The Hobbit 48fps first impressions

Status
Not open for further replies.
48fps is basically the film equivalent of terminal cancer. :(

I couldn't even make it to the end before I had to close the window.
 
The 48fps one looks great.

Not that the 24fps doesn't, but now the 48fps one is clearly better, unlike in the rock one, where you could see duplicated images all over.
 
BTW, I don't think u understand how much I hate h.264 gamma boost. The original quality looks SOOOO much better. I could have done quicktime animation codec, but the file probably would have been around 2GB.

I hate h.264.
 
im not sure how well my 60hz monitor is able to reproduce this


but my quick reactions are:
man this looks really fucking weird
but then i went back to the 24 and realized it looked REALLY low framerate after watching the 48
now after watching thye 48 a few more times im used to it and i'm pretty sure this is going to look fucking awesome
 
Looks great, but let's keep in mind that even this isn't representative of how 48fps will look in theaters because of the refresh rate of monitors. For instance, the panning shot at the end has a clear judder effect that won't be present in the theaters.
 
Nerfgun said:
Blasphemy! H.264 is a miracle handed down by the gods and you will respect it.

yes the gamma can be problematic. Don't use the Apple encoder if you can help it
Click to expand...

H.264 as a standard is fine. The Apple H.264 encoder is pure garbage... The x264 encoder is sooo much better.
 
mattp said:
im not sure how well my 60hz monitor is able to reproduce this


but my quick reactions are:
man this looks really fucking weird
but then i went back to the 24 and realized it looked REALLY low framerate after watching the 48
now after watching thye 48 a few more times im used to it and i'm pretty sure this is going to look fucking awesome
Click to expand...

Yep its all about perception. Our brain is so used to seeing a certain style of format the new one automatically triggers a discomfort response, but because the change is about smoothing it closer to our normal reality it won't take long for it to be comfortable. However having said that I think 24 to 48 FPS change should only be done by directors and cinematographer who intend to film using the capabilities of the new system. Most film's will look fine after post processing is done but there is going to be several new techniques they will need to learn to 'hide' imperfections that were readily hidden by the lower frame rate.
 
My reactions:

I like it. It doesn't entirely kill the cinematic feel nor make it feel like it's a "set".

I can tell the physics and force on objects more easily, meaning fight scenes are gonna look intense and even more real.

Pans look much better in 48p.

easier to follow the action of fast moving objects.


I still love 24p, but 48p isn't that bad honestly.
 
OK, I watched both clips like 20 times on a different computer. I think the 48 one looks damn good. They look different obviously. 48 is like cancer? lol

I just want to see how this is all applied to the Hobbit in the final product and projected on the big screen.

I hope Transformers 4 uses this in a couple years as well (i know, I know, you guys think it's shit, I love robots :)
 
After watching 48p about 3 times in a row, it becomes very natural to me. Which makes the 24p look rather irritating afterwards, really.
 
bluerei said:
I can tell the physics and force on objects more easily, meaning fight scenes are gonna look intense and even more real.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you notice the exact opposite result, since (non-CG) fight physics aren't actually realisitc when filmed? Swordfighting for example, wouldn't the higher framerate draw attention to the fact that the motions as performed on set are actually quite slow?
 
Aye have to agree that while initial watching of the 48fps one looks a bit odd it definitely makes the transition back to the 24fps one really jarring. Definitely not getting any of the disgust I normally get with the interpolation methods though so looking forward to what this will look like in theatres :)
 
DoctorPayne said:
Wouldn't you notice the exact opposite result, since (non-CG) fight physics aren't actually realisitc when filmed? Swordfighting for example, wouldn't the higher framerate draw attention to the fact that the motions as performed on set are actually quite slow?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying, they are gonna have to up their game and start actually killing people. Snuff 2.0
 
DoctorPayne said:
Wouldn't you notice the exact opposite result, since (non-CG) fight physics aren't actually realisitc when filmed? Swordfighting for example, wouldn't the higher framerate draw attention to the fact that the motions as performed on set are actually quite slow?
Click to expand...

I think it will expose some bad choreography/animation.

Just like HD exposed bad makeup artists. :P
 
DoctorPayne said:
Wouldn't you notice the exact opposite result, since (non-CG) fight physics aren't actually realisitc when filmed? Swordfighting for example, wouldn't the higher framerate draw attention to the fact that the motions as performed on set are actually quite slow?
Click to expand...

Probably.

I can think of at least one example that was filmed at a slower speed and then shown at regular speed to achieve a more brutal pace.
 
As others have said, watching the 48fps video a couple of times in a row and then switching to the 24fps version is jarring (though, to be fair, doing the opposite is also jarring).

Personally, I love the 48fps version - dat smoothness. I wish I had a screen that supported 96Hz to remove the judder though.

I think after ten or twenty minutes in the Hobbit, most people are going to adjust to it.
 
wow thanks bluerei! that's why I love neogaf.

48fps looks good. Not sure how it will look on The Hobbit but the clip looks great.
 
edible_candle said:
As others have said, watching the 48Hz video a couple of times in a row and then switching to the 24Hz version is jarring (though, to be fair, doing the opposite is also jarring).

Personally, I love the 48Hz version - dat smoothness. I wish I had a screen that supported 96Hz to remove the judder though.

I think after ten or twenty minutes in the Hobbit, most people are going to adjust to it.
Click to expand...

Not Hz. Frames. FPS.
 
TCRS said:
wow thanks bluerei! that's why I love neogaf.

48fps looks good. Not sure how it will look on The Hobbit but the clip looks great.
Click to expand...

jett said:
That's a much better look for 48fps, thanks blurei. Looks excellent, 24p is inferior in every way.
Click to expand...

ThatCrazyGuy said:
Thanks for the vids bluerei
Click to expand...

Flo_Evans said:
thanks bluerei!

God that red camera is glorious. It calls to me… my precious
Click to expand...

LegendOfGood said:
Thanks for doing this.
Click to expand...

Thanks to all. Good reason for me to shoot something too. I also wondered what it would look like but never thought to try until now haha
 
mattp said:
next question
what model RED do you have and how much did that thing cost O_O
Click to expand...

Scarlet, which is the exact same sensor as the Epic, just less fps. And it cost a lot. Got it because it has less problems than the Epic does, and I don't overcrank footage that much.

Now I just wait for the Dragon sensor upgrade to start shooting at 6K.
 
Camera movement in 48fps looks great. When the camera is stationary things appear sped up but I'm assuming that eventually it will seem more natural than 24fps. Shooting The Hobbit in 48fps was a bold choice and one that I'm supportive of, regardless of whether I end up liking it more than 24fps or not.
 
24 looks much better as expected.

One thing that just occurred to me. Did anyone else notice that the 2 main backers of high FPS filmmaking are also principle owners in visual effects companies (Cameron - Digital Domain, Jackson - Weta)? Visual effects would presumably become much more expensive if you have to animate and render 2x as many frames so they both stand to make a lot more money if this takes off.
 
mcfrank said:
24 looks much better as expected.

One thing that just occurred to me. Did anyone else notice that the 2 main backers of high FPS filmmaking are also principle owners in visual effects companies (Cameron - Digital Domain, Jackson - Weta)? Visual effects would presumably become much more expensive if you have to animate and render 2x as many frames so they both stand to make a lot more money if this takes off.
Click to expand...

James Cameron has no stake in Digital Domain anymore, and hasn't for years.
 
mcfrank said:
24 looks much better as expected.

One thing that just occurred to me. Did anyone else notice that the 2 main backers of high FPS filmmaking are also principle owners in visual effects companies (Cameron - Digital Domain, Jackson - Weta)? Visual effects would presumably become much more expensive if you have to animate and render 2x as many frames so they both stand to make a lot more money if this takes off.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but I also get the feeling Peter Jackson was of the mind that it's been 24fps for a long time and the technology hasn't been challenged or pushed in the public market for no good reasons. Even if it doesn't take, I'll give it a shot just because he's willing to risk The Hobbit to push technology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

First time you say?
2
78
621
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
409
Unknown Soldier replied
The Legend of Korra and Last Airbender Sequel First Look
News 
11
726
lifa-cobex replied
The Fantastic Four: First Steps | Official Trailer
5 6 7 8 9
419
10K
kpopSuperstar replied
Top Bottom