The Hobbit 3D reviews of presentations (NO SPOILERS) - Page 2

Have you seen it in 24fps 3D yet? I suspect many who complain that the sets look like sets are misidentifying HFR as the problem. I don't think any of the rough spots looked any better in 24fps. You posted a screen shot to show unnatural lighting in Rivendell, but if we can see it in a screen shot then it's not a problem in the frame rate. If we were talking about higher resolutions that would make sense, but we're not.

Rivendale always looked like that.

I'm curious how the 24fps version is sourced. If they were to just cut it from the 48fps version you would lose motion blur.

That's a very interesting point... all the downsides of low framerates with the other (I feel) downside of no motion blur... seems it would make for a very odd experience.

Haven't and sadly didn't feel the movie was strong enough to warrant a second watching in the theater...

That said most of the things I found unpleasant were things I have routinely found to be true when engaging motion interpolation on 120hz sets so it seems unlikely that it's just a coincidence that it was in this movie rather than that it was related to HFR.

It necessarily looks similar to motion interpolation, as they're both HFR, but without artifacts. I agree there's a kind of oddness to it, but I think this will be very temporary going forward. We're simply not used to it in movies. It's similar to opposition to 3D I think. If there were no technical and financial limitations, we would have had 120fps 3D films at the dawn of cinema (with the occasional deviation for artistic effect) because that's just what makes sense. 24fps came about because it was the cheapest acceptable frame rate, and we had no choice but to get used to it. Now that something better has come along, 24fps enjoys an adoration (or level of comfort from us) it doesn't deserve.

This isn't to say the film maybe couldn't have used HFR better (though I found the HFR version much better than 24fps regardless). Less shaky cam would be nice. I just can't fault it for the fact that we're not used to it.

At 24fps it feels like a fantasy, a dream, very graceful and fluid in motion, almost slow motion. In 48fps it loses the filmic fantasy feel and the lighting goes from dreamy to just bland and unnatural. The framerate isn't changing the lighting, no, but it's changing the chemistry- realistic framerate mixed with studio lighting. It's not just the hues, it's also the positioning of the artificial lightsources.

To follow the 180-degree shutter rule for most natural motion blur, 24fps film has to be shot at 1/48 or 1/50, while 48fps would need to be shot at 1/96. They compromised and shot it at 1/65.

I think this is all based on the fact that 24fps is just what we're used to rather than a core merit of lower frame rates. It's something we've learned to like and associate with films. It's more about the frame rate connecting to your previous positive movie experiences. We are who we are, and if you feel that way about 24fps vs 48fps then that's a great reason to buy a 24fps ticket. I don't think it's a good reason to criticize the film, as I feel it's more about the viewer than the film. Think about the future, and the kids, why won't anyone think of the kids?!

You could make the exact same sort of argument about 3D, and such arguments are made. I'm enthusiastic about 3D and HFR for the same reasons: it's what's natural and it's what's real, and that's what I want to see in the theater. I'm somewhat surprised to find 3D enthusiasts who don't like HFR, as well as 2D enthusiasts who like HFR.

HFR does make things look more true to life, but that's the problem-- I see the reality (actors) not the intent (believable characters).

24fps hides a lot of human error in terms of movement. Movement looks slow, smooth and calm. HFR is fast, twitchy, upbeat. And actors are used to letting the framerate of film smooth them out. So maybe a stage actor could demonstrate how to better act in 48fps.
Edited by cakefoo - 12/28/12 at 11:07pm

The odd thing is I don't mind at all the effect when watching PAL TV shows... they certainly stand out and I always feel like I am watching "British TV" (Since all my PAL content comes from BBC) so I do wonder why it bothers me so much....

When watching NTSC TV shows the farmerate doesn't bother me... when watching PAL it does't bother me... when playing games on a computer 100+ fps on a 120hz display doesn't bother me... so why does it bother me when movies get 48fps and when TV gets 120 (I am not even bothered by artifacts so much on motion interpolated TV, it's really the motion that gets me)? I don't think it can just be the framrate... I think cakefoo is onto something with how it's shot and how it all combines with framerate and exposure lenght/motion blur.

I have never liked the judder and clear jumpiness that sometimes stands out in film action scenes but I have become acustomed to it and find it acceptable... maybe it is just a matter of becoming accustomed to higher frame rate but I think it honestly has to go deeper than that.

As for just being used to it, I guess you can't argue with 30+ years of having it one way over another but I know I gave Trumotion a very fair chance... I forced myself to watch with Trumotion on for weeks and at the end it was far less intrusive but overally still felt entirely wrong and the end result was that when I switched it off now everything looked super jumpy for a while. But the jumpiness went away within an hour... the return on becoming adjusted to trumotion was rapidly diminishing and plateued with no signs of ever getting completely there even after weeks...

I really don't know... I can see higher framerate stuff being the way of the future, and as is evidenced by a lot of the younger kids I have talked to seeing no problem with high frame rate maybe it is just a matter of what I have become accustomed to... is it too soon for me to be cursing kids who walk across my lawn?

This is exactly how I feel... everything in high framerate looks cheesy, cheep and fake... I remember lookinga t the bears and hair on many of the characters in hobbit and thinking what a tacky cheap job they did on them... the material of their outfits also often looked cheap and flimsy.. in a previous post I touched on how I remembered the early days of HD being a horror show as you suddenly saw all the blemishes on your favorite TV Personalities... maybe high frame rate will mature... but I have to wonder if it really will as a lot of people seem to have no problem with how it is now...

Maybe it was the 4k that made it look cheesy. I'm sure you watch 60fps 720p all the time. Do you have a problem with that? I had no problem with it, thought it was great.

Thats what I was thinking too but it just didn't look right... maybe it's not just the framerate but also something to do with the media used (ie maybe films exposes with different characteristics than tv cameras do etc)?

Real people doing unscripted things in 60fps looks more natural than actors doing scripted things.

Edit: Actually there are a lot of sitcoms in 60hz, and they don't look weird. But I think that's because they don't get crazy with the lighting, fantastical characters, stunts, fast cuts, composition, etc. And the cast are usually experienced in sitcom acting. And there's a faster pace with fewer dramatic silences. And instead of the cinematography telling the story, it plays out through dialog and actions. Also they don't use extreme closeups that can expose little twitches (flaws) in the actors' muscles.

Lower-frequency 24hz smooth things out and make actors look bigger and stronger and more graceful.

If HFR is going to work, they will probably have to use wider shots, tone down the lighting and camera movement, and train the actors. HFR isn't unnatural, it's just not a natural fit for the current way of filmmaking.

There are several people who have mentioned that it's odd that someone can like 3D but not the advance of HFR-- well it took time for 3D to prove itself to me. As a kid of the 80's I was convinced it was a popout thing, reserved for theme park rides. It wasn't until Avatar that I realized what 3D really should be.
Edited by cakefoo - 12/30/12 at 11:36am

Hey. The muppets 3d theater at Disney was not a gimmick!!!

I felt such closeups and dialog scenes, while only subtly different than 24fps due to the lack of motion, benefited a great deal. The increased precision only helps bring out the actor's work and emotion. More real, more human, this is what movie actors strive to show us.

Or at least I thought. I need a link or something to show me that movie actors are inept flailers who depend on 24fps to turn their twitches into gracefulness. I'm opened minded but I've just never heard of this.

Ian McKellen is more than anything an accomplished theater actor. Martin Freeman's foundation was theater, followed by TV, and now movies. But they don't know how to act in real time? Surely they deserve more respect.

Please forgive my harshness but I'm just very skeptical of this line of though. I think the simplest and therefore most likely explanation is that you're just not personally used to seeing this kind of thing in 3D 48fps on a movie screen.

I wouldn't describe it quite like that but I have long accepted the idea that a 24 speed can create an imaginary world to view fiction while the 48 and 60 fps brings the story more to the real world truth. Even a fantasy with real people and costumed/makeup people can bring a fictional story to a more real world look, but the 24 fps keeps the story in the storybook world. I wonder how a cartoon fantasy, like Snow White would look at 48 fps? Probably not so good.

I've done stabilizer tests at 60fps and converted them to 30fps. In the 60fps footage, I can see every single bob as I take a step. In 30fps, the dipping becomes harder to detect. This is one example of unwelcome imperfections.

I suspect that if films are going to be recorded and played back in 48fps to enhance realism, they also need to better imitate what a human would see if they were watching the event in person. Any long take in Children of Men would look good in HFR I believe, because the perspective feels pretty human-like, the acting is so intricately choreographed, and the sets and lighting are very natural looking. What I don't want is for filmmakers to just plug 48fps into their films like it's a magic make-the-movie-better button. It's similar to how some filmmakers have treated 3D.
Edited by cakefoo - 1/1/13 at 3:00am

Agree but don't necessarily think it's bad. What I get from your (bold) comment is that the Hobbit came across like a stage play on a very sophisticated stage with lots of scene changes and closeups using opera glasses. If we watched the performance live, it would look much like what I saw in The Hobbit HFR.

for example- a stage performance I saw with highly sophisticated stage was the Cirque play Ka. Here I saw the actors playing characters too.

PS- Happy New Year! Getting ready to go to CES Saturday. You going?

Don....
1st the cruise, now off to Vegas??? You got a job most of us would want I suspect!
Let us know what cool stuff you discover in "Sin City" (and not the kind of stuff you need shots to cure either!).

Being retired is a tough job but some of us have to do it.

I have two choices, and I rarely see a film twice, so it's either at one theater in IMAX 3D, or another in 3D HFR--what's the recommendation from those who have seen it both ways? I'm leaning towards IMAX 3D just for the pleasure of feeling more immersed due to the size of the screen.

I think it depends on how you feel (ahead of time) about HFR. If you think you might have misgivings about it, I'd recommend just the normal 24fps presentation. If not, I'd highly recommend the HFR. It makes the film something truly remarkable. I didn't really realize how much so until I saw the film in "normal" 24p, and it felt like something was missing.. some of the "magic" was gone. Hard to describe.