The Hobbit 48fps first impressions

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Agreed.

I felt really uncomfortable watching the 48fps clip, too, which weirded me out. My lower body tensed up and my entire body became rigid. Very strange. Guess I just need to get used the higher framerate, or something.
 
I'm not sure why it has to be an industry wide choice between the two. In the future I assume film makers will just go with whatever option works best for the film. If people genuinely enjoy 48 FPS then that will be the dominant option but there is no reason to force it.
 
I'm not sure why it has to be an industry wide choice between the two. In the future I assume film makers will just go with whatever option works best for the film. If people genuinely enjoy 48 FPS then that will be the dominant option but there is no reason to force it.

You mean like how 3D wasn't forced?
 
So in the sample RED clip that was shown; the 48FPS footage seemed to be playing fast in VLC. Was that how it was supposed to be or was VLC screwing up?
 
My dad bought a really, really nice Samsung 1080p LCD 3D TV last year. Watching regular TV or DVDs gave it that "soap opera look" where it didn't look like movie sets and it was kinda jarring. At Christmas we watched the Muppet Christmas Carol DVD and it looked just odd to see the fake looking sets and felt and fuzz on the puppets, yet when we watched Blu Ray movies like Capt. America or (a few months after Xmas) the new Muppets with Jason Segal, that jarring effect wasn't there.

Could the Hobbit's issues be with the display rather than the way it was filmed? Or do we just see things that aren't there?
 
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.

Well I'm fairly sure it is mechanically possible to attain similar motion blur but they wouldn't be perceptually comparable, due to the nature of information. Some post-tampering perhaps would help.

I found an old (last year) Peter Jackson text about 48fps and 60fps

And this quote is what I see:

"Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew--many of whom are film purists--are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience. It's similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs. There's no doubt in my mind that we're heading towards movies being shot and projected at higher frame rates."

FWIW, Friends was shot on film.

Oh cool! They were shot at 30fps though right? Or else I'll have to edit my post. :/
 
My dad bought a really, really nice Samsung 1080p LCD 3D TV last year. Watching regular TV or DVDs gave it that "soap opera look" where it didn't look like movie sets and it was kinda jarring. At Christmas we watched the Muppet Christmas Carol DVD and it looked just odd to see the fake looking sets and felt and fuzz on the puppets, yet when we watched Blu Ray movies like Capt. America or (a few months after Xmas) the new Muppets with Jason Segal, that jarring effect wasn't there.

Could the Hobbit's issues be with the display rather than the way it was filmed? Or do we just see things that aren't there?
I hope you realize the motion interpolation effect is turned on by default and that most people would tell you turn that crap off. There's nothing wrong with the display.
 
Watched the Epic footage and it looks great, except that the supposedly 48 fps footage itself appears sped. up when I play it with QT, whereas the 24 fps downconverted looks much more natural to me, like the kind of stuff that I see in 60 fps games. I mean, it's too sped up that it doesnt look real, the 24 one is the one I would have guessed to be the 48 fps. However, I am loving this and it probably needs some getting used to.
 
It's not faster, it just feels that way because of the extra frame data. That's the actual speed as I did it in real time.

Wow, then it does look weird, it's not like that in real life though, too sped up, maybe my brain will make it seem slower by watching it over and over again.
 
Well I don't seem to have a problem with the 48 vid other than it looks a little fast(would be cool to have a single video split showing the two if that's even possible). Didn't appear to be very soap opera-y either which is nice.
 
The 48fps video only looks weird because you're acclimatized to lower framerates in video footage. It's a form of the Coconut Effect, where something that is actually closer to reality seems unrealistic because of your expectations.

Well I don't seem to have a problem with the 48 vid other than it looks a little fast(would be cool to have a single video split showing the two if that's even possible). Didn't appear to be very soap opera-y either which is nice.


I believe the soap opera effect is more to do with lighting and colours than framerate.
 
Wow, then it does look weird, it's not like that in real life though, too sped up, maybe my brain will make it seem slower by watching it over and over again.

It's seems like you are trying to force yourself to like it. A bit sad don't you think?

Personally, I found the video really unsettling to watch, although I do really appreciate the effort that went into it.
 
I liked the rock video. It's definitely different, but I liked it.

Hey bluerei, if you ever get the chance, I think it would be neat to see a similar test done with a landscape pan. I'm curious about how it would look. Thanks for the rock video though! That was fascinating.
 
It's seems like you are trying to force yourself to like it. A bit sad don't you think?

Personally, I found the video really unsettling to watch, although I do really appreciate the effort that went into it.

No I think I'll get used to it, it's just that myself as a guy who strives for this "cinematic" feel when shooting with an HDSLR, etc, that just love this feel, it just feels odd, and weird, and really sped up, but it looks like my brain is playing tricks on me.

No wonder this is divisive even this is surely far from what the Hobbit looks like, it just throws all your conceptions, habits in the garbage. It doesn't feel real, but I bet that it will once used to it.

However, the 24 fps footage looks much more natural to me, it doesnt look like 24 fps but it's much smoother, natural, pleasing.

And yep, thanks for the effort! gives us a tiny idea.
 
The 48fps video only looks weird because you're acclimatized to lower framerates in video footage. It's a form of the Coconut Effect, where something that is actually closer to reality seems unrealistic because of your expectations.
If 48fps does result in making movies look like theater then I dont think its as simple as getting used to. If it looks like broadway it'll always look like broadway.
 
Just saw this on my twitter feed: Sony Ships 4K Blu-ray Player

http://www.twice.com/article/483537-Sony_Ships_4K_Blu_ray_Player.php
Unless the decoders are software based, this will not support BD 4K. This is simply an upscaling BD player.

That said, I'm ordering one. The feature set is fucking BONKERS at $249. SACD, all the best A/V streaming services (including Vudu with UltraViolet), and supposedly an entirely new UI which was one of their prior players' biggest issues. I haven't seen it, but given this thing is running a dual-core processor, it should at least be smooth.

The kicker though are 2 features I'm shocked are at this price-point.

1) 2D->3D conversion. Granted we don't know how it performs, but I didn't realize it was hitting players at this level.

2) 16-bit Super Bit-Mapping. Super bit-mapping is a tech Sony previously only offered in their ES players. Due to their intimate knowledge of the AVC codec used for current BD's, they came up with a way to essentially remove banding. As far as I'm concerned, banding is really the only IQ flaw you typically see in BD encodes.


This thing is a beast if it performs well on tests.






Oh cool! They were shot at 30fps though right? Or else I'll have to edit my post. :/
'film' implies 24fps.
 
I liked the rock video. It's definitely different, but I liked it.

Hey bluerei, if you ever get the chance, I think it would be neat to see a similar test done with a landscape pan. I'm curious about how it would look. Thanks for the rock video though! That was fascinating.

kk. Whats cool is that I have a Remote slider with recording controls, so I can record my pan move and replay it exactly how the last shot was, giving an accurate result.
 
The 48FPS video first looks speed up, but also the jerky moves of the hand doesn't help to compensate for the feeling. But after watching it repeatedly, going back to the 24FPS felt like a downgrade for some reason.

Anyway, the first 10 minutes or so will be awkward but afterwards it'll be great I guess.

Can't wait to see it on the big screen on 3D!

One ring to rule them all...
 
Couldn't this just be like the half assed conversion stuff that their TVs do? Nothing too special and not very good.
Likely, but who knows how it performs.

If you don't have a TV that offers it though, it's a nice feature. I'm more impressed by the Super Bit-Mapping though. Haven't found any reviews yet (since it's new), but I pre-ordered one.





Well, you can use film for 30fps too!

And going by this (if they are credible of course) http://ask.metafilter.com/160832/was-NBCs-sitcom-Friends-shot-on-film they did.
Could be, I've never looked up info on Friends.

Just saying that in general, film refers to 24p if a framerate isn't specified.






I wonder what causes this phenomenon. Is it more data hitting your eyeballs? Or an effect of a shorter shutter time/less blur that makes it look faster.
Conditioning.

If it where what you described, real life would look all sorts of fucked up. We just have certain expectations for how things should look on a video screen.
 
Likely, though who knows how it performs.

If you don't have a TV that performs it though, it's a nice feature. I'm more impressed by the Super Bit-Mapping though.

If it's like what they implement in their TVs, then it's not really a nice feature at all; it's pretty useless. The super Bit-Mapping is definitely nice though.
 
kk. Whats cool is that I have a Remote slider with recording controls, so I can record my pan move and replay it exactly how the last shot was, giving an accurate result.

If you don't mind messing around with your fancy toys could you try it @ 24p 180 degree shutter vs. 48p 360?

I'd really like to see the difference with similar amounts of motion blur.
 
What are you guys playing the file on? Quicktime says its playing the file as 24fps for me. Under the ctrl + I movie inspector.


fake edit: Should have just tried vlc first. Looks great.
 
One curious thing is that the higher the framerate is, the more likely you are going to see imperfections (or should I say the opposite?) of computer animation. We'll see if this movie stands against the test (I believe so).
 
yeah the open shutter @ 48 and 180 @ 24? I think a few had that request.
Yep, that would awesome!




As far as for some good scene ideas, two come to mind for showing off framerate in general:

1) Fast motion (doesn't have to be camera motion, simply shoot something that's moving relativey fast). This will demonstrate temporal resolution.

2) A slow horizontal pan, particularly with some good parallax (a nice mix of near and far objects helps). This will demonstrate judder.
 
Just got around to seeing the two clips and it definitely felt off at first but the more and more I watched the higher FPS clip the more I liked it over the other version. In fact going back to it actually 'felt' like a downgrade. In short spurts I can see most not liking or feel 'uncomfortable' with the higher frames per second, but in a long movie where you are given lots of time to adjust and even begin to enjoy the fruits of the format I think 'most' will come away with it looking better. Its not like the trumotion crap, it begins to simply feel natural after a while and doesn't take you out of the experience. The trumotion seems to 'smooth' the image out in small bursts but it is disjointed and has ghosting which in turn makes you aware of a 'trick' going in the background. There is no trick happening in the true higher FPS clip.
 
You probably already read it but

3) I want to see a person doing something. Smoking, iunno.

If bluerei doesn't smoke, it would be cool to see:

a) Lighting a match

b) Pouring water from a pitcher into a cup

As the camera pans along a motion controlled track
 
If bluerei doesn't smoke, it would be cool to see:

a) Lighting a match

b) Pouring water from a pitcher into a cup

As the camera pans along a motion controlled track

Those actions are too fast to be a good comparison. It should be simple stuff you commonly see in movies - mainly, people talking and moving.
 
That rock video highlights how awesome 48fps is. Good stuff.

God I wish I could watch Hobbit footage like that. It would be amazing.

I can see myself getting annoyed at people who say it's bad and 24fps should always be the standard, ha.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom