The Hobbit 48fps first impressions

Status
Not open for further replies.
bluerei said:
You're not actually seeing 48fps on that clip because vimeo only encodes 24p at most in HD and 30 in SD. Guy probably uploaded it in 48fps, but what you're watching is 24fps.
Click to expand...

I know. My sarcasm failed. Other than an interesting looking cat, too much detail was lost in the upload. I thought they did 30 for HD. And still who knows what option he selected.
 
Hm.

It's definitely different, and weird, but only because I'm not used to it. I think it could be really cool after adjusting to it. I also wonder if directors/filmmakers will need to adapt some tried and true methods for the new framerate, like maybe different outlooks on editing and framing and such. I mean, maybe that's obvious, I'd just really love to know how they went about adapting to it and what kind of techniques needed to be "changed" or reconstructed.
 
omnomis said:
iCEaMBkO7LiFC.gif
Click to expand...

Yep I'm used to download at 6mb or more/sec
 
Raistlin said:
It's 'better' in that it can more accurately mimic how we perceive reality.

But that's not always the goal when creating a movie.
Click to expand...

Talking about quantity of frames on itself, there is no deficit to it. Or at least I can't think of none (if not by subjective aesthetic debate: 12 frames are what made films of the olde real films! not this 24 frames insanity!).

bluerei said:
Ok,
BLUEREI'S RETARDED RED FPS TEST - 24 & 48 FPS
Click to expand...

You should send this to some independent producer.
The anger, the rock texture, the tact, the movement, oh the movement!

48 fps made it look like I was watching an episode of Friends though.
 
I'm telling you, I think that once adjusted, we're not going back, just dying trying to imagine what it must have looked like. Once graded, it will be without a doubt outstanding.
 
omnomis said:
"Hz" is used to describe the rate at which a screen/projector cycles the frames it is asked to project. They use "fps" or "p" to refer to how many times per second a camera captures a frame.
Click to expand...

Yeah.
Saying that all 24fps movies are shown at 48Hz on film was an overgeneralization on my part, though. Three-blade shutters (72Hz) do exist.
 
cutmeamango said:
Talking about quantity of frames on itself, there is no deficit to it. Or at least I can't think of none (if not by subjective aesthetic debate: 12 frames are what made films of the olde real films! not this 24 frames insanity!).
Click to expand...
The 'deficit' being it looks different ... and that look may not be what the director is after?


If someone can demonstrate that 48fps using (I assume) a fully open shutter actually looks identical to traditional 24fps film minus the judder ... then I'd agree. I'm not sure that's the case though.

Hey bluerei ... I think we've got your next assignment :D

You should send this to some independent producer.
The anger, the rock texture, the tact, the movement, oh the movement!

48 fps made it look like I watching an episode of Friends though.
Click to expand...
bu bu bu ... 'no deficit'? :p






TAJ said:
Yeah.
Saying that all 24fps movies are shown at 48Hz on film was an overgeneralization on my part, though. Three-blade shutters (72Hz) do exist.
Click to expand...
And thank god they do. Fucking flicker.
 
Raistlin said:
I may be wrong, but I am under the impression they were shot at 30fps. They however were broadcast at 60i, and displayed that way since people were using CRT's then.


30fps video broadcast at 60i to a CRT is going to appear to be 30fps. Granted there are some subtle interlacing artifacts, but it's still going to look like 30fps content.

Similarly, 30fps video broadcast at 60i to a progressive display is going to look exactly like the original 30fps video. Well barring your de-interlacer being garbage.
Click to expand...

Both the film and the video version? There is a clear difference between the two in framerate that is consistent with the typical difference between 30 and 60 fps content. The same goes for shows like Newhart that did both. Whatever the technical term may be, one is running at 30, the other is at 60. If both were at 30 fps, they would look similar despite one being on film and the other video.
 
Marty Chinn said:
Both the film and the video version? There is a clear difference between the two in framerate that is consistent with the typical difference between 30 and 60 fps content. The same goes for shows like Newhart that did both. Whatever the technical term may be, one is running at 30, the other is at 60. If both were at 30 fps, they would look similar despite one being on film and the other video.
Click to expand...
Film is 24fps, video is (traditionally) 30fps.



I'd be surprised if 60fps content was popular back in the day. 60fps on an interlaced TV (ie. broadcast and displayed as 60i) produces very obvious artifacts. Go play something like PS1 Tekken on a CRT. Jaggies galore.

Granted TV's were so much smaller back then, maybe it wouldn't have been all that obvious.
 
bluerei said:
I was pressed for time! GAF is impatient and demanded evidence!
Click to expand...

Did it sound like I was hating? No one knew what 48p at 270 degree shutter video looked like, and there just happened to be a guy in the thread with a RED sensor. Thank you!

I'm saying that if your quick video can get my imagination going for what Hobbit footage is going to look like, imagine how much better it would have been to have the official trailer in 48p.
 
Raistlin said:
The 'deficit' being it looks different ... and that look may not be what the director is after?


If someone can demonstrate that 48fps using (I assume) a fully open shutter actually looks identical minus the judder ... then I'd agree. I'm not sure that's the case though.

Hey bluerei ... I think we've got your next assignment :D
Click to expand...

It looks 'different' as in it has a more complete motion depicted? Sure.
As I said, if you want to film something that resembles visually the 20's movies, you wouldn't see benefit shooting at 60 frames, since you'd have to do frame editing to get that animation style, but that's not a deficit.

bu bu bu ... 'no deficit'? :p
Click to expand...

It was a joke on the TV show effect!
 
I have to admit that video weirded me out and even creeped me out a bit LOL. The motion is unsettling. I don't know how to feel about this.
 
jett said:
I have to admit that video weirded me out and even creeped me out a bit LOL. The motion is unsettling.
Click to expand...

Shit is going to get real whack. It's hard to change people's perception of what looks 'right' after almost ninety years of a standard.

I do know that I need to see Pandora this way in 3D.
 
cutmeamango said:
It looks 'different' as in it has a more complete motion depicted? Sure.
As I said, if you want to film something that resembles visually the 20's movies, you wouldn't see benefit shooting at 60 frames, since you'd have to do frame editing to get that animation style, but that's not a deficit.
Click to expand...
It's not as simple as 'complete' though. The look is quite different due to the inherent amount of motion blur 24fps necessitates. Unless one can demonstrate it can be replicated via 48fps (though without as much judder), then there is going to always be some directors that want that appearance. Particularly for movies without a lot of fast action sequences.
 
Scullibundo said:
Shit is going to get real whack. It's hard to change people's perception of what looks 'right' after almost ninety years of a standard.

I do know that I need to see Pandora this way in 3D.
Click to expand...

Cameron should go back and re-render some of the 100% CGI shots from the first film in 60p to make a sizzle reel and build hype, even before they're ready to make an actual teaser for Avatar 2.

"Not while I'm still breathin'."
 
bluerei said:
Someone send me some hobbit action figures and i'll make you a trailer in 48p.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness ... if you're bored and looking for something to do ... could you shoot a comparison between 24p/180 degree shutter and 48p/360 degree shutter (ie fully open)?

I'm curious how similar they look in terms of overall presentation.
 
Scullibundo said:
Shit is going to get real whack. It's hard to change people's perception of what looks 'right' after almost ninety years of a standard.

I do know that I need to see Pandora this way in 3D.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm not looking forward to it. Would like to reserve judgement until I see a movie shot in it though.
 
omnomis said:
Cameron should go back and re-render some of the 100% CGI shots from the first film in 60p to make a sizzle reel and build hype, even before they're ready to make an actual teaser for Avatar 2.

"Not while I'm still breathin'."
Click to expand...

He actually did shoot a scene in 60fps. I can't remember if he showed it to any exhibitors at the last Cinemacon.
 
Scullibundo said:
Shit is going to get real whack. It's hard to change people's perception of what looks 'right' after almost ninety years of a standard.

I do know that I need to see Pandora this way in 3D.
Click to expand...

I think 60fps will look better than this. I played some Wipeout HD to pass the time and that shit looks butter smooth, 48fps is not there.

Thanks again bluerei. Btw, 85mbps? You so crazy. My PC could barely handle your handful of rocks. :P
 
jett said:
I think 60fps will look better than this. I played some Wipeout HD to pass the time and that shit looks butter smooth, 48fps is not there.

Thanks again bluerei. Btw, 85mbps? You so crazy. My PC could barely handle your handful of rocks. :P
Click to expand...

85mpbs is the default when exporting in Redcine-X. Doesn't give you an option to drop it lower.
 
jett said:
I think 60fps will look better than this. I played some Wipeout HD to pass the time and that shit looks butter smooth, 48fps is not there.

Thanks again bluerei. Btw, 85mbps? You so crazy. My PC could barely handle your handful of rocks. :P
Click to expand...

60 fps would be too much I reckon. Just 48 fps is gonna br a shock, so let's get used to it first. And damn will that be a bitch to advertise. I mean, how.in the flying fuck will they advertise this?!

"Go see the Hobbit either in 2D 24 fps or 48 fps, or 3D 24 fps or 48 fps in selected theaters", the regular moviegoer won't have any idea what that means, curious to,see,how they'll advertise it. However, even seeing it in 3D 24 fps would probably make a big difference as it'll be converted from 48 to 24'and it should already make it more smooth and pleasing.
 
Raistlin said:
Film is 24fps, video is (traditionally) 30fps.



I'd be surprised if 60fps content was popular back in the day. 60fps on an interlaced TV (ie. broadcast and displayed as 60i) produces very obvious artifacts. Go play something like PS1 Tekken on a CRT. Jaggies galore.

Granted TV's were so much smaller back then, maybe it wouldn't have been all that obvious.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 29.97 fps used to be the standard for video content.
 
Just watched the rock clips.

For 48fps, the first half of of the clip that is ungraded felt very odd to me, but the second half felt just right, in fact I do prefer it to the 24fps clip.

The grading makes a huge difference.
 
This is going to get a ton of hate when it's released. People are going to be mad and they're not going to know why. It's just going to be a ton of angry confused layman filmgoers, unfortunately.

There should literally be a short presentation before the movie demonstrating and explaining the difference between 24 and 48 fps in a fun way. Just to prime people for the experience and not uttlerly shock them out of 90 years of film going habit.
 
THE-Pink-Dagger said:
60 fps would be too much I reckon. Just 48 fps is gonna br a shock, so let's get used to it first. And damn will that be a bitch to advertise. I mean, how.in the flying fuck will they advertise this?!

"Go see the Hobbit either in 2D 24 fps or 48 fps, or 3D 24 fps or 48 fps in selected theaters", the regular moviegoer won't have any idea what that means, curious to,see,how they'll advertise it. However, even seeing it in 3D 24 fps would probably make a big difference as it'll be converted from 48 to 24'and it should already make it more smooth and pleasing.
Click to expand...
You're forgetting all the permutations involving 4K as well :D
 
Raistlin said:
Film is 24fps, video is (traditionally) 30fps.



I'd be surprised if 60fps content was popular back in the day. 60fps on an interlaced TV (ie. broadcast and displayed as 60i) produces very obvious artifacts. Go play something like PS1 Tekken on a CRT. Jaggies galore.

Granted TV's were so much smaller back then, maybe it wouldn't have been all that obvious.
Click to expand...

Film is 24fps, but when broadcasted, it wasn't 24fps. Never has comparing 24fps to 30fps content looked like it does when you compare things like Twilight Zone and Newhart. I've never seen 30fps look like live TV before either.

You can't compare the artifacting in Tekken to what you see in a video broadcast. The difference is pretty significant to the point that it's not comparable in visual quality.
 
Complaining about 48fps is like complaining about 16 bit color when you're used to 256 colors
or complaining that 1080p HDTV's look more like movie theater screens and less like the standard 480i home televisions you grew used to
"eww now I can see all the imperfections on peoples faces I'm not used to clarity lets not change things ever 480i>>>>>>>>>>1080p"
 
Dead said:
Just watched the rock clips.

For 48fps, the first half of of the clip that is ungraded felt very odd to me, but the second half felt just right, in fact I do prefer it to the 24fps clip.

The grading makes a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Of course, and that's why a guy such as Faraci is full of shit in his opinion, saying that sets look like sets. DUH it's like watching BTS footage, it looks cheap, and yet cinema magic happens in post production. Even on my tiny HDSLR, it saddens me sometimes to see how crappy and cheap it looks in playback, but once graded, mama!
 
Dead said:
Just watched the rock clips.

For 48fps, the first half of of the clip that is ungraded felt very odd to me, but the second half felt just right, in fact I do prefer it to the 24fps clip.

The grading makes a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Agree. Looking forward to the Hobbit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

First time you say?
2
78
644
Amakusa replied
The first ever documented Spider-Man fan film
2
306
kunonabi replied
Elon Musk Just Became The First Person Ever Worth $500 Billion
News Business 
48
418
Unknown Soldier replied
The Legend of Korra and Last Airbender Sequel First Look
News 
11
739
lifa-cobex replied
The Fantastic Four: First Steps | Official Trailer
5 6 7 8 9
419
10K
kpopSuperstar replied
Top Bottom