Would you buy the 48 fps (HFR) version of the Hobbit? - Page 3

"They should be able to create a Blu-ray with a 720p60 version of the movie (not in 3D)."

Bluray and HDMI both support 720p60 with 3D just fine. Dropping 3D, a 1080p60 Bluray could easily be produced.

I love 3-D and I think the 3-D in Avatar was really good. I thought it was beautiful in "Prometheus." And I liked how excellent the 3-D was in that re-released (originally flat) Star Wars movie.

The 3-D in the re-released "Beauty And The Beast" was really bad, as they tried to add depth to objects that were originally drawn flat. It didn't work out very well.

"John Carter" was also beautifully shot in 3-D.

The point is, most everything I've seen "shot" in 3-D usually looks pretty awesome. The only time 3-D movies don't look good is when they've been recorded flat and quickly made into 3-D for marketing purposes such as "Alice in Wonderland" (2010) and "Clash of the Titans" (2010) etc. They just don't look good, in fact, they look horrible.

I think gone are the days when movies are made into 3-D after the fact...except for the ones who will do it right. Take "Monsters, Inc. 3-D" as an example and all the rest of the Star Wars movies when they finally get around to re-releasing those in 3-D.

I guess there could be an argument where certain shots in a movie could be recorded and played back at different frame rates for certain effects (if playback equipment allows for that.) Though I don't mind judder or blur of quick movements. It's the characteristics of what makes motion picture film look like a movie. Higher frame rates makes movies look like cheap video productions.


No, as long as those options include recreating more realistically the look and feel of film...such as 8k for example. Trust me, that will come. Once all the movie theatres finally make the switch to digital, 2k and 4k suddenly won't be good enough.

Only until people get used to seeing higher frame-rate movies that aren't cheap video productions.


Anything north of 4K in a typical movie house hits the diminishing-returns wall (whereby your average moviegoer won't be able to tell -and certainly won't seek out- the difference) pretty damn quickly. Additional (visible) resolution will come from exactly where it's coming from today- higher frame-rates. 8K in a theater means a giant spectacle screen a la 70mm. As much as I'd love to see it, there's just not going to be one of those on every street corner.

No current HMDI based interface can handle that hz at 1080p due to bandwidth limitations of the HDMi chips. You would need a new TV/Projector with an updated HDMI chip to support more than 1080p 24hz, which as far as I know are not available in the home consumer market yet.
PC monitors that are 120hz using display port or dual link dvi would be able to play it if BD specs could be increased to output 48hz.

Incorrect. The limitation lies only with the current Blu-ray spec, not HDMI. Every version of HDMI since 2004 can do 1080p60. In fact, HDMI 1.0 can do 1920×1200p60. HDMI 1.3 can do 2560×1600p75. HDMI 1.4 can do 4096×2160p24. HDMI 2.0 will likely bring 4096×2160p60.

It's the TV's that have the problem with 48fps because most cannot display 48fps content though some high-end displays can handle it just fine. The HDMI and Blu-Ray A/V specs have no issues whatsoever with 48fps content as they were designed from the beginning with support for high-frame rates beyond 24/30 and the upcoming HDMI 2.0 will take it further next year.

Sorry mate I was referring to 3d content as we were talking about the hobbit I assumed it was the 3d 48hz version.

2d can go that high via HDMI, 3d can't

I just had my Disney Visions disc in (was bundled with WOW) and was watching some of the demo scenes. A waterfall scene came on and I immediately thought "that looks like HFR"! Sure enough I checked on my receiver and display and it is 1080p60 video. Most of the other sequences are 1080p24, but that one is 60 fps. I really hope they do a double-disc Hobbit with both 1080p24 and 1080p60 versions (in 2D), just to be able to have the choice and see the difference.

I saw The Hobbit in 3D, HFR with Dolby Atmos sound over the weekend. I really liked the HFR.

Afterwards, I watched a few minutes in another auditorium of the 2D 24fps (digital) version. The 2D version's auditorium was much better attended -- $10.00 vs $13.50 perhaps -- so I only took a poor seat. I didn't really mind the loss of 3D or Dolby Atmos, but the motion in 24fps was noticeably "jerky".

I've no intention of buying a copy of the movie. But if I did, and all the other parts were in place, yes, I'd buy the 48fps version.

The problem with 60 becomes space, two discs would be needed for the 2d alone

Blu-ray does not (currently) support 1080p60, just 1080p24 or 1080i. Your receiver may have been doing some interpolation of 1080i to make it appear like 60p though.

The required data rate should not scale directly proportionally to frame rate, since then you have greater redundancy between frames, and any HFR movie's probably gonna be shot on digital and not have much random noise, which will make things much easier for the codec.

Interesting. I have my receiver set to "Direct" (it is an Onkyo 1009) so it is not supposed to be doing anything to the video stream. Perhaps my BD player is converting 1080i to 1080p before it hits the receiver. The receiver clearly says that it is receiving 1080p60 and outputting 1080p60 to the display...

I loved the 3d 48FPS version in the theater, it was a really involving experience and got you really wrapped up in the world and for me the nearly 3 hrs flew by. One of the few times when new technology actually enhanced my moving going experience.
Edited by swanlee - 1/3/13 at 6:41am

I saw the 2-D version. Aside from some fast pans, it wasn't all that blurry. It's a shame, however, that the 2-D version had to sacrifice some quality for the sake of the new soap opera version. Technology aside, it was a very enjoyable movie and will someday have a place on my shelf... alongside the 8K LOTR Ultimate Editions. LOL

Technically, 1080p60 means 1920x1080 @ 60Hz, not @ 60 frames. It just so happens that 1080p24 is both the Hz and framerate for film on Blu-ray (yeah yeah... 23.976...)

EDIT: Fields <> frames.
Edited by nathanddrews - 1/3/13 at 12:09pm

It's the player. My Panasonic decks do the same thing, outputting a 1080i/60 signal as 1080p/60.

I saw the non-stereovison Hobbit version in the same theater I saw Skyfall (payed the same for both... $0) and the Hobbit seemed more detailed (i.e. sharper).

Anyway I am highly skeptical that a 48fps player will be put out for one title, 4K is a different story...

What did the 2D sacrifice?

That's my point. The Hobbit was not a cheap video production and yet, it looked like a cheap video production thanks to 48 fps.

The point is, 8k will look more like film since 8k is about as much information there is within a 35mm frame of film. There's more information of course, however I believe the diminishing rate of returns is anything higher than 8k.

Also, I can easily tell that these new digital movie releases that have been shot on film, have a bit of a digital look to it because of the digital projector. There's a long way to go before digital can replicate the look of film and a big part of that issue is resolution. Also, there needs to be an improvement with scanning of movie film and at least to me from what I've been seeing, more bandwidth is needed too. Contrast ratios also needs to improve.

8k in a smaller theatre would look fantastic too. Just look at any 35mm projected movie on a smaller movie screen. Like you said, people won't flock to it, however once the equipment becomes available and the larger theatre chains start buying them, the prices will go down and with time, more theatres will switch over to the newer equipment. Now that digital technology for image projection has reached the movie theatre market, there will be improvements and demand for higher quality just like digital SLRs. And the changes (the advancement of digital projectors) will come quickly too.

The only visible resolution gained by higher frame rates is the resolution of movement, nothing more. Higher frame rates is not a way to improve the film look digital projectors try to emulate.

I think he's talking about the video look that 48fps gives the viewer.

Which the 2D version didn't have, so I don't really see a "sacrifice" here. 2D was projected only at 24fps.

Given the limitations of the format in regards to 1080p48/3D, what are the odds of a HSBS version? That's just plain ol' 1080p48, really.

That can mean two different things. Here's how I would explain it.

1. At 48fps,

A. With panning, there won't be any or much motion judder.

B. With fast moving objects, there won't be as much motion blur per recorded frame.


Now here's the tricky part I was thinking about.

2. At 24fps.

24fps is half of 48fps. So to get real classic theatrical motion picture action from something originally recorded at 48fps, only half of the frames are needed. BUT, does that give us the same effect as something originally shot at 24fps?


My initial thought was "Yes." But now I've thought about it a bit more, each frame that's recorded at the rate of 48fps is exposed for less time than frames recorded at the slower rate of 24fps.

So here's whats going on.

At 24fps, a really fast moving object going across a recorded frame can't be completely "frozen." So there's going to be some blur to that movement.

At 48fps, that same fast object moving across a recorded frame also cannot be seen as completely "frozen." There's going to be some blur to that movement, but not as much.

At 18fps, (a format used on Super 8 film,) that same fast moving object going across a recorded frame will have even more blur per frame when compared to faster recording speeds such as 24fps and 48fps.

As movie theatre goers, we are accustom to a certain amount of blurring effects during panning and with fast objects moving across the screen. Using half of the frames that originally was recorded at 48fps, may not give us the exact same effect that we're used to when compared to something originally shot at 24fps.

Another words, the effect of using half of something recorded originally at 48fps may look a little "un-cinema" like during pans and fast movement.


I think an experiment could easily show the effects of using higher frame rates for traditional movie displays of 24fps.

Set up two motion picture cameras to record the exact same action at the same time. One would be set to record at 24fps, and the other set to record at 240fps. Make the recording of fast moving objects such as people running, cars driving by, objects thrown across the field of view etc.

Play back the movement originally shot at 24fps. THEN directly compare that with the movement that was shot at 240fps, but with only 1/10 of those frames.

Of course the playback speed on both would be correct, however there will be something very funny looking with the playback of the one originally shot at 240fps.
Edited by Thebarnman - 1/5/13 at 2:07pm

I was referring to the motion blur of the 2D 24fps version. Fast action and pans look unnatural. I don't know what method PJ used, but whether it is a result of every other frame being cut out or every other frame being cut out and sythetic blur being applied, I don't know. For stationary shots and closeups, the 2D version is very good.

In that case, the end result would (should) look like something that was originally recorded at 24fps. It seems there was enough thinking behind it all to give "familiar" results with the flat version of the movie.

Very cool.

Theoretically it shouldn't look different, but something is clearly off. Maybe it's just the theater we saw it in? I've never seen this issue there before, though. A handful of scenes are just rough and choppy.