I saw it in HFR 3D and it looked great. No idea what the fuss is about.
Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps
61–70 of 213 posts
Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps
#62According to the article, the outdoor scenes were awesome in 48FPS. It was the indoor scenes that looked fake and weird, due to the fact that 48FPS made it very apparent there was lots of makeup being used, because they had unnatural light blasting on the actors (where as there was no extra light added to outdoor scenes, obviously). Shouldn't he have just toned down the extra lighting indoors, knowing 48FPS was going…
Yeah I think the lighting in the scenes that take place in Bilbo's home tends to look bad even in the 2D standard-def 24fps trailers you can find online. It really doesn't have anything to do with HFR.
Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps
#63"48fps is just above the threshold that the human eye/brain can detect changes"
No, it's not. The actual threshold is unknown, but it's generally assumed to be around 100fps. Like the threshold for color, it's a complex question.
You don't see stuttering in a movie (usually) because each frame has an exposure time that is almost the full duration of how long the frame will appear on screen. The result is that anything moving will blur on the film (instead of getting a crisp shot), and so motion sequences are much more natural.
I'm not entirely sure why 48fps was chosen, but I know that too much more and many of the projectors that are currently showing the HFR film would be unable to. It's also worth noting that in 3D, each eye only gets a new frame at half of the rate (because each eye only sees half of the frames), so each eye is getting refreshed at the rate of a regular movie.
I know that there were lots of other technical obstacles when filming in 48fps, such as color muting by the camera. This could have also played a role in the choice of keeping it at just 48fps instead of something higher.
I'm not entirely sure why 48fps was chosen,
Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps
#64"48fps is just above the threshold that the human eye/brain can detect changes" No, it's not. The actual threshold is unknown, but it's generally assumed to be around 100fps. Like the threshold for color, it's a complex question. You don't see stuttering in a movie (usually) because each frame has an exposure time that is almost the full duration of how long the frame will appear on screen. The result is that anythin…
R&D on Showscan showed 72-76 fps was the threshold.
Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps
#65I hear writers moan and wring their hands about the high-framerate version of The Hobbit, how it doesn't look "cinematic" or what have you — but anecdotally, nobody I know had the kind of complaints you hear from film insiders. Nobody I know complains about it looking like a PBS show; nobody feels like they can see the actors' makeup. Those who saw both versions unanimously liked the HFR version better (a common reas…
I absolutely loved the HFR version. It felt weird for the first scene but after that it was a subtle addition similar to how 3D wasn't gimmicky for Avatar.
Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps
#66>Knoll asked me, "You probably only noticed the odd lighting in the interior scenes, not in the outdoors scenes, right?" And once he asked it this way, I realize he was right. The scenes in the HFR version that seemed odd were all inside. The landscape scenes were stunning in a good way. "That's because they didn't have to light the outside; the real lighting is all that was needed, so nothing seemed amiss." I would…
Kubrick would have loved the high sensitivity of current senros, which makes it practical to shoot without artificial light* though it has to be said that film stocks have improved a great deal since Barry Lyndon was shot. But I'm much less certain about whether he would have embraced 48 FPS (not Hz, because we're not modulating a coherent beam). He had such technology fully available to him as far back as the 60s and chose not to employ it.
* Lighting is not just about making sure there's enough light. Some scenes look great just as they are. Most...don't. Your brain filters out a lot of what you don't care about it in the real world, but when you see it on screen it sticks out like a sore thumb. Lighting is more of an artistic than a functional thing in most cases, and is used to draw the viewer's attention towards or away from what the director wishes.
Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps
#67> Because 48 frames per second is just above the threshold that a human eye/brain can detect changes
This is false. A human eye can detect changes at 60Hz, for sure.
Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps
#68>Knoll asked me, "You probably only noticed the odd lighting in the interior scenes, not in the outdoors scenes, right?" And once he asked it this way, I realize he was right. The scenes in the HFR version that seemed odd were all inside. The landscape scenes were stunning in a good way. "That's because they didn't have to light the outside; the real lighting is all that was needed, so nothing seemed amiss." I would…
> I would love to see cinematographers experiment with natural lighting for shots. What are you talking about? Many films are made with natural light. Kubrick wasn't alone.
indoors.
Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps
#69I just saw the movie (HFR 3d at Metreon), and while I mainly disliked that it seems to be a single solid 2.5-3h movie split into two badly edited 3h movies, the HFR was pretty good.
Not a fan of 3d, though; everything good about 3d seems to be handled just as well through depth of field, and once a lot of viewers will be on 2d, there is never non redundant 3d; it is either pointless in a scene, or backed up with depth of field, composition, color, or other ways of indicating depth and importance.
The HFR really sucked, IMO, in the early Shire scenes, which were boring indoor things. I've seen HFR before so I don't think it was adjustment. It worked well in battle or action scenes. A movie like Black Hawk Down or maybe sci-fi would do really well with HFR I think; not drama or fantasy.
What did seem to work in 3d were some of the 30 minutes of text and graphics beforehand. I am excited about 4k or 8k realtime rendered graphics for user interfaces.
Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps
#70I am one of these people who were REALLY excited about this technology. I was fully, 100% prepared to walk out of the cinema, happily proclaiming that HFR video is the best thing ever and that every single film from now on should be shot and shown in this technology. More frames per second MUST mean that it will be better for the viewers,right? And then I went to a cinema,and could not get used to this effect. Everyt…
I also experienced this effect, but only for the scenes where Bilbo was writing with a quill. Everything else was fine for me.