Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
48fps is a lot better for the cinema than 24fps. DO NOT listen to anyone who says otherwise
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Morok Cloudkeeper
Rohan


Dec 30 2012, 10:51am

Post #1 of 74 (859 views)
Shortcut
48fps is a lot better for the cinema than 24fps. DO NOT listen to anyone who says otherwise Can't Post

First off, It isn't much different to 24fps that it would make you say it looks like a soap opera or something else. That's total rubbish. There is no blurring while watching and it makes the fast moving sequences more enjoyable to watch. Also it's a lot cleaner image overall, and really makes you feel like you are staring at reality. I really don't get the people who don't like it now that I have seen it yesterday. It took me about 2 minutes to get used to it. 48fps is great, and it's a step forward for the cinema. Mmkay?

Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle.



DanielLB
Immortal


Dec 30 2012, 10:59am

Post #2 of 74 (518 views)
Shortcut
This poll suggests that majority of people have mixed feelings [In reply to] Can't Post

Link.

Which is a valid opinion, of course. HFR is great for the vista shots, and for fast moving shots. However, I don't like the feel of it - it cheapens the CGI - look at Smaug's fire, and the burning tree that flies throw the air in the prologue - they look awful.

It's great people like it, and I can certainly appreciate it's advantages. However, it's disadvantages outweigh the advantages, for me.

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!



Joe20
Lorien


Dec 30 2012, 11:00am

Post #3 of 74 (454 views)
Shortcut
Agree. I loved it. [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Morok Cloudkeeper
Rohan


Dec 30 2012, 11:01am

Post #4 of 74 (485 views)
Shortcut
Fire is a hard thing to realise in CGI [In reply to] Can't Post

If it looks cheap to you, it will look cheap in any other format you see it.

Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle.



DanielLB
Immortal


Dec 30 2012, 11:23am

Post #5 of 74 (493 views)
Shortcut
Nope, that's not true [In reply to] Can't Post

As a whole, the CGI, in any format is fantastic. I had no problems with the CGI in the film in 3 of the 24fps screenings I've been to.

But the HFR cheapens the CGI, simply because of the higher frame rate. The effects aren't at a high enough quality yet.

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!



Morok Cloudkeeper
Rohan


Dec 30 2012, 11:44am

Post #6 of 74 (452 views)
Shortcut
The first few seconds when Bilbo starts narrating were very weird looking I admit [In reply to] Can't Post

But I just had to get used to it. And by the time Gandalf started talking to Bilbo from the "Good morning" sequence and so forth it was all normal for me. I only thought that the movie is a little bit too short. And that they should have ended it when the dwarves are about to enter Mirkwood and when Gandalf leaves them. Then they should cut away to the thrush and then to Smaug.

Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle.



awepittance
The Shire

Dec 30 2012, 12:11pm

Post #7 of 74 (450 views)
Shortcut
I really wanted to like 48fps, walked in with an open mind.. [In reply to] Can't Post

but it took me a lot longer than 5-10 minutes to get used to it. I think i probably stopped noticing it about 1 hour into the film. Even then there were a few scenes i noticed looking strange intermittently for the rest.

i think it works great for 3d (eliminates strobbing and allows 3d in darkly lit scenes to breathe more) and for certain CGi closeups (like gollum and the goblin city chase)

It's hard to say exactly what i disliked about 48fps until i see it in 24fps, but for now I think it's a successful experiment in certain ways but a failure in others. Regardless I'm glad PJ stuck his chin out and did this as a model to follow for future filmmakers wanting to adopt the technology, because based on the Hobbit alone the format has weaknesses and strengths. Future filmmakers may need to shoot and light scenes differently to avoid the 'tv look'

I'm not an expert in digital cameras but It makes me wonder if the 'tv look' could have been avoided by shooting it in that special 48fps 35mm film stock VS a digital video camera. If any experts here could chime in about what that would look like in a side by side comparison if the same movie was shot in 48fps but one on 35mm film and one in HD video

edit: i still plan to see it in 48fps again just to see if the jarring nature of it wears off quicker this time. Maybe I'll go see 24fps and try to hop in a 48fps hfr showing for a few minutes for an immediate comparison. I don't even think by the time the Hobbit comes out on blueray any consumer level TV set will be able to show it in 48fps, plus someone (maybe on this forum) posted about blueray not having the storage capacity for a 3 hour film at 1080p at 48fps anyways. And i wanted to reiterate that i very much commend Peter Jackson for trying this on a feature film before anyone else and forcing mainstream theaters to think about upping their game in terms of presentation. He had pretty big balls for screening it in 48fps to critics, and i think whatever the case is he's willing to weather the storm and face criticism especially from critics in order to continue his new vision of film beyond his own movies.


(This post was edited by awepittance on Dec 30 2012, 12:16pm)


Morok Cloudkeeper
Rohan


Dec 30 2012, 12:32pm

Post #8 of 74 (411 views)
Shortcut
Well first off [In reply to] Can't Post

The cost would be enormous if they shot it on 35mm 48fps. Well, film deals with skin tones nicer I think. A lot of people are not informed properly about film and digital. 35mm film already is "HD" because obviously it has to fit a huge screen size. Film grain also adds to the image a lot, whereas digital has no grain. 70mm film can be scanned to about 18k of resolution I think, whereas the Red Epic shoots at 5k and most cinemas project at 4k. One could really talk days about the differences between the two and the pros and cons of them. But one of the main reasons why filmmakers choose digital is because it's cheaper and easier to deal with. There isn't really anything close to the resolution film has, but filmmakers are forced to switch to digital, because it's really about what the studios want. I recommend that you see the film Side by Side where some of the most famous directors like James Cameron, Martin Scorsese, Christopher Nolan, George Lucas and others talk about the revolution of digital and it's comparison against film.

Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle.



irodino
Bree


Dec 30 2012, 12:49pm

Post #9 of 74 (400 views)
Shortcut
Middle ground [In reply to] Can't Post

I had no way to see it in 48fps, but I know the kind of effect it produces, and in my opinion both the extreme standpoints are wrong, the best utilization of the technology is to use 24 and 48 (and higher) on a scene by scene basis. Using only 24 or only 48fps will always be inferior to a mixed approach. It's a bit like a discussion between two painters, one says a tiny brush is best, the other says a big brush is best, but the painter that uses both brushes will produce the best painting.

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that terrible in-between."


awepittance
The Shire

Dec 30 2012, 1:32pm

Post #10 of 74 (392 views)
Shortcut
good point, variable frame rates seem to make more sense [In reply to] Can't Post

live action shots should be 24fps and high action or closeup cgi shots should be 48fps or higher. I could see Avatar 2 really benefitting from doing both frame rates during different parts of the movie


Lightice
Lorien

Dec 30 2012, 1:44pm

Post #11 of 74 (397 views)
Shortcut
Seriously? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
But the HFR cheapens the CGI, simply because of the higher frame rate. The effects aren't at a high enough quality yet.


I just went to see the HFR version yesterday, just to see what the fuss was all about. My prediction about it came 100% true: the difference was utterly negligible except in one, single aspect: reduced motion-blur in 3D. That's all that I expected and that's all that I got. There was zero difference in how I perceived any of the special effects or the film itself. It took me conscious effort to remind myself of the minute differences in how the film actually looked; it was certainly more crisp and detailed, but how you can pay attention to that for more than five minutes, I have no idea. It also wasn't the visual revolution that Peter Jackson was trying to sell, it was just less motion blur, no more, no less.

I'm beginning to suspect that the whole "terrible experience" that some people have from the effect is nothing more than self-hypnosis, and if I lured them to a HFR theatre without their knowledge, they wouldn't even be even able to tell the difference. If you have problem with the special effects, blame the effects team, not the camera technicians. They don't look different in the slightest, in good or bad.


DanielLB
Immortal


Dec 30 2012, 1:47pm

Post #12 of 74 (374 views)
Shortcut
Not at all [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I'm beginning to suspect that the whole "terrible experience" that some people have from the effect is nothing more than self-hypnosis, and if I lured them to a HFR theatre without their knowledge, they wouldn't even be even able to tell the difference. If you have problem with the special effects, blame the effects team, not the camera technicians. They don't look different in the slightest, in good or bad.


We're all entitled to an opinion. I was expecting to like the HFR, but I didn't. The difference was very obvious to me. I don't like it, but appreciate that some people do.

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!



entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 30 2012, 1:48pm

Post #13 of 74 (376 views)
Shortcut
I think some folks are genuinely affected by the HFR [In reply to] Can't Post

just like some people get headaches with 3D films. Fortunately, neither affect me, so I was able to enjoy the 3D and the HFR as much as the 2D versions.

I had no problem with the CGI in any version - it all looked real to me.


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Dec 30 2012, 1:50pm

Post #14 of 74 (364 views)
Shortcut
Now, that's interesting... [In reply to] Can't Post

Of course, it would involve a projector capable of changing speeds on demand. But I wonder if there's any possibility we'll see this in the future? Had never considered it before. Thinking outside the box Wink


ryouko
Lorien

Dec 30 2012, 1:53pm

Post #15 of 74 (361 views)
Shortcut
I found it quite enjoyable [In reply to] Can't Post

I've seen it three times, three different ways(2D, 3D, and HFR). I had no problems whatsoever with the HFR. The only real difference I noticed was how much more "real" it seemed. To me, it seemed as if I was actually there watching everything happen around me. Kinda like seeing a live show at the theatre, while sitting on the stage. I found it all the be great fun and would like to see it, at least, once more in HFR. Cool


Lightice
Lorien

Dec 30 2012, 2:19pm

Post #16 of 74 (376 views)
Shortcut
I simply have a hard time understanding... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

We're all entitled to an opinion. I was expecting to like the HFR, but I didn't. The difference was very obvious to me. I don't like it, but appreciate that some people do.



...How did you notice the effect enough to dislike it? I seriously wouldn't have been able to tell the difference if I didn't know it was there from the beginning. While I appreciate the small difference it makes to the 3D experience, it's really nothing to write home about. Overall, I think that I enjoyed the lightweight passive 3D glasses more than the 48fps, it simply did not do all that much for me. It's a minor tweak as far as I am able to perceive, not a revolution or a disaster.


DanielLB
Immortal


Dec 30 2012, 2:35pm

Post #17 of 74 (356 views)
Shortcut
Because there was no blur [In reply to] Can't Post

And everything looked very real. That's how I noticed - which to me, was very obvious. But one wouldn't expect everyone to react to HFR in the same way. We all see the world slightly differently, and our brains are wired up differently. Negligible difference to you, is a massive difference to me. Aren't something like 1/10 people unable to see in 3D? It wouldn't make much of a difference to them!

Smile

I don't think it added anything to the "3D experience", other than reducing the blur. We don't have different glasses for the different screenings in the UK, so I can't comment on that.

I've never said HFR was a disaster. I have always said it doesn't suit me, and that I very much appreciate that people enjoy it. I'm quite happy for the film industry to pursue this technology, *as long as* they give us folk the 24fps options as well.

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!



(This post was edited by DanielLB on Dec 30 2012, 2:40pm)


BeornBerserker
Lorien

Dec 30 2012, 2:48pm

Post #18 of 74 (347 views)
Shortcut
Saw AUJ in all three formats [In reply to] Can't Post

I am a believer in 3D HFR and definitely prefer the format. However, I really enjoyed the standard 2D 24 fps as it reminded me of the viewing experience of the LotR trilogy. I didn't care for the 3D 24fps as there was a lot of blurring and the 3D did not come off well in this format.


Macfeast
Rohan


Dec 30 2012, 2:52pm

Post #19 of 74 (334 views)
Shortcut
Never heard about 1/10 people being unable to see in 3D, but... [In reply to] Can't Post

...I have yet to see a 3D movie where I actually notice any 3D-effects (only seen two such movies, granted, but still), whereas those I have gone with found it very noticeable, wondering how I could have missed it. Maybe I'm one out of the ten?


(This post was edited by Macfeast on Dec 30 2012, 2:55pm)


demanon
Rivendell


Dec 30 2012, 3:11pm

Post #20 of 74 (315 views)
Shortcut
48fps made sets [In reply to] Can't Post

look like sets. They looked fake. at 48fps the sets looked like scenes from Jim Hensons " The Story Teller". You just knew it was fake and couldnt get the immersion you were looking for.


mutelock
Bree


Dec 30 2012, 4:28pm

Post #21 of 74 (289 views)
Shortcut
Really? [In reply to] Can't Post

I didn't think they looked fake at all! Smile Loved the 48 fps - sure, it took awhile to get used to, but the battle scenes looked so much better than in 2D or digital 3D. And the aerial shots were particularly beautiful.


Lightice
Lorien

Dec 30 2012, 5:07pm

Post #22 of 74 (281 views)
Shortcut
OK, this is what I mean by "self-hypnosis" [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
look like sets. They looked fake. at 48fps the sets looked like scenes from Jim Hensons " The Story Teller". You just knew it was fake and couldnt get the immersion you were looking for.



They look identical. Exactly the same. No difference whatsoever. The sets, the special effects, there is absolutely no visual difference in them between different versions. I can maybe buy that you find the extra degree of visible motion from the 48fps distracting, even though I need to actively seek out such differences before I notice them, but I call nonsense on any claim that anything would look more "fake" with the increased framerate. I saw it with my own eyes yesterday. If it looks fake to you in 48fps then it will look equally fake in 24fps. The framerate difference doesn't influence that at all.


Lily Fairbairn
Half-elven


Dec 30 2012, 5:18pm

Post #23 of 74 (297 views)
Shortcut
I saw it in 48 fps/3D yesterday [In reply to] Can't Post

I've never gone to a 3D movie before, afraid I would get a headache, so I saw the 24 fps 2D version the day TH opened.

Yesterday I had no problem at all, not the least twinge, and enjoyed the extra depth brought to each scene by the 3D. As for the HFR specifically, maybe it's my aging eyes not seeing as acutely as others' eyes, but the picture seemed a bit clearer is all. I had no problems, even at the beginning.

Yes, Rivendell looked like a matte painting, but I'm willing to suspend my disbelief. Hobbiton looked like a matte painting, and I've been there, I know it's real! To me, the CGI was beautifully done.

The film has flaws, but, IMHO, its presentation isn't one of them.




entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 30 2012, 5:23pm

Post #24 of 74 (272 views)
Shortcut
It's all a matter of perception. [In reply to] Can't Post

It's impossible to say that someone is "wrong" in how they view the film. The sets might look identical to you, but you can't see what anyone else is seeing, so the sets might not be identical to someone else.

I like the 48 fps version, but I also appreciate that not everyone will like it. That doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the movie.


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 30 2012, 5:25pm

Post #25 of 74 (289 views)
Shortcut
I know! [In reply to] Can't Post

I always thought the Party Tree looked fake, even in the LOTR movies. But when I was actually on the set, the Party Tree looked fake, and it's a real tree! Hobbiton is so beautiful it almost seems unreal, but it's just as beautiful in person.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.