home theater, which is pretty close to what I observe at the theater when I sit in my favorite location. While it is true that 24fps motion judder is readily apparent on film based content, it is also true that most experiences that I've had with HFR dramatic content have been overwhelmingly negative, despite the smoother movement.

Of course, such content is relatively rare (we're basically talking soap operas and other shows shot on video for native HFR content, and that GOD AWFUL frame interpolation crap on some displays for non-native HFR conent). Both look pretty terrible in my opinion. Far worse than judder.

However, I am willing to give this new format a shot. Still reserving judgment until I see it.
Edited by gremmy - 8/23/12 at 1:03pm
post #135 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

and that GOD AWFUL frame interpolation crap on some displays for non-native HFR conent). Both look pretty terrible in my opinion. Far worse than judder.

They have two of those at my video store it looks horrible, completely unwatchable. I can't believe some people see this as an "improvement". Films look like cheap afternoon soaps, there must be some way to turn it off maybe I'll tell them one day wink.gif
post #136 of 266
It all depends upon your reference for what constitutes realism. 24fps was tandardized as a frame rate shortly after "talkies" became the norm, around the early 1930's. Before then, it didn't terribly matter what frame rate you used, faster frame rates looked more like real life, and slower frame rates saved expensive silver iodide film stock. But a talking picture had to be played at 24fps, or the pitch of the sound would change.

Since then, we have become accustomed to the distorted, unrealistic, and entirely artificial appearance of a 24fps rate as "cinematic". Cinematic means a formalized distortion of reality. IMHO it is a poor standard to judge modern video systems against. It is the look of "film", which is disappearing rapidly, and will soon be gone.

I choose to judge the quality of a display by how closely it resembles real life. Infinite frame rates and near infinite resolution, limited only by the optical wavelengths. Today's digital systems can create excellant reproductions of reality.
post #137 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

If it were just a technical question more frames would equal more quality. But in cinema its not really a question of the technical limits of the format. We dont strive for realism when we watch a movie (most of the time).
If realism wasn't the point of movies than talkies, color movies, surround sound, and 4K would have all failed. When it comes to fooling the eyes and ears movies have become more realistic and the greatest weakness of current movies is their low frame rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

We been plauged by 50i/50p productions so long in europe I dont think anyone is going to be amazed by 48fps movies.
What productions are you referring to? If these are very low cost productions than comparing them to $100+ million dollar movies wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison. Also based on the comments I have read about UHDTV I think that if the major studioes aren't a leader when it comes to higher frame rates that they will eventually be forced to be a follower.
post #138 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Gaming has more in common with motion rides then they have with movies. I have no doubt you can see the difference between different framerates. Its just that more frames doesnt help the cinema experience. Cinematography/filmmaking has been evolved so long for the 24fps rule, that you just cant add more frames or 3D and think it will improve the experience.
You state this as fact, but 3D absolutly improves my cinema experience if done well, and HFR is yet to be seen on a major budget movie by anyone except Peter Jackson insiders, but in every case where I do have access to HFR it improves my experience.

Just tonight my family was watching video direct from the 1080/60p HDMI output on my Sony DSC-HX100V. The video was of my daughter's High School Marching Band, and she's in the percussion section. It was so nice to actually be able to see all drummers' sticking rather than blurs like you will find on every single YouTube video of marching band marital (because YouTube is currently limited to 30 FPS).
Quote:
You have to create a whole new set of rules how to shoot a movie with the the new framerates. Alot of thing in movies gets masked by the low framerate that is used when you film. Few people seems to notice stuff like artifical lighting in movies, despite its right there in their face. Because 24fps creates an "unatural" look, we seem to ignore everything that looks unatural to our eyes.
So what you're really saying is current movie-makers are too lazy to work out the new rules, so the old rules are better?

24 FPS can still be a tool to get a particular effect. But HRF really needs to happen in my opinion.

I think all these complaints about "soap opera effect" is almost like people have Stockholm syndrome for 24 FPS. They have been abused with poor frame rate so long that they prefer it. LOL

Sorry MovieSwede if it seems like I am beating you up. I can tell by your use of terminology you know more about movie making that I do. But I am an expert of my own taste, and I love HRF. wink.gif I will reserve judgment on Hobbit48 until I see it, but I definitely WANT to see it.
post #139 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

RED Digital "Reducation" department just put up an article explaining HFR with examples; http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/high-frame-rate-video
I just wanted to reply and say this is an EXCELENT read and the examples are VERY well done to convey the information. Maybe some 24 FPS purists will get something out of that article and examples.

For me the most dramatic one was the motorcycle action shot. I watched the 24p one and it looked fine. I then watched the 60p one and it almost made me feel like I was moving for a second. I just can't imagine anyone watching both those clips (or the two above it that shows a horizontal pan) and saying to themselves: "Yep, the first one is better."

I also realize it's a bit biased because the 24p in those examples are the kind of shots that a good film person would avoid... but let's get some new rules where you don't have to avoid cool shots because the frame rate makes them look bad. biggrin.gifbiggrin.gif And again, if you want to disorient the audience with some juddery action shots, you can still do that when it will convey the intended effect.
post #140 of 266
The way the industry is moving appears to be the "8K" frame (aka 7680x4320 resolution, or 32 megapixels per frame) at 120fps.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19370582

That may be the "hyper-realistic" image that is hard to distinguish from real life. At last, the stylized "look of film" is ending. As a matter of fact, it may be possible to make the "cinematic" or "look of film" into a video processor filter option. Select "Cinema" mode and the frames are reduced to 24fps, blur is added, and moving objects take on the strobing of 35mm film....
post #141 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

At last, the stylized "look of film" is ending.

You know it's a fantastic "thing" when it's been the same way since the 30's, when almost everything else in technology has shifted during the years. Long live the look of movie magic.

But I guess all things must pass, to quote the quiet Beatle
post #142 of 266
It has actually been possible to enjoy HFR video since 2007, if you have the right equipment and source material.

I don't know if HFR video is possible from BD disks. I know that all the BDs I own appear to be 1080p24 native recordings (all are theatrical movies). I sometimes rent HDTV series on BD from NetFlix which play back at 1080i60 if I recall correctly. But the obsolete and almost non-existent HD-DVD medium had three types of disks, one of which was 1080p60. The Toshiba HD-A30 HD-DVD player (3rd generation) can and does support 1080p60 playback, but only for HD-DVDs that are recorded at high frame rates. The only HD-DVD disks I have that play at 1080p60 are the BBC Planet Earth disks. Here's how it works:

For 1080p60 output, select the "1080p" resolution setting in the HD-A30 player Setup menu. This will produce playback as follows (I'm using a 1080p120 Samsung LCD display with AMP processing set at Medium).
  1. With interlaced video HD-DVDs, the Samsung says Resolution 1920x1080i, H Frequency 33kHz, V Frequency 60Hz. Two disks that work this way are titled Aquarium and Yule Log. They appear to be disks where somebody took a camcorder and recorded something. I don't know how they were mastered, but these are the only two HD-DVDs I own that play back in interlaced mode.
  2. With the Planet Earth HD-DVDs, the Samsung display indicates Resolution 1920x1080p, H frequency 67kHz, V Frequency 60Hz. Then the Samsung performs interpolation to 120Hz. Because the source video is captured at 60Hz, there is no motion judder visible. This is one setting that produces the "clear pane of glass" illusion on screen from the Planet Earth disks..
  3. With film source HD-DVDs (every theatrical movie I have) the Samsung display indicates Resolution 1920x1080p, H frequency 67kHz, V Frequency 60Hz. Because the source frame rate is 24fps, the player is performing a 3:2 pullup to encode the 24fps inside the 60fps video signal. Then the Samsung performs interpolation to 120Hz. Motion judder is visible on film source HD-DVDs.

The HD-A30 Setup menu also has a selection for "1080p24" resolution. With this selection, the same three disk types play back as follows:
  1. With interlaced video HD-DVDs, the Samsung says Resolution 1920x1080i, H Frequency 33kHz, V Frequency 60Hz. (Correct for interlaced source.)
  2. With the Planet Earth HD-DVDs, the Samsung display indicates Resolution 1920x1080p, H frequency 67kHz, V Frequency 60Hz. (Correct for non-interlaced source.) Again, this setting is one that produces the illusion of a window onto another part of the Earth.
  3. With film source HD-DVDs, the Samsung display indicates Resolution 1920x1080p, H Frequency 27kHz, V Frequency 24Hz. The Samsung display does 5:5 pulldown, and motion is smoothed and blur reduced with AMP processing on. With AMP processing OFF, there is the typical 24fps strobe effects and plentifull blur.

I leave my HD-A30 player set for "1080p24" resolution most of the time. I also select "Enable HDMI controll". I use AMP processing by PREFERENCE. You are free to not use frame interpolation if you think the result is "too real".

Disclaimer: My Toshiba HD-A30 HD-DVD player has firmware version 1.1. YMMV with other players or other firmware versions. I have firmware 4.0 archived but no plans to update, since I might lose the 1080p60 capability.
Edited by Gary McCoy - 8/25/12 at 6:57pm
post #143 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

It has actually been possible to enjoy HFR video since 2007, if you have the right equipment and source material.
I don't know if HFR video is possible from BD disks. I know that all the BDs I own appear to be 1080p24 native recordings (all are theatrical movies). I sometimes rent HDTV series on BD from NetFlix which play back at 1080i60 if I recall correctly. But the obsolete and almost non-existent HD-DVD medium had three types of disks, one of which was 1080p60. The Toshiba HD-A30 HD-DVD player (3rd generation) can and does support 1080p60 playback, but only for HD-DVDs that are recorded at high frame rates. The only HD-DVD disks I have that play at 1080p60 are the BBC Planet Earth disks.
The HD DVD specification only supports up to 1080p30.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

With the Planet Earth HD-DVDs, the Samsung display indicates Resolution 1920x1080p, H frequency 67kHz, V Frequency 60Hz. Then the Samsung performs interpolation to 120Hz. Because the source video is captured at 60Hz, there is no motion judder visible. This is one setting that produces the "clear pane of glass" illusion on screen from the Planet Earth disks..
From what I have read the Planet Earth footage was recorded/converted to 25 fps. That is why the UK Blu-ray discs use 1080i50 while the BBC version of the US Blu-ray discs use 1080p24.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Disclaimer: My Toshiba HD-A30 HD-DVD player has firmware version 1.1. YMMV with other players or other firmware versions. I have firmware 4.0 archived but no plans to update, since I might lose the 1080p60 capability.
It is possible that the old firmware is causing improper video output with the Planet Earth HD DVD discs since they are most likely encoded at 1080p24.
post #144 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

-snip-
It is possible that the old firmware is causing improper video output with the Planet Earth HD DVD discs since they are most likely encoded at 1080p24.

I don't think so. Most of the disks I own are 1080p24 standard theatrical frame rates. My display clearly distinguishes interlaced and progressive source, and gives me the H & V frequencies used. I see a 1080p60 signal without motion judder.

Whether it's part of the spec or not, 1080p60 was possible with HD-DVD. It was used at least once on the Planet Earth HD-DVD. But you can no longer buy this tech. It's all BD's now, and they seem to come in two flavors: 1080p24 and 1080i60.
post #145 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

I don't think so. Most of the disks I own are 1080p24 standard theatrical frame rates. My display clearly distinguishes interlaced and progressive source, and gives me the H & V frequencies used. I see a 1080p60 signal without motion judder.
I don't see how that could be possible considering the limitations of the both the source material and the video format. Maybe your TV does frame interpolation differently depending on whether it gets a 1080p24 video signal or a 1080p60 video signal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Whether it's part of the spec or not, 1080p60 was possible with HD-DVD. It was used at least once on the Planet Earth HD-DVD. But you can no longer buy this tech. It's all BD's now, and they seem to come in two flavors: 1080p24 and 1080i60.
The High-Def Digest review of Planet Earth: The Complete BBC Series said the Blu-ray and HD DVD discs used the same video encoding.
post #146 of 266
Richard,

Certainly my display treats 1080p24 and 1080p60 source differently. It also tells you what source video frame rate and resolution you have:

1080p24: 1920x1080p, H Frequency 27kHz, V Frequency 24Hz. The display performs 5:5 pulldown to sync frame rate to 120Hz. No motion judder with 24fps source.

1080p60: 1920x1080p, H frequency 67kHz, V Frequency 60Hz. The display performs 2:2 pulldown to 120Hz. If the source frame rate is 24Hz and if the player output has been encoded within a 60Hz video signal, you see uneven motion with detectable judder. If the source is 60Hz frame rate, you see no motion judder.

...which is why I bothered to give you the details of how the player performs with output resolution set to 1080p24 and 1080p. The player will output 1080p60 or 1080i60 for compatibility with the common 60Hz display refresh when set for 1080p. The player will output 1080p24 or 1080p60 or 1080i60 when set for 1080p24, for compatibility with displays that refresh at 48Hz/72Hz/96Hz/120Hz/240Hz . The output formats are enabled by the HDMI handshake.

I do not own the BD and I have not played Planet Earth on my Blu-Ray player. But you have made me curious enough to check out a BD copy from the library and compare it. My BD player is a Panasonic DMP-BDT220P and it also supports 24Hz playback. This will take 3-4 days but I'll report back. But I don't ever recall any formats other than 1080p24 and 1080i60 being reported by my display using that player.

I'm betting the player makes a difference.
post #147 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by [KYA]Mega View Post

I think all these complaints about "soap opera effect" is almost like people have Stockholm syndrome for 24 FPS. They have been abused with poor frame rate so long that they prefer it. LOL

When you accuse anyone who dislikes "Soap Opera Effect" of suffering from a mental disorder, you do an injustice to the entire conversation.

There are legitimate uses for HFR and I am in favor of upgrading cinemas, but this is with the understanding that very few directors will make an all ecompassing decision to force all their movies to appear as if they were filmed on a SOAP Opera set with TV cameras. I assume they will choose a visual appearance that suits whatever material they are working on.
Edited by gremmy - 8/27/12 at 8:39am
post #148 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

When you accuse anyone who dislikes "Soap Opera Effect" of suffering from a mental disorder, you do an injustice to the entire conversation.
There are legitimate uses for HFR and I am in favor of upgrading cinemas, but this is with the understanding that very few directors will make an all ecompassing decision to force all their movies to appear as if they were filmed on a SOAP Opera set with TV cameras.

What does Frame Interpolation, the 48fps Hobbit demo, and soap operas have in common? No post-production.

So, IF a director decided to shoot at 48fps, and IF a director decided to not post-process his footage, and IF a director decided to use cheap sets, then their movie would look like a soap opera.

No director who has a clue, and this includes Peter Jackson, will ONLY film their movies at 48p and make no other changes. Lighting and post production processes will be adapted to suit the change.

One other point. Ever watched the "deleted scenes" or "outtakes" of a movie? Often times these are raw footage with no post-production. And even though they are not HFR, they still have the "soap opera" look.

HFR is not a condemning of a movie to look like a soap opera. It is a higher frame rate which requires different post production.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Peter Jackson's one mistake was in showing raw HFR footage. Everybody saw the lack of post-production and blamed it on HFR.
post #149 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanLW View Post

What does Frame Interpolation, the 48fps Hobbit demo, and soap operas have in common? No post-production.
So, IF a director decided to shoot at 48fps, and IF a director decided to not post-process his footage, and IF a director decided to use cheap sets, then their movie would look like a soap opera.

Most stuff that is watched with frame interpolation has been post processed.
Quote:
No director who has a clue, and this includes Peter Jackson, will ONLY film their movies at 48p and make no other changes. Lighting and post production processes will be adapted to suit the change.

And how is lighting gonna mask 48fps? On the contrary, artificial lighting will just be more apperent. Just watch "open shutter movies" like collateral or public enemies.
Quote:
One other point. Ever watched the "deleted scenes" or "outtakes" of a movie? Often times these are raw footage with no post-production. And even though they are not HFR, they still have the "soap opera" look.
HFR is not a condemning of a movie to look like a soap opera. It is a higher frame rate which requires different post production.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Peter Jackson's one mistake was in showing raw HFR footage. Everybody saw the lack of post-production and blamed it on HFR.

I dont think I ever seen outtakes that has been having the soap opera effect. Outakes suffers from bad quality but not soap effect.
post #150 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

And how is lighting gonna mask 48fps?

It's not going to mask 48fps, it just may need to be considered differently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Most stuff that is watched with frame interpolation has been post processed.

You missed the point. HFR requires different post processing. You can't just double the frames and call it good without taking into account other ways it affects the picture.
Edited by DanLW - 8/27/12 at 8:12pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › 'The Hobbit' will not be widely released in 48 FPS