or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Would you buy the 48 fps (HFR) version of the Hobbit?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

Poll Results: Would you buy a 48 fps version of the Hobbit on Blu-ray?

This is a multiple choice poll
  • 51% (95)
    Yes - I'd buy a 48 fps version of the Hobbit on Blu-ray
  • 24% (46)
    No - I'd only buy the 24 fps version
  • 18% (34)
    I'd buy both versions (24 fps and 48 fps)
  • 10% (20)
    I'd wouldn't buy any version of it
186 Total Votes  
post #61 of 102
"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.
post #62 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by darklordjames 
You sound exactly like the people that came out of Avatar yelling "Bah! 3D will never catch on! Look at all these problems!!

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darklordjames 
HFR kind of sucks right now. It will find a happy medium though, where dramatic scenes are shot at 24fps while panning and action shots are 48fps finally allowing us to get rid of the nasty judder and blur of quick movements.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darklordjames 
More technical options is not a bad thing.

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.
post #63 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

Higher frame rates makes movies look like cheap video productions.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

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.

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.
post #64 of 102
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.
post #65 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusarilliuS View Post

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.

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.
post #66 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusarilliuS View Post

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.

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.
post #67 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

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.

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
post #68 of 102
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.
post #69 of 102
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.
post #70 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennem View Post

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.

The problem with 60 becomes space, two discs would be needed for the 2d alone
post #71 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennem View Post

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.
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.
post #72 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie E View Post

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.
It doesn't even need to use interpolation, even bob-deinterlacing of 1080i (assuming it's recorded interlaced) would give as smooth motion as 60p (though obviously only half res). 60 fields per second with normal de-interlacing would have the same motion characteristics as 60p (though won't be as good as true 60p).

As well as 1080p24, 1080/50i and 1080/60i, it also supports 720p50 & 720p60 too.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 12/31/12 at 1:42pm
post #73 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

The problem with 60 becomes space, two discs would be needed for the 2d alone
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.
post #74 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie E View Post

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.

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...
post #75 of 102
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
post #76 of 102
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennem View Post

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...

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
post #77 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennem View Post

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...
It's the player. My Panasonic decks do the same thing, outputting a 1080i/60 signal as 1080p/60.
post #78 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

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..

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...
post #79 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

Technically, 1080p60 means 1920x1080 @ 60Hz, not @ 60 frames.
EDIT: Fields <> frames.
1080p60 does mean 60 frames per second. With 1080p60 all 1080 lines are sent 60 times a second.
Though the content on the Blu-ray is probably 1080i, since 1080p60 is not in the standard Blu-ray specs, even though the Blu-ray player's output format is 1080p60 and that is what the player could be de-interlacing to.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 1/4/13 at 8:39am
post #80 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

It's a shame, however, that the 2-D version had to sacrifice some quality for the sake of the new soap opera version.

What did the 2D sacrifice?
post #81 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

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

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post


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.

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.
post #82 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim S View Post

What did the 2D sacrifice?

I think he's talking about the video look that 48fps gives the viewer.
post #83 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

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.
post #84 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Which the 2D version didn't have, so I don't really see a "sacrifice" here. 2D was projected only at 24fps..
They probably sacrificed a little bit of real motion blur.
post #85 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

They probably sacrificed a little bit of real motion blur.

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
post #86 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim S View Post

What did the 2D sacrifice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

I think he's talking about the video look that 48fps gives the viewer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

They probably sacrificed a little bit of real motion blur.

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.
post #87 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

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.
One other thing is the shutter setting used. Most 24 fps films use 180 degree shutters on average (so the camera is taking a picture for 1/48th of a second in each frame). The Hobbit used 270 degrees. If they'd used an 'open' shutter (ie. 360 degree) by using every other frame it would have been identical to a 24 fps film at 180 degrees (though I'm not sure how much it would be affected by the rolling shutter of the Red cameras). Though one of the things PJ wanted to do is reduce the amount of blur for the high fps version, and if he'd used 360 degree with 48 fps (so the 24 fps version, using every other frame of the 48 fps one, looked exactly as normal with no artificial blur) the amount of blur in each frame of the 48 fps version would have been no less than a normal 24 fps film with a 180 degree shutter.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 1/6/13 at 5:32am
post #88 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

One other thing is the shutter setting used. Most 24 fps films use 180 degree shutters on average (so the camera is taking a picture for 1/48th of a second in each frame). The Hobbit used 270 degrees. If they'd used an 'open' shutter (ie. 360 degree) by using every other frame it would have been identical to a 24 fps film at 180 degrees (though I'm not sure how much it would be affected by the rolling shutter of the Red cameras). Though one of the things PJ wanted to do is reduce the amount of blur for the high fps version, and if he'd used 360 degree with 48 fps (so the 24 fps version, using every other frame of the 48 fps one, looked exactly as normal with no artificial blur) the amount of blur in each frame of the 48 fps version would have been no less than a normal 24 fps film with a 180 degree shutter.

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.
post #89 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

One other thing is the shutter setting used. Most 24 fps films use 180 degree shutters on average (so the camera is taking a picture for 1/48th of a second in each frame). The Hobbit used 270 degrees. If they'd used an 'open' shutter (ie. 360 degree) by using every other frame it would have been identical to a 24 fps film at 180 degrees (though I'm not sure how much it would be affected by the rolling shutter of the Red cameras). Though one of the things PJ wanted to do is reduce the amount of blur for the high fps version, and if he'd used 360 degree with 48 fps (so the 24 fps version, using every other frame of the 48 fps one, looked exactly as normal with no artificial blur) the amount of blur in each frame of the 48 fps version would have been no less than a normal 24 fps film with a 180 degree shutter.

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.
post #90 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

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.
I wasn't saying it shouldn't look any different. I was saying if he had shot it at 48 fps with a 360 degree shutter and then used every other frame of that for the 24 fps version that in theory it shouldn't have looked any different to other 24 fps films (360/2=180).

Since he shot it at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter, in theory it (the 24 fps version) should look like a 24 fps film shot with a 135 degree shutter (ie. a slightly shorter shutter than normal). 270/2=135. Films normally use a 180 degree shutter. So, using every other frame of the 48 fps original in this case (assuming nothing else was done) would give slightly less blur for the 24 fps version than in a normal 24 fps film, and therefore slightly more strobing.

Normal 24 fps films: 180 degree shutter (normally). Shutter is open 1/48th of a second per frame.
The Hobbit 24 fps version: 135 degree shutter (270/2=135, if they used every other frame of the original 48 fps version). Shutter is open 1/64th of a second per frame. A little bit less blur (unless they added some fake blur) and more strobing.
With even shorter shutters (eg. 45 to 90 degrees) it would have a "Saving Private Ryan", "Gladiator (battles)" or "Robin Hood (2010) (battles)" type look.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 1/6/13 at 2:06pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Would you buy the 48 fps (HFR) version of the Hobbit?