Slashdot Mirror
Hobbit Film Underwhelms At 48 Frames Per Second
bonch writes "Warner Bros. aired ten minutes of footage from The Hobbit at CinemaCon, and reactions have been mixed. The problem? Peter Jackson is filming the movie at 48 frames per second, twice the industry standard 24 frames per second, lending the film a '70s era BBC-video look.' However, if the negative response from film bloggers and theater owners is any indication, the way most people will see the movie is in standard 24fps."
Could you show me what this "70s era BBC-video look" is. Despite having seen lots of 70s era BBC-video, I'm unable to understand what you're talking about based on the description.
The only reason people don't like it is because they are used to film looking another way. It has nothing to do with what is actually happening on screen, or some magical quality that allows 24fps to transport you to another place.
If all films changed to this, in three years no one would have an issue with it. In 10 years, people would say that older movies looked to "fake."
It's all what you are acclimated to.
You're handicapped.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
People have decided that 24fps is "cinematic" since that's what movies have been for so long and so they expect it and hate on things that aren't. They need to STFU and just take some time to appreciate a more real format.
We have cameras at work that shoot 60fps and I just -love- it. It is so silky smooth. When you first see it, it almost seems like something is wrong. Then you realize what is missing is the stutter of 30 (or 24) fps. Things are fluid, much more like they really are. Motion looks great.
We need that in movies. Spatial resolution is getting really good these days, we need better temporal resolution. Get that framerate up there and things will start to look much more real.
People have just come to associate the stuttery crap that is 24fps as being "cinematic". They need to tie a can on it and get over it.
I don't have links handy but they aren't terribly hard to find. Most of the population (more than 90%) can tell the difference between 24 and 48. Most (over 50%) can tell the difference on any 10fps jump (i.e. 60fps to 70 fps) up to 80 fps IIRC. Beyond that it starts to dwindle, but there's still a substantial chunk (20ish%) that can tell a 10fps difference at 120fps. By 240fps you reach the point where basically no one can tell the difference between that and anything faster, no matter how much faster (e.g. 240 vs 480 fps benefits basically no one).
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
lending the film a '70s era BBC-video look
Well, it's a story about olden-times in England, isn't it?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This is exactly I am unable to leave the basement. The frame-rates "outside" literally make my brain hurt.
Is this another version of the same issues people complained about when seeing their favorite newscaster (or "other" things) in HD?
Do we need some "masking" of the mundane reality of scenes (e.g., things "looking like sets") to sufficiently suspend disbelief?
A lot of the complaints may actually stem from lighting issues. In general, movies are dimmer than TV. Lots of mundane "set"-type things are hidden in the shadows, and brightening everything up will reveal them even at 24fps. The lighting may need to be adjusted differently for 48fps (possibly planned for post-production and just hasn't happened yet), or maybe the lighting is intentionally too bright to counteract the dimming effect of 3D. Either way, people may be reacting to a lot more than just 48fps, so don't just assume they're all Luddites.
Also, the need for 48fps wouldn't be nearly as bad if the camera operators of the world hadn't all simultaneously forgotten how to slow down the shutter speed during pans. Seriously, there's judder all over the movie theatres today, and while it existed thirty years ago, it wasn't nearly as frequent or as bad as today.
Me too.
Seriously, what could be wrong with 48 fps? That it didn't flicker enough?
I read this story a few days ago and actually went searching for some samples but couldn't find any at that time, other than some silly animated combat scenes.
What I did find was a bunch of bloggers who have never produced anything in their life except whiny bitching without a single valid criticism that didn't amount to jealousy and NIH.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Because the shutter is fixed, the exposure time of each frame is directly related to the frame rate. Lower frame rate = longer exposure = more motion blur in the frame. Shorter frame rate = shorter exposure = less motion blur in each frame. You need more light to shoot at a higher frame rate to keep the same aperture setting.
So, if they do project this at 24 frames per second (by throwing away half the frames in post), the frames will not have the necessary motion blur and it will actually look worse because half the frames are missing. This could also probably be fixed in post, but that would be a pretty big hack for such a large production.
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
When my old TV finally gave up the magic smoke, I replaced it with a modern 240Hz LCD panel. The first show we watched on it was Lost. Everyone immediately said it looked fake. It was compared to a low budget History Channel documentary instead of a high budget network show. Within a week or two no one I lived with seemed to notice the difference any more. It was just different, therefore something for most people to complain about, until it became the new normal.
Stop thinking of "movies" and "TV shows" as being separate entities. It's all basically the same (actors on fake sets), and the only distinction that exists is all in your mind.
In fact a lot of 2000-era movies don't even use film anymore..... they're using HD videocams. Same thing TV productions use.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
The effect is known as "soap effect", because soap operas are shot on video, in interlaced format. Interlaced video gives a time resolution of 50 or 60 images per second, compared to 24 images per second for film. Because we're used to seeing interlaced video on TV and movies are always non-interlaced with lower time resolution, it's irritating when a movie has fluid motion. You can experience this effect if your TV has an option to interpolate frames. Turning that feature off makes movies look more like "cinema" and turning it off makes movies look like soap operas.
Strobe lighting, obviously.
They still add motion blur to almost every major 3D AAA game title out there you know.
I dealt with the issue of motion blur a lot when working on 3d animated films... The problem was that non-blurred 3d animation looks a hell of a lot like claymation at times due to the lack of blur produced in that workflow. The motion blur issue with games doesn't really have an equal, but to most people it looks subconsciously better with it enabled for reasons they can't explain. It will be interesting to see whether or not a 48 fps cinema standard will effect the need for motion blur in games too!
Tell you the little Hollywood secret, they HATE this. If the rubicon of 24fps & 2D is crossed, the film industry and all their flicks will be stamped as outdated '70s era films, similar to mono audio recordings once the stereo era kicked in. The BBC rant is actually lifted from their own point of resistance, as they fear the obsoleteness of their own stuff. The elitist nature of going 3D, going to higher framerates and the associated production costs, the elaborate post, the new thinking behind 3D production, the ditched old-school principles, that is mind-boggling for the establishment. For that simple reason the innovative and groundbreaking PJ's 3D movie 'The Hobbit' is doomed by the wrath of the industry.
Seriously, what could be wrong with 48 fps? That it didn't flicker enough?
The problem isn't that it is fundamentally better, it's that it is a change from what people expect. Every time I see a high fps recording of something the motion looks like it's going to fast. I fully expect the video and sound to drop out of sync but it never does. The results look fantastic and smooth as they should, but it takes my brain conditioned by years of 24fps shit a while to adapt to the new look.
Any change from the norm is likely to attract serious criticism, whether good or bad.
Why would you slow down the shutter speed during pans? That makes them even more blurry.
Yes, that's exactly the point, and it was common practice for something like 70 years, so it's not a crazy avant-garde thing only a few people did. The basic idea is that blur masks judder, and since judder is worse than blur, people like it when you slow the shutter speed during pans. It's only when people stopped doing this fairly recently that suddenly everyone's complaining about seeing judder everywhere.
I'm not saying there aren't advantages to be had from 48fps, far from it. But 24fps judder suddenly got a lot worse rather recently, which is making it seem more necessary than it really is.
Well 3D still doesn't work properly, and probably nothing will fix that while projecting on a flat screen.
But 48fps is simply smoother, and just as they are able to fake up 3D on films that were never shot that way, they will be able to digitally fake up with the extra frames between every 24fps frame and re-release all those old films in Astounding 48 FPS, New and Improved, Digitally Remastered, For a Limited Time Only....
Its a whole new industry, and they can sell us all copies of the disks we already bought once.
The wrath of the industry is usually tempered by box office figures.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
You could of been nicer about that, you know.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
As long as Han shots first and the dinosaurs don't make an appearance I'll be happy.
And your opinion can be safely ignored. Did you know that in conventional 24 fps film projectors, the shutter displays each frame twice? Do you know why? Because 24hz would produce flicker! Old films which ran at 16fps flickered, because when projected they were being displayed at 32hz. The concept of refresh rate certainly applies to even conventional cinema. You could construct a projector to display every frame 6 times, for 120hz (which is what those new Tvs do), or you could display each one once and have everybody's eyes explode.
Just because it is shot at 24fps, does not mean it has to be displayed at 24hz.
I think this is evolutions way of saying "Don't have children, dudes."
I'm in that category for other reasons. (Autoimmune. Besides I'd rather build a robot with my own AI)
So you think he shouldn't reproduce just because he's unable to watch certain types of television? WTF? That's one of the lamest criteria for deciding whether to reproduce. Hell, I bet some people would say that's a sign he should reproduce like crazy and create a bunch of kids who are physiologically forced to go outside and play.
How well do you tolerate the infinite fps you get when you look away from your computer screen?
A lot of people get motion sickness from TV/monitors that are "too real". Keep the framerate or resolution down enough, and the brain knows it's just video, but HD at 60FPS looks too much like real vision, moving in this odd way decoupled from how your head moves.
The "infinite" FPS causes a different group of people to become sick when riding in a boat (not all seasickness, but some), or an a car, because the gorizon is again moving unrelated to how your head is moving.
I get sick playing any FPS with "head bob" turned on. 2 minutes and I'm out. Fortunately, almost all games let you turn that shit off.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Tell you the little Hollywood secret, they HATE this. If the rubicon of 24fps & 2D is crossed, the film industry and all their flicks will be stamped as outdated '70s era films.
Really? I always thought Hollywood was jamming 3D down our throats. If 48fps takes hold and 3D starts being worthwhile, then the MPAA can just sell us all their old crap again in new "remastered" editions. The Citizen Kane blu ray collectors edition runs for $70!
"Then" and "than" are basically the same, for all intensive purposes.
Yes, I am incapable of editing my own comment prior to posting. That should have been:
I've noticed that too. I can never figure out why daytime soap operas look so much different than prime-time shows. Is it the framerate that does it? I was beginning to think that the crappy dialogue and crappy plot were becoming visible.
It's the frame rate + lighting.
Shows like Community or 30 Rock are what's known as single camera. They are lit and shot as though they're feature films. This takes time. I love watching people visit a set for the first time and witness the hours it can take to perfect the lighting for a single shot of a single scene which may be built from multiple shots and end up as a few seconds of screen time in the finished product. But it looks cinematic. You get shadows and a true sense of depth. Frankly, it just looks more interesting than the alternative.
On the other hand, show like The Big Bang Theory or Whitney are multi-cam. Multiple cameras run simultaneously and capture the entire scene at once. Consequently, the sets are lit so they can be shot from a whole bunch of angles without moving lights. Everything looks very flat, and very stage-y. Even real-world props often fall into a strange uncanny valley.
Check out any episode of 30 Rock and then one of the live episodes if you want to see a great comparison between single and multi-cam.
Han didn't shoot first. Han just shot. Greedo died. Get it right!