The Hobbit 48fps first impressions

Status
Not open for further replies.
StuBurns said:
48fps and 3D don't stop a 24fps 2D version being issued, as of right now, it's a great middle ground for people. 60fps doesn't have a perfect 24fps pulldown unfortunately, so there is reason to be concerned with future higher frame rate films, but right now, it should be fine for everyone.
Click to expand...

That's not completely true for 48->24 though, is it? Motion-blur will be half what your eyes expect to see if you just cut out half the frames, although I don't know how obvious that would be.
 
Nick Laslett said:
Yes, it was a worthwhile challenge. I have edited my earlier post.

I quite enjoyed reminiscing my first viewing of Lawrence of Arabia on a letterboxed PAL VHS tape, on a 32” Philips TV, with awful digital processing that could not be disabled. The image was like a postage stamp and full of digital pixilation.

But I thought the film was amazing.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how I saw it the first time, too. Actually it was on a 20" SDTV! Albeit a rather nice one, and on DVD. I still loved it.

Saw it in 70mm last year though. Motherofgod.gif
 
OchAyeTheNoo said:
That's not completely true for 48->24 though, is it? Motion-blur will be half what your eyes expect to see if you just cut out half the frames, although I don't know how obvious that would be.
Click to expand...
That would depend on the shutter speed of the film, standard is 1/48, in which case there should be no difference should there?
 
Finally watched bluerei's footage and... ugh, 48fps is even LESS cinematic than I had imagined. Very disappointing.

I will keep an open mind and I will see the Hobbit and try to adjust but damn this is just such an ugly look.
 
ThatCrazyGuy said:
yea, that blu ray comment is so weird. I haven't felt "warmth" missing from any of my blu ray movies.
Click to expand...

Precisely. I would never describe the Ultimate Edition of Blade Runner, for example, as sterile. In fact, the color quality in Blu Ray usually leads in the opposite direction, where stuff like digital animation is almost excessively saturated compared to DVD.
 
Crunched said:
Unsurprising impressions. I think the most salient comment is about younger audiences being wowed and older ones put off.
Click to expand...

I think that second comment is telling with the whole adjustment period sentiment. Remember when channels first started broadcasting in HD? There were so many jokes about how it looked worse than SD. I felt the same way at first, and now I can't imagine going back.

It will have a period of adjustment, some 'purists' will hold out, but eventually we'll get used to it and wonder how we ever tolerated movies before it.
 
nel e nel said:
I think that second comment is telling with the whole adjustment period sentiment. Remember when channels first started broadcasting in HD? There were so many jokes about how it looked worse than SD. I felt the same way at first, and now I can't imagine going back.

It will have a period of adjustment, some 'purists' will hold out, but eventually we'll get used to it and wonder how we ever tolerated movies before it.
Click to expand...

I don't think I ever had that reaction barring the shitty motion interpolation.

A straight up HD picture playing on a good HD tv has always been bliss for me.

But that 48p video was not.
 
StuBurns said:
You can reduce quality though, you can't increase it. You could master a ProTools recording to two-track half-inch, and result in the same degradation you require, you can't go from a sixteen track tape recording to a ProTools session and have the benefits of the sterile recording.

48fps and 3D don't stop a 24fps 2D version being issued, as of right now, it's a great middle ground for people. 60fps doesn't have a perfect 24fps pulldown unfortunately, so there is reason to be concerned with future higher frame rate films, but right now, it should be fine for everyone.
Click to expand...

Yeah, totally, and i'm all for people going for it, but it could be a bumpy ride. I've spent time on film sets, and a lot of the time the less 'real' the footage is can only help. You don't want to see the glue in a Dwarfs moustache. That's the movie magic. For digital movies, it'll be awesome.

To go back to your tape point, the difference between multitracking a session so all 8 / 16 /24 etc tracks mix to the one tape over dumping to a 2 track is huge. It's the way it glues the tracks that's part of the magic, but that's not for here :)
 
A brief recap for those who missed it...

Video Files
GIF of 24fps
GIF of 48fps

Credit goes to bluerei for the amazing footage.

izagLsWsq5uB7.jpg
 
The shutter speed change really helped with the 48p versions. It's definitely jarring either way...but after watching it a few times I really got used to it.

Assuming The Hobbit will be over two hours, I have no doubt that audiences have gotten used to it by the end.
 
Going back to 24fps footage after watching 48fps for a prolonged time makes 24fps look like complete crap, like slow-motion. Same effect as going from a 60fps game to a 30fps one really.
 
Zeppelin said:
Huh, interesting. It does indeed look like the 48 fps footage is sped up. It looks really weird. I honestly didn't except to react like this to it. For Jackson's sake I really hope one gets used to it quickly. It's also interesting that panning still isn't smooth at 48 fps.
Click to expand...
It would look smoother if we would have monitor which can show 48fps properly.
Meaning a monitor with true 48, 96, 144, 192 or 240hz output.

On 120hz monitor it does look considerable better than on 60hz monitor due to the reduced judder, but it is still noticeable.
 
I feel weird in this thread. To me the 48fps material needs absolutely no getting used into. It just looks better than the 24 one and when viewed after another, the 24 material looks choppy as fuck.

Sure it looks more familiar because that's how movies look, but it is objectively worse in comparison.
 
pottuvoi said:
It would look smoother if we would have monitor which can show 48fps properly.
Meaning a monitor with true 48, 96, 144, 192 or 240hz output.

On 120hz monitor it does look considerable better than on 60hz monitor due to the reduced judder, but it is still noticeable.
Click to expand...

Hm, yeah right. I didn't think of that. What's the reason for doing 48 fps instead of 60? Lower costs?
 
Reading the negativity here and across the web is baffling. I guess almost an entire century of a standard being ingrained into the eyes, minds and hearts of individuals is going to create resistance to something that does not feel familiar. But regardless... 24 frames per second needs to end. We have made significant progress in image resolution, color resolution, audio resolution... why not motion resolution? The more I watch the 48fps video the more I want that to become the new BARE MINIMUM standard.

We are in the year 2012.... not 1942. Why are we still bound by the technologies established almost a century ago? If I remember correctly... 24 frames per second was decided due to economic reasons more than visual/aesthetic reasons. Most people simply became too acclimated to a standard that was never meant to offer the best visual showcase.
 
Zeppelin said:
Hm, yeah right. I didn't think of that. What's the reason for doing 48 fps instead of 60? Lower costs?
Click to expand...
The camera and projector technology is there. Most theatres should be able to display 48 fps with an update. Plus 60 fps has obvious additional storage requirements. So yeah, lower costs.
 
Zeppelin said:
Hm, yeah right. I didn't think of that. What's the reason for doing 48 fps instead of 60? Lower costs?
Click to expand...

I know this wasn't directed at me and I'm not the most knowledgeable on this topic. But from my research on this issue back when they announced 48 frames I think it was due to theater compatibility. I believe almost ALL (film and digital) theater projectors operate at 48Hz. Each frame is lit up on the screen twice. Some projectors do it three times but 48 guarantees wider compatibility. I THINK! But I'll let the experts chime in on this topic.
 
ascii42 said:
The camera and projector technology is there. Most theatres should be able to display 48 fps with an update. Plus 60 fps has obvious additional storage requirements. So yeah, lower costs.
Click to expand...

AstroNut325 said:
I know this wasn't directed at me and I'm not the most knowledgeable on this topic. But from my research on this issue back when they announced 48 frames I think it was due to theater compatibility. I believe almost ALL (film and digital) theater projectors operate at 48Hz. Each frame is lit up on the screen twice. Some projectors do it three times but 48 guarantees wider compatibility. I THINK! But I'll let the experts chime in on this topic.
Click to expand...

Ah, I guess that makes sense!
 
Zeppelin said:
Hm, yeah right. I didn't think of that. What's the reason for doing 48 fps instead of 60? Lower costs?
Click to expand...

ascii42 said:
The camera and projector technology is there. Most theatres should be able to display 48 fps with an update. Plus 60 fps has obvious additional storage requirements. So yeah, lower costs.
Click to expand...

Lower cost is not an issue at all.

48 allows for more flexibility in post when distributing to theaters with different specifications. Not only that but it doesn't entirely kill the cinematic feel that 60 wouldn't be able to pull off. Another reason is for 3d. Another reason is the speed on the REDMAGs. Another reason is sending 5k 60fps through gig-e ports.
 
bluerei said:
Lower cost is not an issue at all.

48 allows for more flexibility in post when distributing to theaters with different specifications. Not only that but it doesn't entirely kill the cinematic feel that 60 wouldn't be able to pull off. Another reason is for 3d. Another reason is the speed on the REDMAGs. Another reason is sending 5k 60fps through gig-e ports.
Click to expand...

cinematic feel? isn't the only reason 24fps has a cinematic feel to you is because thats all you know?

so once 48 fps because the only option in movie theaters, it will by default have that "cinematic feel" that you love so much.
 
sega4ever said:
cinematic feel? isn't the only reason 24fps has a cinematic feel to you is because thats all you know?

so once 48 fps because the only option in movie theaters, it will by default have that "cinematic feel" that you love so much.
Click to expand...

For almost 100 years, 24p has been the standard for movies and cinema, hence what I am talking about when I say "cinematic feel". That's all anyone has known. And 24p isn't leaving any time soon.
 
bluerei said:
Lower cost is not an issue at all.

48 allows for more flexibility in post when distributing to theaters with different specifications. Not only that but it doesn't entirely kill the cinematic feel that 60 wouldn't be able to pull off. Another reason is for 3d. Another reason is the speed on the REDMAGs. Another reason is sending 5k 60fps through gig-e ports.
Click to expand...

There is still a cost consideration, those extra 12 frames per second of VFX don't render themselves. Well, they do but.....well, you know what I mean!
 
48FPS is absolutely needed for 3D movies. For whatever reason motion blur just doesn't work as well in them, and they look very choppy. For 2D footage I'm fine with 24, and I think I prefer it, as it makes movies feel less real. With very high framerates there could also be a problem with inducing nausea in people when camera moves around, far easier than with lower framerates. That's a pretty well documented fact from games.
 
AstroNut325 said:
Reading the negativity here and across the web is baffling. I guess almost an entire century of a standard being ingrained into the eyes, minds and hearts of individuals is going to create resistance to something that does not feel familiar. But regardless... 24 frames per second needs to end. We have made significant progress in image resolution, color resolution, audio resolution... why not motion resolution? The more I watch the 48fps video the more I want that to become the new BARE MINIMUM standard.

We are in the year 2012.... not 1942. Why are we still bound by the technologies established almost a century ago? If I remember correctly... 24 frames per second was decided due to economic reasons more than visual/aesthetic reasons. Most people simply became too acclimated to a standard that was never meant to offer the best visual showcase.
Click to expand...
The industry has had plenty of times to switch to higher framerates. Starting with Showscan.
The only reason cameron himself has became interested in 48fps is because of the documentaries hes worked with(Ghosts of the abyss) shot on video.
So basically youre all supporting the idea of making movies looking like documentaries, the daily news, and espn football.
 
I find it funny how i never notice 24 FPS in movies, yet in games its absolutely horrendous and i want to go back to 50-60 FPS as fast as possible.
 
Nappuccino said:
Bluerei: A quick question about the 24p video.

Did you just remove 1/2 the frames of the 48p one? I ask because it seems more jarring (mostly in the pan) than most films I've seen.

It seems to me that could be explained by missing 1/2 of the information (so whatever motion blur there would be to cover that up is gone)
Click to expand...

They were 2 different recordings. The 24p was captured at 24p and using the traditional shutter speed (180 degrees).





OchAyeTheNoo said:
That's not completely true for 48->24 though, is it? Motion-blur will be half what your eyes expect to see if you just cut out half the frames, although I don't know how obvious that would be.
Click to expand...
That depends on the shutter speed being used.

In the case of the Hobbit, he's using a 270 degree shutter, so it wouldn't be quite as little as that.





Marty Chinn said:
What? Anyone who has watched TV has seen video running at 60 fps before.
Click to expand...
Most video is 30 fps
 
Bisnic said:
I find it funny how i never notice 24 FPS in movies, yet in games its absolutely horrendous and i want to go back to 50-60 FPS as fast as possible.
Click to expand...

The difference is one is more artificial and can lack things like motion blur that you're accustomed to. Not to mention, games are an interactive media to which framerate can hinder where as movies are a passive medium.
 
mclaren777 said:
A brief recap for those who missed it...

Video Files
GIF of 24fps
GIF of 48fps

Credit goes to bluerei for the amazing footage.

izagLsWsq5uB7.jpg
Click to expand...

Very cool comparison. To be fair, though, the clip is short enough and the subject is cropped close enough that I don't see a massively large difference. The motion is smoother on the 48 fps version, for sure and the impression of higher resolution is there. The 48fps version feels more "live" and the 24 fps feels like it occurred in the past.

Ultimately, I think the choice of which tech is used will depend on the story a filmmaker is telling. The reaction most of having against the 48 seems to be that it doesn't fit the Hobbit very well.
 
Loofy said:
The industry has had plenty of times to switch to higher framerates. Starting with Showscan.
The only reason cameron himself has became interested in 48fps is because of the documentaries hes worked with(Ghosts of the abyss) shot on video.
So basically youre all supporting the idea of making movies looking like documentaries, the daily news, and espn football.
Click to expand...

It would not have been economically or logistically feasible for high-frame rate movies in the 70s and 80s. And even the 90s. It's the advent of digital media production that allows it to finally be feasible.

And no, I don't support the idea of making everything look like documentaries or news. I support the idea of pushing the visual envelope to new level and seeing the full potential of the digital media revolution.

Edit:
Just watched those GIFs. The 24p one looks like a choppy mess compared to 48!
 
Marty Chinn said:
Depends on what you mean by 30 fps; it can mean 60i which is 60 unique frames of motion. Anyone who has watched TV has probably at one point or another seen 60 unique frames of motion.
Click to expand...
60i is normally used to broadcast 60 fields not frames,


It would be quite rare for broadcasters to send out 60p content via 60i as it produces some serious interlacing artifacts when displayed
 
Raistlin said:
60i is 60 fields not frames, and it would be quite rare for broadcasters to send out 60p content via 60i as it produces some serious interlacing artifacts.
Click to expand...

I understand 60i is fields because two fields make a single frame, but the point is the motion information. We're hung up on the technical term and ignoring what information is actually being given. Anyone who has watched a live event has seen something with 60 individual updates of information per second. Are you trying to say no video source is being updated 60 times a second on the display?
 
AstroNut325 said:
Edit:
Just watched those GIFs. The 24p one looks like a choppy mess compared to 48!
Click to expand...

Note: those gifs were from the original comparison where the 48p was shot with the wrong shutter speed. The 'correct' version looks substantially smoother.





Marty Chinn said:
I understand 60i is fields because two fields make a single frame, but the point is the motion information. We're hung up on the technical term and ignoring what information is actually being given. Anyone who has watched a live event has seen something with 60 individual updates of information per second. Are you trying to say no video source is being updated 60 times a second on the display?
Click to expand...
check my edit


The issue is displaying 60 fps content via interlaced broadcast looks shitty. While there may be out layers, I'd be pretty surprised if this was done in the past. With the availability of 720p60 broadcasting, it may occur occasionally now.
 
Marty Chinn said:
Depends on what you mean by 30 fps; it can mean 60i which is 60 unique frames of motion. Anyone who has watched TV has probably at one point or another seen 60 unique frames of motion.
Click to expand...
This is true. 60i is not the same thing as 30p.
But there is 60fps content on tv. List of 720p stations.
"720p: ABC, Fox, ESPN Networks (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPNU, ESPN 3D), A&E Networks (A&E, History, History International, Crime & Investigation, Biography), Fox Sports Net, Fox News, Fox Business, FX, CBS College Sports, MLB Network, Disney Channels (Disney, DXD, Disney Kids, ABC Family), Speed Channel, Fuel, Big Ten Network, SportsSouth, Sunshine Sports Network, SportsTime Ohio"

AstroNut325 said:
It would not have been economically or logistically feasible for high-frame rate movies in the 70s and 80s. And even the 90s. It's the advent of digital media production that allows it to finally be feasible.
Click to expand...
Yes and thats also what they said about 3D in the 60s. But its obvious 3D isnt gonna replace 2D.

And no, I don't support the idea of making everything look like documentaries or news. I support the idea of pushing the visual envelope to new level and seeing the full potential of the digital media revolution.
Click to expand...
Thats fine. My reply was more towards the '24fps is a thing of the past' crowd.
 
jett said:
Going back to 24fps footage after watching 48fps for a prolonged time makes 24fps look like complete crap, like slow-motion. Same effect as going from a 60fps game to a 30fps one really.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the '48fps looks faster.' and '24fps looks like slow-motion now.' people at all, for movies or games. It's just smooth vs. choppy to me.
 
Loofy said:
This is true. 60i is not the same thing as 30p.
Click to expand...
People are confusing source material and broadcasting.

Look up how deinterlacing works. 60i broadcasting is traditionally used for 24p and 30p content.

But there is 60fps content on tv. List of 720p stations.
"720p: ABC, Fox, ESPN Networks (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPNU, ESPN 3D), A&E Networks (A&E, History, History International, Crime & Investigation, Biography), Fox Sports Net, Fox News, Fox Business, FX, CBS College Sports, MLB Network, Disney Channels (Disney, DXD, Disney Kids, ABC Family), Speed Channel, Fuel, Big Ten Network, SportsSouth, Sunshine Sports Network, SportsTime Ohio"
Click to expand...
That says zero about what the source framerates are.
 
Raistlin said:
People are confusing source material and broadcasting.

Look up how deinterlacing works. 60i broadcasting is traditionally used for 24p and 30p content.
Click to expand...
And 60p broadcasts dont use 24p and 30p content? That doesnt make sense.
Im talking about the motion anyways. 60i does not look like 30p.

That says zero about what the source framerates are.
Click to expand...
Im just pointing out what theyre capable of.
 
Since we're talking high framerates I accidentally stumbled upon this yesterday. It seems to be filmed at 60fps, or something similar. Thought you might find it interesting.
 
Raistlin said:
check my edit


The issue is displaying 60 fps content via interlaced broadcast looks shitty. While there may be out layers, I'd be pretty surprised if this was done in the past. With the availability of 720p60 broadcasting, it may occur occasionally now.
Click to expand...

Fine, let me clarify. By using the term frame, I'm talking about unique updates per second in this case. Tekken on the PS1 ran at 60i but everyone technically called it 60 frames per second, even among game development because you were getting 60 unique frames of motion. People have seen 60 unique pieces of information displayed on a TV. Quality aside, they've seen the motion. If there wasn't any difference, you could take that live broadcast, encode it at 30fps and it should look the same; it doesn't. In fact one of the biggest annoyances for me was when Survivor went from SD to HD and it cut the framerate in half as a result.
 
Loofy said:
huh all the content on a 720p station is native 60fps content? no, that does not make sense.
And thats what I said.
Click to expand...

nvm
Read it backwards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

First time you say?
2
78
625
Amakusa replied
The first ever documented Spider-Man fan film
2
303
kunonabi replied
Elon Musk Just Became The First Person Ever Worth $500 Billion
News Business 
48
411
Unknown Soldier replied
The Legend of Korra and Last Airbender Sequel First Look
News 
11
727
lifa-cobex replied
The Fantastic Four: First Steps | Official Trailer
5 6 7 8 9
419
10K
kpopSuperstar replied
Top Bottom