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:
Is high frame rate rate technology dead for major films (other than Avatar)?

Eruonen
Valinor


Sep 18, 1:59pm

Post #1 of 12 (6494 views)
Shortcut
Is high frame rate rate technology dead for major films (other than Avatar)? Can't Post

https://www.pocket-lint.com/tv/news/143206-what-is-hfr-high-frame-rate-and-why-should-you-care

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/...nts-continue-1024398


(This post was edited by Eruonen on Sep 18, 2:00pm)


jlj93byu
Rivendell

Sep 18, 5:57pm

Post #2 of 12 (6458 views)
Shortcut
I hope it stays around [In reply to] Can't Post

While it was initially jarring and took some getting used to, I eventually came around to it and enjoyed the extra realism, especially when it came to natural elements. The flowing water or falling rain looked amazing, and some of the outdoor nature shots felt more real with the blowing breezes moving the trees and other natural elements in a more realistically looking way.


Eruonen
Valinor


Sep 18, 7:48pm

Post #3 of 12 (6443 views)
Shortcut
Certain scenes do benefit from it....maybe some hybrid filming is required but the [In reply to] Can't Post

differences may be too noticeable. Currently, the lack of projectors that can run it limits distribution.


2ndBreffest
Rivendell


Sep 18, 10:30pm

Post #4 of 12 (6427 views)
Shortcut
innovation [In reply to] Can't Post

the world just wasn't ready for Peter Jacksons ground breaking new technology! It is truly magnificent but it was perhaps too much for the average movie goer to handle!


Chen G.
Rivendell

Sep 19, 10:50am

Post #5 of 12 (6371 views)
Shortcut
I’ve never held it as a criticism against the films [In reply to] Can't Post

because ultimately you could see the film in 24fps and it looks just like any other film. Also, the experience of the film wasn’t dependent on format: it wasn’t a “ride” that had to be experienced under specific conditions, like Avatar was partially dependent on the 3D experience (the story being not terribly engaging) or Dunkirk was dependent upon the IMAX screen.

As for what will turn out of this format, I think it will eventually find its footing. James Cameron has the uncanny ability to make lots of money, and so you can bet that his Avatar sequels will be a success on a financial level, in the very least, and that may encourage further use of this format. I heard Jackson say that the revenue from 48fps showings of his films was “absolutely enormous” so I imagine the film-going public had less of an issue with it than critics did, which makes sense: casual movie-goers see only a fraction of the number of films critics do, and as such the 24-frame look is less engrained in their experience.

One of the questions we need to ask is: will Mortal Engines be distributed in that format? It’s produced by Jackson and is shot with the same digital cameras capable of HFR. If Jackson is sticking with this technology it will mean a lot going forward.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Sep 19, 10:54am)


AshNazg
Gondor


Sep 19, 11:55am

Post #6 of 12 (6364 views)
Shortcut
I'm not sure if Avatar 2 is in HFR... [In reply to] Can't Post

I know James Cameron was very vocal in his support of HFR and stated multiple times that he will be using HFR for Avatar 2. However, since shooting began, there has been no mention of the technology and I have a feeling he has since abandoned the idea.

I hope we see The Hobbit get a home release in 48fps. But I'm not holding my breath.


jlj93byu
Rivendell

Sep 19, 3:47pm

Post #7 of 12 (6344 views)
Shortcut
Critics and HFR [In reply to] Can't Post

Yeah, I was surprised at how many critics knocked the movie because of its format. It's like docking a movie a star because your seat had an uncomfortable spring in your back. I read so many reviews critical of the first film where they specifically mentioned the HFR as being part of their reason for reviewing it the way they did. I wonder how much more well rated AUJ would be on rotten tomatoes if it wasn't for the HFR. Maybe 7-10%?


Chen G.
Rivendell

Sep 19, 5:08pm

Post #8 of 12 (6336 views)
Shortcut
There's also a sentiment in film criticism against digital cameras altogether [In reply to] Can't Post

which The Hobbit was filmed with, itself a move that drew criticism besides the use of HFR. Outside of the industry that supports the process of shooting on film, its really just a nostalgic matter.

A lot of visually spectacular films were shot digitally: Skyfall, Apocalypto and, yes, An Unexpected Journey.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Sep 19, 5:09pm)


Eruonen
Valinor


Sep 19, 8:00pm

Post #9 of 12 (6320 views)
Shortcut
Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk shows the promise and failure of high-frame-rate cinema. [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.slate.com/...lso_unwatchable.html

It Looked Great. It Was Unwatchable.
Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk shows the promise and failure of high-frame-rate cinema.
By Daniel Engber

"....In other words, HFR appears to be the New Coke of cinema—a product people claim to love in taste tests but which no one enjoys in real-world settings. This disparity—what one group of sociologists calls “The Hobbit hyperreality paradox”—has no simple explanation. If HFR looks so damn good, then why don’t we like it in the theater?..."


Chen G.
Rivendell

Sep 19, 8:51pm

Post #10 of 12 (6303 views)
Shortcut
Well, within the premise of a Fantasy its easy to explain [In reply to] Can't Post

The way I put it, High Defintion makes the objects captured in the frame seem more real; High Frame Rate, however, makes theme seem more present. Since its closer to how the human eye percieves reallity, some part of your brain is convinced that the sights on the screen are right there, in front of you.

This has two issues. One, in the case of The Hobbit, it creates a dissonance with the subject matter: since the subject matter includes dragons, trolls, ogres, etcetra - that it looks so real and present makes you deny its realism all the more. Even the more "normal" characters like the Dwarves or Gandalf would look surreal to meet on the street.

Second, for most films, there's a dissonance with the format. If we're registering that what we're seeing is real and present, than we ought to see it through an authentic point of view: either a wide-shot or a POV. Any other camera placement, close-ups, use of slow-motion and certainly movement of the camera - will all create a dissonance between the realism of what you're seeing, and inherent lack of realism as to the lens you see it through.

I still don't think its a bad idea, and I think that as time passes it will be used more often, if not commonplace.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Sep 19, 8:56pm)


AshNazg
Gondor


Sep 21, 10:08am

Post #11 of 12 (6256 views)
Shortcut
Here's a clip of Billy Lynn in 60fps... [In reply to] Can't Post

Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk was shot at 120fps. The Blu-ray removed every other frame. Displaying it at 60fps. Here's a clip from it...

**graphic violent content** https://youtu.be/x091jfFFe9g
(I recommend watching in 720p for smoothest image, unless your device can handle higher)

It's very smooth, if you compare it to the 24fps version, it looks sort of like a home video camera rather than a movie camera?

I think we've been conditioned to see HFR as "cheap" since most of our cheaper cameras shoot at higher frame rates. The first time I saw The Hobbit, I felt like it was in fast-forward, because I'm used to seeing HFR when fast-forwarding videos. It's all to do with what your brain is accustomed to. We don't have 60fps soap operas in the UK, so we don't see it as a "soap opera effect" some say it looks like "behind the scenes footage" which again, is shot with cheaper video cameras.

If more big movies used HFR, then over time people would not have this problem of association, and would eventually come to accept and probably prefer HFR, but it would be a big undertaking to convince a fairly stubborn audience that they're all wrong. Unsure

Also, I know a lot of people who find 60fps (particularly in video games) creates motion-sickness, because big camera movements can trick the brain into thinking you're actually in motion. The disconnect can make you dizzy. I don't know if this is something people get used to more with exposure or whether it would be an ongoing problem for the format. I've never experienced it myself.


(This post was edited by AshNazg on Sep 21, 10:19am)


Eruonen
Valinor


Sep 21, 1:53pm

Post #12 of 12 (6236 views)
Shortcut
It looks like you are right next to him.... [In reply to] Can't Post

 

 
 

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.