Someone in the industry told me it felt like they were watching actors in a stage show, and not in a good way. All sense of immersion and suspension of belief was eroded away into watching people in costumes fight on fake sets against CG monsters. He said with such a high frame rate it's almost like live footage has reached the uncanny-valley. It seems quite on par with the statement from Entertainment Weekly.
'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
41–50 of 91 posts
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#42I have experimented a bit with this, and this is what I can tell you about it. As soon as DPs get a hang of it, there will be no more talk about it except in "hipster" circles like vinyl or celluloid. Getting lighting and motion blur (especially motion blur) to look and feel the same is something DPs will need to adjust to. Only thing I am worried about now are render times. There are now 48 frames per second and twice as that if in 3D.
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#43I have a way higher hopes for higher framerates than for higher resolutions. I'm more excited about 48 Hz or 60 Hz than about 4K or 8K. But I can't read the article. It redirects to google.
Really? I'm still in love with the higher definition. I'm a big sports fan, and I could never go back to a lower resolution. Especially for hockey, my goodness does HD make it look soo much better. Higher frame rates would be nice too, don't get me wrong, but I think resolution is more important to me. (I could be wrong, I'll let you know when they start shooting airing sports at 60fps)
I think he's referring to even higher resolutions, above 1080p (approximately 2K in resolution, since it's 1080 x1 920). At the moment, there's no consumer (as in, under a few $K) displays that'll even show 4K (3840 x 2160), so going even higher to 8K is not really helping anyone out, any time soon. Whereas all these systems are capable of running at 60fps, so that's an improvement you can actually use.
Apart from that, we've been stuck at 24fps for a long time. It's very noticeable on any film that has any action in: jarring, blurred, choppy sequences.
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like I'll go mental if I hear one more film buff talk about the essential nature of various imperfections in traditional film. It's so obvious that nobody would have chosen to go with film grain, low frame rates, or any of the other limitations that were foist upon them if they had had a choice. But now these technical limitations get enshrined as the medium's supposed true nature, at least by some....
As in so many creative endeavours it's the limitations which make the art. It's not always about going for perfection, but it always has to be emotional. Which is a more powerful statement? This: http://virgo.bibl.u-szeged.hu/wm/paint/auth/monet/parliament... or this: http://isitthattime.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/fog-over-the... There's no question that the latter is more technically accurate, more lifelike, more r…
It's one thing to creatively take advantage of limitations to make art better. It's quite another to insist that an arbitrary limitation must be present on every work, regardless of whether it's good or not.
If 24fps is somehow good for certain types of film, then by all means, keep using it. But it's silly to say that 24fps is universally better, as I've heard some people say.
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like I'll go mental if I hear one more film buff talk about the essential nature of various imperfections in traditional film. It's so obvious that nobody would have chosen to go with film grain, low frame rates, or any of the other limitations that were foist upon them if they had had a choice. But now these technical limitations get enshrined as the medium's supposed true nature, at least by some....
As in so many creative endeavours it's the limitations which make the art. It's not always about going for perfection, but it always has to be emotional. Which is a more powerful statement? This: http://virgo.bibl.u-szeged.hu/wm/paint/auth/monet/parliament... or this: http://isitthattime.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/fog-over-the... There's no question that the latter is more technically accurate, more lifelike, more r…
Disclaimer: I am not an art expert.
You point is well taken, but just as a minor nit, I wanted to add that artists did achieve photorealism first and then move on to abstractness. Arguably, that was driven by the advent of photography which commoditized photorealism.
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#46Someone in the industry told me it felt like they were watching actors in a stage show, and not in a good way. All sense of immersion and suspension of belief was eroded away into watching people in costumes fight on fake sets against CG monsters. He said with such a high frame rate it's almost like live footage has reached the uncanny-valley. It seems quite on par with the statement from Entertainment Weekly.
This is exactly right. I don't understand why some people are jumping up and down as though this is some massive technological and artistic advance. TV has been able to do 60fps for decades (and HD, digital 60fps for at least one decade) and yet no television dramas (and even most comedies) are filmed/broadcasted at that rate. Why? Exactly the reasons you describe.
High framerates are great for live events and reality-based programming. 24-30fps is suited to taking the viewer "out of reality" into an artistically constructed world. This is not going to change because some movie theaters get 48fps projectors.
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like I'll go mental if I hear one more film buff talk about the essential nature of various imperfections in traditional film. It's so obvious that nobody would have chosen to go with film grain, low frame rates, or any of the other limitations that were foist upon them if they had had a choice. But now these technical limitations get enshrined as the medium's supposed true nature, at least by some....
I'm a bit of a film buff, by that I mean I like shooting of film & I own 16mm film cameras. (I shoot most if my work in digital though, so I don't consider myself all that snobby about it) To me some arguments for film hold up, but are rapidly becoming less relevant as digital sensors improve. The biggest case form film to me is the dynamic range (in film terms "latitude") compared to digital. Film is currently still…
Latitude is something I am more interested in too. But, once I've tried Sony SRW-9000PL I was blown away. Full 12 stops, image looked (stock) like it was hand delivered from heaven without any lighting used (I had it only for a test), and even digital noise was pleasing, film like, in low light situations. I can only imagine what F-65 does then if 9k did that. Hell, even RED, post MX sensor, looks really great.
Film has a charm to itself though (even just watching rushes projectioned vs monitor), but from a practical standpoint it's dead and gone. When you factor in a cost of stock only for a 90 minute film (with a, standard, coverage of 20:1 or 30:!) you have to pay for it as much as a new digital camera. Not to mention developing, scanning, handling, storing it...
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#4860fps isn't even that good in video games, but so many gamers these days have been raised on 60Hz consoles and PC monitors. They don't remember the old days of CRTs, where 60Hz was painfully flickery, and you wanted at least 75Hz to relieve eye strain. 75 or 85Hz with corresponding fps was much slicker than 60Hz.
IMO the purists complaining about 48Hz are complaining about a subconscious association, perhaps a bit like the smell of popcorn in the lobby. It's not an objective complaint, but as a subjective one it may be shared by a large proportion of the audience. Hard to tell until someone takes the risk with a broad audience, like Jackson is doing here.
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#49I'll be seeing The Hobbit at a theatre that doesn't feature 48fps first, because I know I'll enjoy it.
My experience with 48fps is exactly the same as my experience with those 120Hz televisions -- any significant motion looks like it's been artificially sped up. Anyone know why this is?
Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article discusses exactly this, so I'm not sure what your issue is.
It talks about scan lines and 3:2 pull down but does not mention an actual film projector displays the whole frame at once where TV's have scan lines.
He discusses the difference between 1080i and 1080p which is exactly the difference you are talking about. Interlaced vs whole frame.
Not all TV's have scan lines. Any that are 1080p do not interlace.