The Hobbit 48fps first impressions

Status
Not open for further replies.
I feel like I'm looking at Old Man Yells At Cloud: The NeoGAF Thread.

Never seen so many people afraid of a technological improvement.

24fps only looks more "cinematic" because you're used to cinema being at 24fps. There's nothing inherent to that frame rate that makes it better, you're just used to it.
 
Some of you guys saying the 48fps rock footage looks like stop motion might not be seeing it correctly simply because your computers can't play it back 1920x800 at full 48fps. For example, I couldn't play it back using Quicktime 7 (it was choppy) but Quicktime 10 played it back smoothly.

Be sure your playback software is ACTUALLY playing it back at full 48fps before you comment.

Also, it would have been better if the person who shot the footage had scaled it down to a smaller resolution. It would have been smaller files and smoother playback on more machines.
 
I wish people would stop comparing it to fake processing on TVs. It is NOT the same. Something recorded natively at 48fps is going to have 48 individual frames. Something recorded or filmed at 24fps is 24fps. You can triple every frame, interpolate frames, or do anything else but it is still always going to be 24fps of information to begin with. Big difference.

I'd love it to look as good as the hype suggests. But to do that I'll need to see it projected properly on the correct equipment.
 
That 48FPS Rocks video creeped me out. Movement and time felt disjointed, as if fast forwarded and not smoother. Maybe it's because my screen refresh rate is 60HZ and the picture is 48FPS. I don't know. It looks eerie and strange.
I'm certainly not fond of it right now.
 
Htown said:
I feel like I'm looking at Old Man Yells At Cloud: The NeoGAF Thread.

Never seen so many people afraid of a technological improvement.

24fps only looks more "cinematic" because you're used to cinema being at 24fps. There's nothing inherent to that frame rate that makes it better, you're just used to it.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

To me, saying 48p isn't "cinematic" like 24p is like saying Double-Stuffed Oreos aren't real Oreos because you don't like the fact that they have double the cream-filling of the original. "Fuck it, they may as well be cupcakes at that point!"
 
123rl said:
I wish people would stop comparing it to fake processing on TVs. It is NOT the same. Something recorded natively at 48fps is going to have 48 individual frames. Something recorded or filmed at 24fps is 24fps. You can triple every frame, interpolate frames, or do anything else but it is still always going to be 24fps of information to begin with. Big difference.

I'd love it to look as good as the hype suggests. But to do that I'll need to see it projected properly on the correct equipment.
Click to expand...

In addition to this, I'd also like to comment on the soap opera-remarks: Soaps are shot at 60 fields per second, at 1/60th of a second shutter. Not only is this footage interlaced, but it also means that there is no period where the camera isn't gathering light from the scene. In a normal film, the camera is gathering light only half the time the frame is displayed, creating an effect of discontinuation between frames. Peter Jackson is retaining this type of effect at 48 fps by shooting with 1/72nd of a second shutter, meaning that the camera gathers light for 2/3 of the frame display time.
 
Htown said:
I feel like I'm looking at Old Man Yells At Cloud: The NeoGAF Thread.

Never seen so many people afraid of a technological improvement.

24fps only looks more "cinematic" because you're used to cinema being at 24fps. There's nothing inherent to that frame rate that makes it better, you're just used to it.
Click to expand...

So why wait until now to make the move? I want to hear what more directors and editors think.
 
Since I don't know and I don't want to see a perfectly fine movie ruined by sketchy tech: Will there be 2D 24FPS version of The Hobbit across cinemas?
 
Htown said:
I feel like I'm looking at Old Man Yells At Cloud: The NeoGAF Thread.

Never seen so many people afraid of a technological improvement.

24fps only looks more "cinematic" because you're used to cinema being at 24fps. There's nothing inherent to that frame rate that makes it better, you're just used to it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it an technological improvement, because that framerate has been available for a very, very long time. It's a preference, not a improvement.
 
ckohler said:
Some of you guys saying the 48fps rock footage looks like stop motion might not be seeing it correctly simply because your computers can't play it back 1920x800 at full 48fps. For example, I couldn't play it back using Quicktime 7 (it was choppy) but Quicktime 10 played it back smoothly.

Be sure your playback software is ACTUALLY playing it back at full 48fps before you comment.

Also, it would have been better if the person who shot the footage had scaled it down to a smaller resolution. It would have been smaller files and smoother playback on more machines.
Click to expand...

I did scale it down to a smaller resolution. It's the bit rate that is the problem. \

Actually, it's you people's slow computers that is the problem. You peoples need to upgrade.
 
jonremedy said:
In addition to this, I'd also like to comment on the soap opera-remarks: Soaps are shot at 60 fields per second, at 1/60th of a second shutter. Not only is this footage interlaced, but it also means that there is no period where the camera isn't gathering light from the scene. In a normal film, the camera is gathering light only half the time the frame is displayed, creating an effect of discontinuation between frames. Peter Jackson is retaining this type of effect at 48 fps by shooting with 1/72nd of a second shutter, meaning that the camera gathers light for 2/3 of the frame display time.
Click to expand...

Cool, I didn't know that. Peter Jackson knows his shit so I have complete faith in him. He knows what he's doing. Outside of any artistic merit*, he's an incredibly good technical director

*Although I enjoy all of his films too.
 
Htown said:
I feel like I'm looking at Old Man Yells At Cloud: The NeoGAF Thread.

Never seen so many people afraid of a technological improvement.

24fps only looks more "cinematic" because you're used to cinema being at 24fps. There's nothing inherent to that frame rate that makes it better, you're just used to it.
Click to expand...
Hi Five. Agreed.
 
mrklaw said:
when they move to 48fps, does that mean they'll project 48fps of actual movie, or they'll project at 96fps and have black frames between as before?
Click to expand...

Probably not. Think if it more as not really having the image projected 100% of the time, its not really being projected at higher FPS.

There is some weird effect when an image is displayed for the entire frame. I think it goes back to the classic 180 degree shutter angle. If you display and image taken in 1/48sec shutter speed for the entire 1/24sec duration it looks very weird. This was an issue with early LCD TVs and why they introduced strobing backlights and such.

With a 48fps source this may not be as necessary, IDK. I am not an "expert" but I find this stuff interesting. I would image they will do allot of focus testing to figure out what looks best.
 
AtomicShroom said:
People thinking that a 48fps movie will look the same as a live TV broadcast or soap need to realize that a whole lot of expensive image post-processing is done to movies to make them look the way they do. You're basically comparing unaltered raw footage to footage that's spent weeks being post-processed. 48fps movies will definitely not look as cheap as 48fps soaps.
Click to expand...

Except the footage the OP discusses is the footage from The Hobbit shown at the ComicCon convention. I think its safe to assume they showed the best possible footage to try to wow viewers, and not footage without with the post production magic.
 
ckohler said:
Some of you guys saying the 48fps rock footage looks like stop motion might not be seeing it correctly simply because your computers can't play it back 1920x800 at full 48fps. For example, I couldn't play it back using Quicktime 7 (it was choppy) but Quicktime 10 played it back smoothly.

Be sure your playback software is ACTUALLY playing it back at full 48fps before you comment.

Also, it would have been better if the person who shot the footage had scaled it down to a smaller resolution. It would have been smaller files and smoother playback on more machines.
Click to expand...

This, please. It was choppy as hell on my computer.
 
I seriously don't have any problems with 24fps, unless it's a really bad torrented film where it drops constantly.

I do however get incredibly uncomfortable with anything higher than that in film, so I'd rather not see this become the new thing, that is until I'm proven wrong.
 
pottuvoi said:
I'm quite sure that he miss shot it.
The motion blur is not 3/4 of frame time in the 48fps video, things literally jump around in the video.
Click to expand...

TCRS said:
.
Click to expand...
Ahh ... saw bluerei's update. Apparently it was shot wrong. I hadn't seen it yet to confirm.





Tobor said:
I have two questions about 48fps:

1. This requires an investment by the movie theaters, right? New equipment, or an upgrade to existing equipment?

2. Are they going to use this as an excuse for another surcharge? I don't want a repeat of 3D.
Click to expand...
Most of the digital projectors out their support 48fps playback, at least via SW update. They're making a concerted effort to get things prepared. Shouldn't really cost more.

Film projectors on the other hand would require a mechanical update (though not replacement technically) ... but I don't know if there are mass-produced solutions for it. I don't expect anyone will pursue that though. Film will see the 24p cut.
 
ckohler said:
Also, it would have been better if the person who shot the footage had scaled it down to a smaller resolution. It would have been smaller files and smoother playback on more machines.
Click to expand...
PhoncipleBone said:
This, please. It was choppy as hell on my computer.
Click to expand...

Resolution is not the problem, it's the high bit rate of the raw footage that RED uses. I'm trying to keep this as close as possible to what Peter Jackson would be shooting without giving you a 4K resolution file. Lower bit rate can ruin the image and dampen the effect of what would actually be shown in theaters.

Upgrade your video card/cpu.
 
bluerei said:
Resolution is not the problem, it's the high bit rate of the raw footage that RED uses. I'm trying to keep this as close as possible to what Peter Jackson would be shooting without giving you a 4K resolution file. Lower bit rate can ruin the image and dampen the effect of what would actually be shown in theaters.

Upgrade your video card/cpu.
Click to expand...

Having it compressed better would not really affect how the eyes perceive it. And to have to upgrade my computer just to watch a file that should be compressed better in the first place is ridiculous.

So since Blu Ray discs are compressed and at a lower bit rate than the original files many digital movies are shot in I am watching them wrong too?
 
jonremedy said:
Peter Jackson is retaining this type of effect at 48 fps by shooting with 1/72nd of a second shutter, meaning that the camera gathers light for 2/3 of the frame display time.
Click to expand...
I'm quite certain that 270 degrees is 3/4 of 360, so with 48fps he's using 1/64 shutter.
 
Binabik15 said:
What a hack, doesn't Jackson realize that the human eye can only see 24 frames per second?

Aren't movies already projected at 48 fps in every movie theatre outside of maybe North Korea to reduce eye stress and improve image clarity? So using 48 real frames instead of 2*24 would be the same for the projector and no upgrade needed.

Personally I would've wanted 60, just because I'm justed to it from gaming and I wouldn't need a new 48/240 Hertz tv.
Click to expand...

lol, I figured I'd bail for a few pages and come back, but things are only getting worse...wtf is this?

Fudgepuppy said:
I seriously don't have any problems with 24fps, unless it's a really bad torrented film where it drops constantly.

I do however get incredibly uncomfortable with anything higher than that in film, so I'd rather not see this become the new thing, that is until I'm proven wrong.
Click to expand...
?
 
effzee said:
Except the footage the OP discusses is the footage from The Hobbit shown at the ComicCon convention. I think its safe to assume they showed the best possible footage to try to wow viewers, and not footage without with the post production magic.
Click to expand...

Well the footage contained green screens without the effect in place for some scenes, and I believe it was said that the footage was not graded yet either.
 
Strange that the 24fps version looks smoother due to the motion blur. Looks like the 48fps version is missing motion blur for some reason and made it look *raw*.
 
PhoncipleBone said:
Having it compressed better would not really affect how the eyes perceive it. And to have to upgrade my computer just to watch a file that should be compressed better in the first place is ridiculous.

So since Blu Ray discs are compressed and at a lower bit rate than the original files many digital movies are shot in I am watching them wrong too?
Click to expand...


Welcome to technology - Upgrade. Compression is what is holding video quality back. Going from 100mbps to 15mbps for the web does affect image quality.

And yes. Blu Ray compressed does not look good compared to raw footage. A lot of publishers digitally sharpen the image as well. But blu-ray still does 40mbps which is not as bad, but you will still see artifacts in darker areas and banding across your stops of latitude as well.
 
bluerei said:
Welcome to technology - Upgrade. Compression is what is holding video quality back. Going from 100mbps to 15mbps for the web does affect image quality.

And yes. Blu Ray compressed does not look good compared to raw footage. A lot of publishers digitally sharpen the image as well. But blu-ray still does 40mbps which is not as bad, but you will still see artifacts in some shadow areas and banding as well.
Click to expand...

I understand how technology works, but having to upgrade a computer just to watch a video that is running at about 100mbps when the same effect can be achieved with a lot less data is stupid.

So your rocks video is a high work of art that cannot be sullied by compression, and every piece of entertainment out there that is compressed to make it usable by 99% of the world is wrong? Give me a fucking break and get over yourself.

You know what not taking the time to make a well compressed version that still has the image clarity needed to see the effect is? Lazy. Pure laziness. I like that you took the time to shoot the stuff to show it to people wanting to see the effect, but the fact that you have your head up in the clouds that you can't be bothered to actually make something that is more universally compatible is just lazy.
 
EmSeta said:
I find the negativity baffling. You guys realize that the ONLY reason you're bashing this is because you're not used to it, don't you?

It's like turning down HD because it looks "unfamiliar". Just get used to it - and you won't want to go back.
Click to expand...

If that was true, there would have been an equivalent backlash when HD came out.

And before you refer to a supposed HD backlash, the complaints of your aunt who didn't know how to properly hook up her new television doesn't count.
 
PhoncipleBone said:
Having it compressed better would not really affect how the eyes perceive it. And to have to upgrade my computer just to watch a file that should be compressed better in the first place is ridiculous.

So since Blu Ray discs are compressed and at a lower bit rate than the original files many digital movies are shot in I am watching them wrong too?
Click to expand...

The dude is doing this thread a favor using a very expensive camera and his own time. He doesn't owe you footage that works on your computer. You aren't paying him for his work. Get over yourself.
 
123rl said:
I wish people would stop comparing it to fake processing on TVs. It is NOT the same. Something recorded natively at 48fps is going to have 48 individual frames. Something recorded or filmed at 24fps is 24fps. You can triple every frame, interpolate frames, or do anything else but it is still always going to be 24fps of information to begin with. Big difference.

I'd love it to look as good as the hype suggests. But to do that I'll need to see it projected properly on the correct equipment.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying it's exact. They're using examples like that because it's a point of reference to make a comparison to. Of course people know that interpolation is making up frames, but it doesn't mean that at moments, the effect is there that is simulating a look that you can compare to. While not exact, it's a frame of reference. The same with people comparing it to soap operas. Videos running at 60hz/fps/p/i often have a certain look, something that sorta pops out to you more than it does at 30 hz/fps/p. It doesn't matter if it's games, videos, movies, live broadcasts, there is a common look that makes it instantly obvious it's running at a higher framerate. That look is what people don't want. So let's not get caught up in things like soap operas to mask the real point that people are making.
 
PhoncipleBone said:
I understand how technology works, but having to upgrade a computer just to watch a video that is running at about 100mbps when the same effect can be achieved with a lot less data is stupid.

So your rocks video is a high work of art that cannot be sullied by compression, and every piece of entertainment out there that is compressed to make it usable by 99% of the world is wrong? Give me a fucking break and get over yourself.

You know what not taking the time to make a well compressed version that still has the image clarity needed to see the effect is? Lazy. Pure laziness. I like that you took the time to shoot the stuff to show it to people wanting to see the effect, but the fact that you have your head up in the clouds that you can't be bothered to actually make something that is more universally compatible is just lazy.
Click to expand...

Why are you on his ass for? If he doesn't want to do it, he doesn't have to. He did something nice for us. If you can't watch it on your PC, big deal, the world goes on.

I can't watch it either on my old PC correctly. I will have to wait for the theater experience!
 
mcfrank said:
The dude is doing this thread a favor using a very expensive camera and his own time. He doesn't owe you footage that works on your computer. You aren't paying him for his work. Get over yourself.
Click to expand...

I was not the only one commenting about the need to make it more compatible. And I did thank him for making the video.


ThatCrazyGuy said:
Why are you on his ass for? If he doesn't want to do it, he doesn't have to. He did something nice for us. If you can't watch it on your PC, big deal, the world goes on.

I can't watch it either on my old PC correctly. I will have to wait for the theater experience!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was a bit harsh. And for that I am sorry. It was just the way I read his comments about the footage that just rubbed me totally wrong. It just came across as "my stuff is too good to ruin by compressing it." Which just made him seem like an insufferable, stuck up dick. And that is what pissed me off. It would still be nice if he would lower himself to making something that would play on more systems so that everyone, including you, could have a better idea on how the framerate playback looks.

So I did get a bit heated in my response, and I am sorry.
 
PhoncipleBone said:
I understand how technology works, but having to upgrade a computer just to watch a video that is running at about 100mbps when the same effect can be achieved with a lot less data is stupid.

So your rocks video is a high work of art that cannot be sullied by compression, and every piece of entertainment out there that is compressed to make it usable by 99% of the world is wrong? Give me a fucking break and get over yourself.
Click to expand...

No. Maybe to the untrained eye. Which in that case, this video is not for you.

The point of this experiment is to keep it as close as possible to what was shown to the press. How do you not get that? We're not trying to cater to those with a crappy computer like yourself.

It's not wrong to cater to people, but holding back technology and compressing footage because people don't want to have to upgrade is wrong for the art of film making and how it should be viewed.
 
I'm just wondering if, assuming 48fps takes off, 24fps could still stick around for artistic reasons. Could we expect hybrid movies where action is shown at 48fps and character scenes are shown at 24 unique fps (through frame doubling)?
 
bluerei said:
Welcome to technology - Upgrade. Compression is what is holding video quality back. Going from 100mbps to 15mbps for the web does affect image quality.
Click to expand...

The whole point of this exercise is for the general community here to see some 48fps footage compared to some 24fps. I appreciate your attention to detail on trying to recreate what the final Hobbit movie experience will look like but playing that footage on the average home computer just isn't realistic or helpful. If half the people here can't play your content, then you've added little real evidence to the debate.

Please, consider reshooting some lower bit-rate, lower res 48fps footage. If it gets a bit blurry because of compression it's no big deal. Honest. We won't hold it against you. A nice, small, smooth playing video shot at 48fps is all we're interested in seeing.
 
ckohler said:
The whole point of this exercise is for the general community here to see some 48fps footage compared to some 24fps. I appreciate your attention to detail on trying to recreate what the final Hobbit movie experience will look like but playing that footage on the average home computer just isn't realistic or helpful. If half the people here can't play your content, then you've added little real evidence to the debate.

Please, consider reshooting some lower bit-rate, lower res 48fps footage. If it gets a bit blurry because of compression it's no big deal. Honest. We won't hold it against you. A nice, small, smooth playing video shot at 48fps is all we're interested in seeing.
Click to expand...

Compression and artifacts messes with motion blur and fast-moving objects, making the exercise pointless. If anything, Adobe Premiere has a 30-day trial where you can grab the footage and export it to whatever setting works best for your computer.
 
mcfrank said:
So you weren't the only overly entitled jerk, well done. Nice defense for being a douche.
Click to expand...

So ckohler asking for the same below is being an entitled jerk? Give me a break. I admitted that I came across as an ass. Maybe you should do the same.

ckohler said:
The whole point of this exercise is for the general community here to see some 48fps footage compared to some 24fps. I appreciate your attention to detail on trying to recreate what the final Hobbit movie experience will look like but playing that footage on the average home computer just isn't realistic or helpful. If half the people here can't play your content, then you've added little real evidence to the debate.

Please, consider reshooting some lower bit-rate, lower res 48fps footage. If it gets a bit blurry because of compression it's no big deal. Honest. We won't hold it against you. A nice, small, smooth playing video shot at 48fps is all we're interested in seeing.
Click to expand...

Thank you for writing up a more reasoned response.


bluerei said:
Compression and artifacts messes with motion blur and fast-moving objects, making the exercise pointless. If anything, Adobe Premiere has a 30-day trial where you can grab the footage and export it to whatever setting works best for your computer.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think you are getting what he was asking for or what his and my complaint was.


jett said:
Surely bluerei won't approve :P but I made a lower-quality version of his video. From 400MB to 6MB. :lol The computationally challenged can enjoy the weirdness now:

http://ge.tt/4TLWzpG/v/0?c
Click to expand...


Thank you, Jett.
 
PhoncipleBone said:
I understand how technology works, but having to upgrade a computer just to watch a video that is running at about 100mbps when the same effect can be achieved with a lot less data is stupid.

So your rocks video is a high work of art that cannot be sullied by compression, and every piece of entertainment out there that is compressed to make it usable by 99% of the world is wrong? Give me a fucking break and get over yourself.

You know what not taking the time to make a well compressed version that still has the image clarity needed to see the effect is? Lazy. Pure laziness. I like that you took the time to shoot the stuff to show it to people wanting to see the effect, but the fact that you have your head up in the clouds that you can't be bothered to actually make something that is more universally compatible is just lazy.
Click to expand...

Here is an idea dumb ass, why don't you take the file and re-compress it yourself?
 
PhoncipleBone said:
So your rocks video is a high work of art that cannot be sullied by compression, and every piece of entertainment out there that is compressed to make it usable by 99% of the world is wrong? Give me a fucking break and get over yourself.

You know what not taking the time to make a well compressed version that still has the image clarity needed to see the effect is? Lazy. Pure laziness. I like that you took the time to shoot the stuff to show it to people wanting to see the effect, but the fact that you have your head up in the clouds that you can't be bothered to actually make something that is more universally compatible is just lazy.
Click to expand...

Asking politely for a more compatible version doesn't make you a jerk. What I quoted above does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

First time you say?
2
78
637
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
414
Unknown Soldier replied
The Legend of Korra and Last Airbender Sequel First Look
News 
11
733
lifa-cobex replied
The Fantastic Four: First Steps | Official Trailer
5 6 7 8 9
419
10K
kpopSuperstar replied
Top Bottom