The Hobbit 48fps first impressions

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was expecting a much worse reaction to the 48fps rock video. It's not bad! But I think I'd need to see actors talking, with traditional cinematography, to see the real effect of a movie like that..
 
Enco said:
Games = 60 FPS is best. It makes for a smooth play. It feels more real as you're controlling the player.

Movies = 24 FPS (or whatever is standard) is best. I have never thought to my self "OMG this framerate is so low! I hate The Departed/Shawshank etc." I've only seen high FPS video clips in movie stores but man they look shitty.
Click to expand...

I guess you always avert your eyes during quick camera pans then.
 
bluerei said:
Each inch of 3d from negative to positive space is displayed as a 2d plane still and isn't fluid from negative to positive. It doesn't give the depth your eyes actually perceive and it still looks like cut out 2d planes over the top of other planes.
Click to expand...

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree there, I don't think it looks like that at all when it's filmed in proper 3D.

I own a very simple, consumer, two-lense 3D point-and-shoot camera, and it allows me to adjust the parallax quite a bit. This allows me to make distant objects appear even more distant from nearby objects than I actually perceive them to be, giving it an almost cut-out look if the difference between the two is too great, so maybe that it was you mean by the division between negative and positive space not being fluid? Because that is something adjustable at the director's discretion. Sometimes it does get overblown to really emphasize the 3D effect, and when it's not overblown, the viewer tends to forget about the 3D since it matches with the viewer's regular perception and doesn't call attention to itself.

My knowledge in all of this is minimal though, I have to admit.
 
Zebra said:
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree there, I don't think it looks like that at all when it's filmed in proper 3D.

I own a very simple, consumer, two-lense 3D point-and-shoot camera, and it allows me to adjust the parallax quite a bit. This allows me to make distant objects appear even more distant from nearby objects than I actually perceive them to be, giving it an almost cut-out look if the difference between the two is too great, so maybe that it was you mean by the division between negative and positive space not being fluid? Because that is something adjustable at the director's discretion. Sometimes it does get overblown to really emphasize the 3D effect, and when it's not overblown, the viewer tends to forget about the 3D since it matches with the viewer's regular perception and doesn't call attention to itself.

My knowledge in all of this is minimal though, I have to admit.
Click to expand...

Completely different with 3ALITY hardware and the RED cam. Also, sure it looks good if you're dead center in front of the screen, but this does not work well when sitting by the side rows looking at an angle or the front row looking up.
 
Guerrillas in the Mist said:
I wonder if we'll soon get something similar to what happened with digital and film grain, with motion blur being added in post-production.
Click to expand...

Oh god.

I remember a 3DS tech demo using Resident Evil was touting added motion blur as a positive. Why god, why?

bluerei said:
Completely different with 3ALITY hardware and the RED cam. Also, sure it looks good if you're dead center in front of the screen, but this does not work well when sitting by the side rows looking at an angle or the front row looking up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is a fair point.
 
I have a question for PC gaming gaf, when you record game footage of your PC, lets say with Fraps just for example, do you record it at 60 fps ? or lower ? And when you are done fiddling with it, do you render it at 60 fps or lower ? Just curious. AS far as i can tell, it at least seams like my 60fps gaming videos that i have uploaded to youtube are 60 fps for the most part...
 
SLV said:
I have a question for PC gaming gaf, when you record game footage of your PC, lets say with Fraps just for example, do you record it at 60 fps ? or lower ? And when you are done fiddling with it, do you render it at 60 fps or lower ? Just curious. AS far as i can tell, it at least seams like my 60fps gaming videos that i have uploaded to youtube are 60 fps for the most part...
Click to expand...

Lot of people do 60fps so they can slow it down during cool parts to show the world how pro they are. It's dumb.
 
bluerei said:
Lot of people do 60fps so they can slow it down during cool parts to show the world how pro they are. It's dumb.
Click to expand...

Well that is another thing, i was more referring to the fact of keeping the fluidity of the gameplay for others to experience at the same pace/speed that the creator has experienced. But slow-mo also works best in atleast 60 fps, yes.

and about the 24 vs 48, the 48 looks artificially sped up to me, but that might be just me, the motion does not look natural imo. The rocks video that is

EDIT: after multiple times of watching the 48 rock video, i kinda got used to it, is not that bad
 
The 48fps video looks sped-up and un-natural to me. It could be that I'm just not used to it thought. Kept going back an forth inbetween the 24fps and 48fps video however and overall preferred the 24fps.
Zebra said:
Oh god.

I remember a 3DS tech demo using Resident Evil was touting added motion blur as a positive. Why god, why?
Click to expand...
Uh, because adding motion blur to video games add realism. Try waving your hand in front of your eyes. You will see motion blur. Blur is naturally captured by cameras, but it needs to be added into games.
 
Fucking hell that rocks video is messing with my brain.

First I watched the 24p and thought it looked pretty fine. Then the 48p and thought it looked very ... eery. Then watched it again and thought "Oh yeah, this is good smoothness". And when I went back to 24p again I found the video to be irritatingly 'unsmooth'.

@_@

Would love to see a car chase or something action packed at 48p. Camera-GAF, get on it!
 
Seen the rock vid six times just now (three for each fps)

The 48 fps felt like it was more sped up. Seeing The Hobbit at 48 fps is going to be an interesting, and possibly trippy, experience
 
It's all about adjustment. Hopefully in a few decades we can laugh at the fact we used 24p and people can stop clinging on to that janky shit in fear of change.
 
I've never seen the difference between 24fps and 48fps, but now that I have, holy shit, give me 48fps please. In the beginning it felt like it was sped up, but after a while my brain got used to it and it felt right. Went back to the 24fps video and that felt really slow. I want to see a fast paced action scene in 48fps.
 
pottuvoi said:
What would be your preference with 3D movies, does 24fps still feel good?

For me 24fps 2D sometimes is not very nice due to the judder.
3D is a lot worse and some scenes are borderline unwatchable due to the lack of temporal information.

So hobbit being shot 48fps 3D is something I'm quite interested to see.
Click to expand...
Only seen a couple of 3D movies and they weren't great.

ThoseDeafMutes said:
We already know that motion interpolation looks shitty.
Click to expand...
And from the comments in the OP it looks the same.

Branduil said:
I guess you always avert your eyes during quick camera pans then.
Click to expand...
Only time when I felt sick from a movie was the close up shaky cam in the beginning of Hunger Games.
 
THE-Pink-Dagger said:
Ok, this is incredible. I've watched the 48 fps clip ten times in a row, and then the 24 2 or 3 times. And now, the 24 fps appears slowed down, when the 48 fps feels real and not nearly as fast as when I first watched it.

My brain was being fooled. Just incredible, not a placebo effect, it just feel so good compared to the 24 fps stuff.
Click to expand...

Dito. Thanks Bluerei for your time/work.
 
I present you bleeding edge 48fps .gifs

24fps
iOK7Bpt1bCf29.gif

48fps
iboyiSYtXBUbQp.gif


Don't know if the hoster is going to crap out.

In direct comparison the 48fps looks better. But on it's own it looks weird.
 
Backfoggen said:
I present you bleeding edge 48fps .gifs

24fps
http://i.minus.com/iOK7Bpt1bCf29.gif[IMG]
48fps
[IMG]http://i.minus.com/iboyiSYtXBUbQp.gif[IMG]

Don't know if the hoster is going to crap out.

In direct comparison the 48fps looks better. But on it's own it looks weird.[/QUOTE]
Going to ask a (perhaps) completely idiotic question... but is it possible to make a 24p gif using the 48p gif, but removing every second frame? As of now, we're comparing two completely different motions. And I personally think that's making the comparison harder and perhaps even unfair.
Click to expand...
 
In that example, 48fps looks more pleasing if you switch back and forth, but I don't know how it's going to look in a fantasy film. To me it's all about context.
 
bluerei said:
Ok,
BLUEREI'S RETARDED RED FPS TEST - 24 & 48 FPS

Two files in the zip folder: rocks24.mov and rocks48.mov.

•First half of each clip is ungraded, due to reports of how the clip was shown to the audience ungraded.
•Second half is graded in Redcine-x to give an example of a more cinematic look and color.

rocks48:
•48FPS
•1/270 shutter speed
•2.40:1 Aspect
•2500 ISO
•White balance @ 5000k
•REDCODE 12:1 (default)


rocks24:
•24FPS
•1/48 shutter speed (180 degree)
•2.40:1 Aspect
•500 ISO
•White balance @ 5000k
•REDCODE 12:1 (default)

Zip size is 477mb.


//////////////// DOWNLOAD: http://ge.tt/6Esr9oG/v/0?c ////////////////


If someone wants to rehost it to someplace better, please do and share out the link, thanks!
Click to expand...


Try again tomorrow
Daily traffic limit reached

nnnnnoooooooooooooooo!
 
Metal-Geo said:
Going to ask a (perhaps) completely idiotic question... but is it possible to make a 24p gif using the 48p gif, but removing every second frame? As of now, we're comparing two completely different motions. And I personally think that's making the comparison harder and perhaps even unfair.
Click to expand...

You can do it, but it would be unfair, too.

The 48fps footage has much less motion blur. If you get rid of every second frame, you get a very stuttery 24fps gifs. Because of the missing motion blur.
 
as part of the "older viewers" group i am kinda scared to see this, hopefully i won't be turned off... i hate 3D usually but this is different... HD was strange to me at first as well but i've gotten used to it a little more now that i have my BD player
 
It seems like some people think that 24p was chosen because it was somehow inherently cinematic or better for the screen. It was chosen because film stock was expensive. Movie execs tried to get away with around 15p - literally the lowest you can go and still see motion - but filmmakers insisted on at least 24p so they could sync audio.

If we lived in an alternate universe where movies were always shot in 60p and TV in 24p, we would consider the higher frame rate the more cinematic experience.

Higher frame rate movies may be jarring at first but you'll get used to it. Eventually, 24p will seem abominably slow.
 
WrikaWrek said:
I'm afraid man!!!

I live in a country that broadcasts 4 goddamn different soap operas, back to back, after the night news. I hate how these things look.

Sets look like sets, I don't wanna hear none of that...
Click to expand...

Why do people claim 48fps somehow magically transforms the sets?
 
so as some guys have said, the cinimatic feel is gone, but isnt that due to the unfinished footage they saw at this event?

I am sure they will add some filters and other stuff in postprocess to make it feel more cinematic.
 
Bluerei, why was the 48p footage shot at such a high shutter speed? It's my understanding that shutter speed should typically be double or so the frame rate.
 
My projector won't do 48hz without converting it back to 60hz (the old one did) either way the 48fps clip is terrible, it's like watching motion under strobe lighting.

I'm not bothered about The Hobbit being filmed that way, wasn't ever going to watch it.
 
Crunched said:
That link isn't opening on my phone. Does it explain why the shutter speed is so high? I am guessing it aids in preventing motion blur, but I wonder if it has something to do with 3D or some other aspect I'm not aware of.
Click to expand...

Peter Jackson said:
Converting a film shot at 48 fps down to 24 fps is not a hugely difficult process, but it requires testing to achieve the best results. Some of this involves digital processes during post-production. We are also shooting the film a slightly different way, which is a question several of you asked. Normally you shoot a movie with a 180-degree shutter angle. Changing the shutter angle affects the amount of motion blur captured during movement. Reducing the shutter angle gives you the stroby (or jerky) “Saving Private Ryan” look.

However, we’re going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master.
Click to expand...
It's not that high considering it's 48fps. The math changes depending on the framerate, so at 48fps with 360 degree shutter, you get 1/48th second shutter speed like almost all 24fps movies today (that use 180 degrees). At 48fps with 270 degree shutter, you get 1/64th second shutter speed if I'm doing my math right. I don't really get why they didn't just go with 360 degree on the Hobbit, though.
 
XMonkey said:
It's not that high considering it's 48fps. The math changes depending on the framerate, so at 48fps with 360 degree shutter, you get 1/48th second shutter speed like almost all 24fps movies today (that use 180 degrees). At 48fps with 270 degree shutter, you get 1/64th second shutter speed if I'm doing my math right. I don't really get why they didn't just go with 360 degree on the Hobbit, though.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they wanted to get rid of some of the motion blur, in fast scenes 24fps and 180 degrees can give quite long blur.
 
Messofanego said:
DA FUQ that looks like stop motion?! What's going on here?
Click to expand...

i watched the 48fps video and i didn't know how to accurately describe it except for "... weird." but that's really an apt description, i feel; it does kind of look like stop-motion.

bluerei, would it be possible to shoot, like, a minute of footage of you walking around with the camera and to then upload it somewhere or to torrent it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

First time you say?
2
78
641
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
415
Unknown Soldier replied
The Legend of Korra and Last Airbender Sequel First Look
News 
11
735
lifa-cobex replied
The Fantastic Four: First Steps | Official Trailer
5 6 7 8 9
419
10K
kpopSuperstar replied
Top Bottom