Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | my password | register | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » HFR - as sucky as I called it months ago? (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Author Topic: HFR - as sucky as I called it months ago?
Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17695
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 12-14-2012 11:39 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Yup!

Critics on The Hobbit's High Frame Rate

quote:
What the Critics Are Saying About The Hobbit’s High Frame Rate

By Jesse David Fox

In his review of The Hobbit, David Edelstein wrote: "How nice it would be to weigh in on Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit without having to lament its newfangled double-speed 3-D 48-frames-per-second projection rate, which must be seen to be disbelieved." (The Hobbit was shot at 48 FPS, as opposed to 24 FPS, which has been the cinema standard for a century. Jackson did this because 48 FPS offers a much sharper image that more mimics how we see the real world. It will only be shown at 48 FPS in certain theaters, though, and only in 3D. The majority of theaters will show it in a 24 FPS version.) Edelstein's is a negative sentiment implicitly echoed by essentially every single film critic, who all strived to come up with the perfect way to explain why 48 FPS was so problematic. And yet, they often landed on similar analogies. Here is a rundown of the most common comparisons.

Video Games

"At first, in the Smaug battle, I thought I was watching a video game: pellucid pictures of indistinct creatures." – Time

"One thing The Hobbit is not is a celebration of the beauty of film. A celebration of video-game realms, perhaps." – Philadelphia Inquirer

"There are scenes when it causes the images to be crisper and brighter but, especially in instances of high CGI content, it creates a non-cinematic picture. That may be the primary reason why isolated moments feel like video game outtakes." – ReelViews

HD TV

"Available for viewing only in select cinemas in major cities (the rest will feature a standard 24-frame presentation), this 'high-frame rate' Hobbit features exceptionally sharp, plasticine images the likes of which we might never have seen on a movie screen before, but which do resemble what we see all the time on our HD television screens, whether it's Sunday Night Football, Dancing With the Stars, or a game of Grand Theft Auto. (Indeed, most TVs now have a menu setting that can, if you so desire, lend this look to everything you watch—a setting appropriately christened by some gearheads as the 'soap opera effect.')" – Village Voice

"The 3-D film will be presented in select theaters at 48 frames per second — twice the normal rate — an innovation that renders images as unnaturally crisp and clear as an over-amped hi-def LED screen." – Minneapolis Star Tribune

"Depending on lighting, backgrounds and other factors, it can deliver that sheen that one associates with bizarrely calibrated HD displays in big-box stores." – MSN

"Audiences looking for a rich, textured, cinematic experience will be put off and disconcerted by an image that looks more like an advanced version of high definition television than a traditional movie." – L.A. Times

"It was still like watching a very expensively mounted live TV show on the world’s largest home TV screen."— Time

"Couple that with 3D and the movie looks so hyper-real that you see everything that's fake about it, from painted sets to prosthetic noses. The unpleasant effect is similar to watching a movie on a new HD home-theater monitor, shadows obliterated by blinding light – yikes! – reality TV." – Rolling Stone

"The clarity creates a sense of hyper-reality that reminded me of the first time I saw an LED TV." – The Dallas Morning News

"The rest of us will be reminded of high-definition television — better known, in my household, as a reason to avoid viewing films on TV, unless they contain characters named Woody and Buzz." – The New Yorker

Theater

"The immediacy of the ­actors is startling, but the background is weirdly foreshortened, the fakeness of the sets and makeup an endless distraction. Staginess does nothing for a ­fantasy-film epic ... the grandeur of the Lord of the Rings trilogy having been replaced by something that resembles tatty summer-stock theater." – David Edelstein, New York

"The Hobbit in the 48 format resembles an incredibly high-definition simulcast of “The Metropolitan Opera Live from Middle-earth." – Chicago Tribune

"At 48 frames, the film is more true to life, sometimes feeling so intimate it's like watching live theater. That close-up perspective also brings out the fakery of movies. Sets and props look like phony stage trappings at times, the crystal pictures bleaching away the painterly quality of traditional film." – Associated Press

"While striking in some of the big spectacle scenes, predominantly looked like ultra-vivid television video, paradoxically lending the film an oddly theatrical look, especially in the cramped interior scenes in Bilbo Baggins' home." – The Hollywood Reporter

"Instead of the romantic illusion of film, we see the sets and makeup for what they are. The effect is like stepping into a diorama alongside the actors, which is not as pleasant as it might sound." – Minneapolis Star Tribune

"The high frame rate, or HFR, version of The Hobbit has such crystalline, videolike clarity that it reduces everything and everybody to mere props and actors. Swords lack heft, the castles look like dioramas." – Newsday

"Watching 48fps is a bit disconcerting at first, a bit like gazing at a high-definition TV showing a live theatre presentation." – Toronto Star

Home Movie

"Consequently, everything takes on an overblown, artificial quality in which the phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious, while well-lit areas bleed into their surroundings, like watching a high-end home movie." – Variety

"The best way I can think to describe the quality of the 48fps image in The Hobbit is this: It looks like an ’80s-era home video shot by someone who happened to be standing around on set while The Hobbit was being filmed." – Slate

Documentary

"Instead of feeling like we've been transported to Middle-earth, it's as if we've dropped in on Jackson's New Zealand set, trapped in an endless 'making of' documentary, waiting for the real movie to start." – Village Voice

"The technique seems more suited to a documentary about the making of the movie than a whimsically inventive tale." – USA Today

"HD has the unfortunate effect of turning every film into what appears to be a documentary about a film set, not just warts-and-all but carefully supplying extra warts where a wart has no right to be." – The New Yorker

Other

"Over all, though, the shiny hyper-reality robs Middle-earth of some of its misty, archaic atmosphere, turning it into a gaudy high-definition tourist attraction." – New York Times

"The best single description of which came in a tweet from Salon contributor Bob Calhoun: It looks like Jehovah’s Witness art." — Salon

"More than anything, it resembles an insanely high-end Masterpiece Theatre production: I, Claudius with a big budget and endless banks of computers." – Boston Globe

"Other visual analogues scribbled down in my screening notes include Teletubbies and daytime soap operas." – Slate

Here's another one...

Should You See The Hobbit in High Frame Rate, 48 FPS 3-D?

quote:
Should You See The Hobbit in High Frame Rate, 48 FPS 3-D? Let the Critics Help You Decide

By Mark Lisanti on December 14, 2012 1:45 PM ET

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Peter Jackson's first trip to Middle-earth since his three-part, Oscar-winning Lord of the Rings sojourn, makes its long-awaited debut today. As you may or may not have heard by now, the visionary director is shooting this new Tolkien trilogy in "High Frame Rate" 3-D, utilizing a 48-frames-per-second speed that is double the usual 24 fps presentation you're used to seeing on a movie screen. It's impossible to discuss The Hobbit without trying to describe the unfamiliar, potentially deal-breaking High Frame Rate effect to potential audiences, and so our nation's critics have been tasked with trying to evoke the unfamiliar experience of watching the movie in this novel, exciting, and amazingly divisive way. Below are selected blurbs about the The Hobbit's bold new look so that you can decide whether to seek out one of the few theaters projecting it as Jackson intended, or opt for the less-jarring, 24 fps version that will play on the vast majority of multiplex screens. And oh yeah: We may have made some of these up. The answer key follows the pull quotes.

1. " … you are looking through a very clean window, but you have a slight ear infection that makes the world beyond seem too real and slightly sickening."

2. "The immediacy of the ­actors is startling, but the background is weirdly foreshortened, the fakeness of the sets and makeup an endless distraction … [it becomes] something that resembles tatty summer-stock theater."

3. " … predominantly looked like ultra-vivid television video, paradoxically lending the film a oddly theatrical look, especially in the cramped interior scenes in Bilbo Baggins's home."

4. " … Faerie Tale Theater circa 1985, only in amazingly sharp clarity and with hobbits."

5. " … watching a 1976 BBC drama called The Hobbingtons Before Holiday about little people packing for a complicated vacation. But you can see every item as it's squirreled away into a tiny valise with stunning detail, and that's not nothing for anal-retentive suitcase enthusiasts."

6. "[It] sounds miraculous, and you will indeed notice and marvel at the difference, but only if you happen to be a snowy owl who likes watching voles from a hundred and fifty yards."

7. "HFR looks like a documentary about the making of a Cronenberg film shot with some unsettling new camera technology that makes viewers' eyeballs vibrate at a very uncomfortable frequency before sprouting teeth and exploding from their heads."

8. " … like giving Bilbo Baggins a piggyback ride where he keeps playing peekaboo with your eyes, causing you to walk into a series of doors and walls. There's a heady rush of amazing clarity as the doors and walls snap into incredible focus just inches in front of your nose, but then there's the immediate and startling dislocation of actually slamming into the doors and walls as the Hobbit on your back cackles with impish delight."

9. " … brings the images to an almost hallucinatory level of clarity …. Over all, though, the shiny hyper-reality robs Middle-earth of some of its misty, archaic atmosphere, turning it into a gaudy high-definition tourist attraction."

10. " … I found myself doubled over on the floor in front of my seat, violently voiding the contents of my stomach over and over, so powerful was the effect of this bold new cinematic reality … the Haribo Gummi Bears I had just served back up glistened with an unbelievable radiance … I was not unlike an interstellar traveler finally wakened from my sleep-pod upon arrival at our decades-distant destination; the world had been a gauzy dream observed through a tiny window for as long as I could remember, but now I was a full participant in it, ready or not, and I gasped desperately for the breath that would come only after our robot manservant could assist me in clearing my lungs of the liquid oxygen that had sustained me in my slumber. And I said to him — it's not really a 'him,' but his creators gave 'him' a male appearance — 'This is some crazy shit, Steve.' And he answered in a surprisingly gentle, empathetic tone, 'Welcome to the future. There is no going back.'"

The Science of High Frame Rates, Or: Why "The Hobbit" Looks Bad At 48 FPS

quote:
The Science of High Frame Rates, Or: Why 'The Hobbit' Looks Bad At 48 FPS

By: Jen Yamato

The hero of Jean-Luc Godard's Le Petit Soldat declared “The cinema is truth, 24 times per second,” as The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw noted while pondering frame rates and cinematic standards last year. Peter Jackson insists that it’s closer to 48 frames per second, as demonstrated by the groundbreaking new frame rate he utilized for this weekend’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. But do scientific theories about the way our brains perceive images and reality — truth unfolding onscreen, in front of our eyes — support Jackson’s brave new vision for cinema, or undermine it?

There is a great gulf between the cinematic look of 24 fps, the traditional rate at which film images are presented in succession to simulate moving images on a screen, and 48 fps. The latter packs more visual information into each second of film, for better and worse. Jackson and his fellow HFR enthusiasts (including James Cameron and Douglas Trumbull) argue that 48 fps and even higher frame rates result in greater clarity and a closer approximation to real life. They also contend it reduces motion blur, thus improving the look of 3-D images.

But scientists and researchers in the field of consciousness perception say that the human brain perceives reality at a rate somewhere between 24 fps and 48 fps — 40 conscious moments per second, to be more exact — and exceeding the limit of the brain’s speed of cognition beyond the sweet spot that connotes realism is where Jackson & Co. get into trouble.

Movieline spoke with filmmaker James Kerwin, who lectured on the subject of the science of film perception and consciousness at the University of Arizona’s Center for Consciousness Studies. (His presentation included an analysis of the work of Dr. Stuart Hameroff and British cosmologist/philosopher Roger Penrose, and their quantum theory of consciousness.) According to Kerwin, there really is a simple scientific answer for why The Hobbit’s 48 fps presentation plays so poorly with some viewers — and it's not something we'll get used to over time.

HOW OUR BRAINS PERCEIVE REALITY
James Kerwin: “Studies seem to show that most humans see about 66 frames per second — that’s how we see reality through our eyes, and our brains. So you would think that 48 frames per second is sufficiently below that — that it would look very different from reality. But what people aren’t taking into account is the fact that although we see 66 frames per second, neuroscientists and consciousness researchers are starting to realize that we’re only consciously aware of 40 moments per second.”

“Dr. Hameroff’s theory has to do with the synchrony of the gamma waves in the brain — it’s called gamma synchrony — the brain wave cycle of 40 hertz. There’s a very strong theory that that is why we perceive 40 moments per second, but regardless of the reason, most researchers agree we perceive 40 conscious moments per second. In other words: our eyes see more than that but we’re only aware of 40. So if a frame rate hits or exceeds 40 fps, it looks to us like reality. Whereas if it’s significantly below that, like 24 fps or even 30 fps, there’s a separation, there’s a difference — and we know immediately that what we’re watching is not real.”

HIGH FRAME RATES AND THE UNCANNY VALLEY
“You’ve got guys like Cameron and Jackson saying, let’s make it more real because the more realistic, the better; the higher the definition, the more 3-D, the more this, the more that. They’re not taking into account what’s called The Uncanny Valley in psychology. The Uncanny Valley says that, statistically, if you map out a consumer’s reaction to something they’re seeing, if they’re seeing something artificial and it starts to approach something looking real, they begin to inherently psychologically reject it."

"Not every person perceives the Uncanny Valley, however. There are some people that just do not reject things that look too real, although the vast majority of people do experience that phenomenon. So you’re going to get some individuals who see it and go, This looks great! The problem is anecdotes are not evidence. You have to look at the public as a whole, and I think that’s what Jackson and Cameron are not doing."

FORWARD-MOVING HFR VS. TRADITIONAL FILM CONVENTIONS

“There are all sorts of conventions in film that are not found in reality. People talk to each other in ways that they don’t in reality. Things are lit in ways that they’re not lit in reality. The make-up, the hair, the props, everything is fake. If you stand on a film set and you watch the actors performing, you don’t for a second think that it’s real. There are acting conventions that we have chosen to accept."

“One thing a lot of people are saying about The Hobbit in 48 is that the acting is bad — well, the acting’s not bad, they’re simply acting with cinematic conventions but it’s such a high frame rate that the motion looks too real and you can see through the artifice of the acting.”

THE NECESSARY SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF — WHICH 48 FPS LACKS
“It’s psychological: we need suspension of disbelief, and suspension of disbelief comes from the lower frame rate. The lower frame rate allows our brains to say, Okay — I’m not perceiving 40 conscious moments per second anymore; I’m only perceiving 24, or 30, and therefore this is not real and I can accept the artificial conventions of the acting and the lighting and the props. It’s an inherent part of the way our brain perceives things. Twenty-four or 30 frames per second is an inherent part of the cinematic experience. It’s the way we accept cinema. It’s the way we suspend our disbelief.”

“Those high frame rates are great for reality television, and we accept them because we know these things are real. We’re always going to associate high frame rates with something that’s not acted, and our brains are always going to associate low frame rates with something that is not. It’s not a learned behavior; [Some say] you watch it long enough and you won’t associate it with cheap soap operas anymore. That’s nonsense. The science does not say that. It’s not learned behavior. It’s an inherent part of the way our brains see things.”

Why does "The Hobbit" look so weird?

quote:


Why does ‘The Hobbit’ look so weird?

By Michael O'Sullivan

A lot of the buzz about “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” — the first of Peter Jackson’s trilogy of films adapting J.R.R. Tolkien’s beloved book, which opens tonight with midnight screenings — has nothing to do with the story, the acting or the cinematography, but with the camera technology used to make it. Although the movie is being shown in both traditional 2D and 3D versions, several hundred screens around the country will also be making “The Hobbit”available in a brand new format called High Frame Rate (or HFR) 3D.

The early reviews of HFR, a kind of video that captures 48 frames per second instead of the traditional 24 of film, have been mixed-to-negative, and not just from the geeks. Todd McCarthy of the Hollywood Reporter complained that “The Hobbit” looked like “ultra-vivid television video, paradoxically lending the film a oddly theatrical look, especially in the cramped interior scenes in Bilbo Baggins' home. ”

McCarthy isn’t the lone curmudgeon either. Others have pointed out that the look of the HFR version, while admittedly sharper than traditional film, feels like a projection error, with the movement of the actors appearing unnaturally speeded up. Here’s James Rocchi’s amusing take, on Boxoffice.com: “What the 48 frame-per-second projection actually means is flat lighting, a plastic-y look, and, worst of all, a strange sped-up effect that makes perfectly normal actions — say, Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins placing a napkin on his lap — look like meth-head hallucinations..”

Being a lifelong Tolkien geek, I had to check it out myself, and I have to agree that it’s very disconcerting, although you do eventually start to get used to it. (Heck, after nearly three hours, I could get used to Gilbert Gottfried as Gandalf.) Gollum does look fabulous, and the epic battle scenes are pretty impressive.

Here’s the thing about HFR, though, which was invented to make movies look more like real life. It’s not necessarily that it looks cheap. It just doesn’t look like a film, or what we’re used to films looking like.

Film has warmth, texture and grain, all of which lend the moviegoing experience a kind of artificial grandeur that signals that you’re about to enter a world that isn’t real. HFR may look more like life, but it does so in a way that comes across as cold, slick and clinically — almost uncomfortably — close. More like science than art.

An early scene of Bilbo Baggins’s underground dining room, with his table covered in food and surrounded by jolly dwarves, felt like studio camerawork from a frenetic Food Network cooking show, not a cozy visit to Middle Earth.

Already, the studios behind “The Hobbit” have shifted to a defensive crouch. In a joint statement earlier this month, New Line Cinema, Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures attributed the negative reviews of HFR to “two anonymous sources” in media reports. “We share the filmmakers’ belief,” the statement continued, “that by offering filmgoers the additional choice of HFR 3D, alongside traditional viewing formats, they have an opportunity to be part of a groundbreaking advancement in the moviegoing experience, and we look forward to having audiences everywhere share in this new way of storytelling.”

Don't worry though, projector and server manufacturers will continue to shove IMBs down our throats with this HFR junk.

 |  IP: Logged

Frank B. McLaughlin
Film Handler

Posts: 74
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Dec 2011


 - posted 12-15-2012 07:29 AM      Profile for Frank B. McLaughlin   Author's Homepage   Email Frank B. McLaughlin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This time you are "spot on." This from the Denver Post:

As for the ballyhooed look of this film, which was shot on 3D at a higher frame-per-second rate (48 instead of film's 24) , it alternately resembles a teleplay from the early 1960s and a contemporary high-production-value video game. It lacks warmth.

http://www.denverpost.com/movies/ci_22179587/hobbit-sets-off-lots-action-but-not-enough#ixzz2F7v1Ilws

However I believe this format has possibilities (especially in 3D). I suggest whomever goes back out to the woodshed and work on it some more.

 |  IP: Logged

Olivier Lemaire
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 118
From: Paris, Ile de France, France
Registered: Jan 2010


 - posted 12-15-2012 09:29 AM      Profile for Olivier Lemaire   Author's Homepage   Email Olivier Lemaire   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"Let the Critics Help You Decide" - is that called modern journalism 2.0?

You want to know what HFR looks like? just go to the theater and make your own opinion.

You don't wanna know? just close your eyes next time you'll go - to be sure.

Nota: you can use this very same method for Atmos sound, or any new innovation that will come in the following years - no pb [Smile]

 |  IP: Logged

Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 797
From: london ontario canada
Registered: May 2009


 - posted 12-15-2012 12:54 PM      Profile for Victor Liorentas   Email Victor Liorentas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I watched about 15 min in Real D 48fps.I think this is single flash due to the illusion of sped up motion when anything moved which I found more jarring than the HD video look of HFR.

Since film has been put down and discarded like antiquated technology, I am all for advancing digital cinemas potential.
I don't enjoy watching video trying to duplicate 24 fps film unless I am in my home theater.It is bland compared to the real thing done right. I would rather see how good ultra HD HFR can look but 48 fps is not very good with single flash.

I want to see it taken all the way with 60 fps or the Digital Showscan concept of shooting at 120 fps and having multiple frame rates available for any texture desired by the director including pixel by pixel control of HFR texture.
I am more interested in 2D than 3D HFR.
So it looked good and like crappy video at the same time in my opinion.
There is no chance of stopping all of this HFR change,the cat was let out of the bag when film was pulled from the plexes.
At least Trumbulls system has respect for the 24fps texture while allowing the potential of HFR to go all the way.

 |  IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2725
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002


 - posted 12-15-2012 01:51 PM      Profile for Claude S. Ayakawa   Author's Homepage   Email Claude S. Ayakawa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I am right now on my way to see THE HOBITT at the Regal Dole Cannery in HFR on their RPX screen. I thought is was going to be in the IMAX house but I guess Regal must have decided RPX was better. The 3-D will be in Real D. Despite all the negative things I had read in all the reviews about hFR, I am going with an open mind hoping I will like it.. I will render my opinion after I see the movie later this afternoon.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12492
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 12-15-2012 02:42 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So, apparently the "it's not finished yet, it will look much better after post production" stuff they were saying at CinemaCon was a load of crap.

Guess this time we'll be advertising that we DON'T have the latest gimmick. That's a switch!

 |  IP: Logged

Andrew Thomas
Master Film Handler

Posts: 269
From: Pearland, TX, USA
Registered: Jun 2012


 - posted 12-15-2012 03:56 PM      Profile for Andrew Thomas   Email Andrew Thomas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It definitely looked more like a video recording of an elaborate stage play than a movie.

 |  IP: Logged

Harold Hallikainen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 798
From: Denver, CO, USA
Registered: Aug 2009


 - posted 12-15-2012 06:09 PM      Profile for Harold Hallikainen   Author's Homepage   Email Harold Hallikainen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I've now seen the Hobbit twice at 48fps (edit units per second) 3D (once for a QC run, once with my wife and a few hundred other people in the audience) at the Fremont Theater in San Luis Obispo (http://www.kcet.org/arts/artbound/counties/san-luis-obispo/the-many-lives-of-the-fremont-theater.html ). It DOES look different. It'd be interesting to see it at 24fps to see the difference. In this whole discussion, I'm reminded of the US TV series "All In The Family" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_in_the_Family#Production ). It was the first TV show I remember seeing on tape. Prior series were done on film. The Wikipedia article says the show looked more like a live show (like the Honeymooners, which was broadcast live) when compared with other shows of the time, which were shot on film. Since the film was eventually scanned for television use, the difference in the process seems to be the insertion of film in the path. So, why did it look different? I suspect it has to do with the nonlinearity of film to light exposure (gamma for television). The resolution of film was clearly more than that of television, and is more than 2k, and perhaps 4k digital cinema. But now, all television is shot and edited electronically (no longer tape, but still electronic capture).

So, is the issue that HFR looks different (not what we're used to seeing at the movies)? I was sitting about half way back in the 850 seat auditorium. I think the picture looked quite real, but it suddenly stopped at the edge of the screen. So there's disruption to the realism that might not have been present if I were sitting closer or the screen were larger.

The previous discussion in this thread on speed of perception (about 40Hz) is interesting. So, anything below that should appear different from reality (with reality's infinite frame rate), while above that should look more like reality. The confusion of something appearing real in some aspects (frame rate and 3D) while not in others (limited field of view, visible props, etc.) might be what's jarring. Should we add imperfections to make it apparent this is not reality? I've seen a local TV station run news promotions where the actualities are apparently run through an effects generator that gives them a film look, complete with scratches. Film at 11!

So... the movie was interesting to watch. It's not really my kind of movie. It would have been interesting to see Life of Pi in 3D HFR. I saw it in 2D 24fps.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. What's the next step in digital cinema? Higher frame rate? Higher resolution? Lower compression ratio? More bits per pixel?

Harold

 |  IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2725
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002


 - posted 12-15-2012 08:11 PM      Profile for Claude S. Ayakawa   Author's Homepage   Email Claude S. Ayakawa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just saw THE HOBITT in HFR and I agree the image did not look like film but I had no problem with that. some said the movie had a cheap looking image quality but I will have to differ with that. Actually, I thought the special effects looked pretty good but not as great as the LOTR trilogy. The 3-D was excellent in Real D. and so was the Regal Theatre's RPX sound. The picture was a little on the dim side but this had nothing to do with the 3-D because I have seen many movies in that format that was brighter. The only fault I had with the movie was how terribly boring it was and I have decided to pass on the next two films.

-Claude

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8353
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted 12-16-2012 12:21 AM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This zing about the difference between 24fps and 48fps is like our HDTV's with the newer ones that have a higher refresh rate.

In our house, we have two, 37inch LCD TV's made by the same company (Visio). I bought the first one two years ago and this unit has the older 60hz refresh rate. The second one I bought last year, contains the higher 120hz refresh rate.

Now, wife can watch a program on the older one, and I switch the newer one on the same channel and the same program can look much more life like due to the higher refresh rate.

 |  IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007


 - posted 12-16-2012 12:33 AM      Profile for Chris Slycord   Email Chris Slycord   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Olivier Lemaire
"Let the Critics Help You Decide" - is that called modern journalism 2.0?
Journalism is writing about current news/events, which does not exclude taking a consensus of what the critics think about something. Using your reasoning of what is/isn't journalism, writing about current political stuff is "let the politicians help you decide."

quote: Olivier Lemaire
You want to know what HFR looks like? just go to the theater and make your own opinion.
If a bunch of people tell me they got sick at a certain restaurant, I don't need to eat their food to tell me the place sucks.

That said, I'll be having a look at it in HFR sometime next week.

 |  IP: Logged

Bernie Anderson Jr
Master Film Handler

Posts: 435
From: Woodbridge, New Jersey
Registered: Apr 2000


 - posted 12-16-2012 06:35 AM      Profile for Bernie Anderson Jr   Author's Homepage   Email Bernie Anderson Jr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Agreed. Hated it too, looks like British television.

 |  IP: Logged

Olivier Lemaire
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 118
From: Paris, Ile de France, France
Registered: Jan 2010


 - posted 12-16-2012 07:03 AM      Profile for Olivier Lemaire   Author's Homepage   Email Olivier Lemaire   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Chris Slycord

Journalism is writing about current news/events, which does not exclude taking a consensus of what the critics think about something. Using your reasoning of what is/isn't journalism, writing about current political stuff is "let the politicians help you decide."

Journalism is just reporting facts, for people to think about things they could not if not aware of. Nothing less, nothing more.

It excludes taking any position: if it does, this is not anymore journalism, it's mass manipulation (or call it politics as it fits too).

Of course, it's not forbidden to try to convince other and make them think the way you think, or just to share your enthusiasm on a given topic. But please, be fair, don't call that journalism [Smile]

quote: Chris Slycord
If a bunch of people tell me they got sick at a certain restaurant, I don't need to eat their food to tell me the place sucks.
You're probably right: at least, you have been warned that something may be wrong with this restaurant... but: with the criticism regarding The Hobbit HFR, we were not in this case.
Critics were based on a 20'' shots at the pre-production level, not corrected - seen by very few people (comparing to a large audience - like "bunch of people" that came to that restaurant), and even among this peoples, sentiment about HFR were really splitted - but of course, only "criticism" was broadly reported.

We heard also sickness report in some newspapers - the same way we already did when 3D started...

So, I think it's wise, when you see such "journalism", to take a some distance to be able to be not fooled in your judgement.

quote: Chris Slycord

That said, I'll be having a look at it in HFR sometime next week.

Have a nice show!

 |  IP: Logged

Antti Nayha
Master Film Handler

Posts: 259
From: Helsinki, Finland
Registered: Oct 2008


 - posted 12-16-2012 10:06 AM      Profile for Antti Nayha   Email Antti Nayha   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The criticism quoted in the first post seems to be from critics who have watched the whole finished film in a press screening. It’s a fact that there has been a lot of negative reactions. Nothing wrong with reporting that, is there?

That said, there are also some people who have complimented HFR – both pros and non-pros. I hope someone compiles a similar article about those. Would be interesting to know how much the reactions differ statistically between age groups, between people who use / don’t use the motion-interpolation feature on their TV’s, between people who play / don’t play a lot of video games, etc.

I don’t think Brad is trying to tell anyone here not to check out HFR with our own two eyes and form our opinion based on that. If anything, he’s telling us not to believe the hype, which tends to be healthy advice most of the time. (And of course he want to say he was right, which is always satisfying. [Wink] )

Professionally, it doesn’t even really matter if we like it or not. If the audience wants HFR, we’re going to have to give it to them. If they don’t like it, well, then we don’t have to invest in IMB’s anytime soon. That’s what counts.

And regarding the audience: The Hobbit’s box office figures are not going to tell us yet whether they like HFR or not. At least the first film would break box office records even if it was projected exclusively in DVD resolution…

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12492
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 12-16-2012 10:51 AM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Olivier Lemaire
Journalism is just reporting facts, for people to think about things they could not if not aware of. Nothing less, nothing more.
If only that was true. Ever since the invention of "speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case," you really don't know whether to believe what you read anymore.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2018 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.