48FPS Footage & 24FPS comparison- Shot with RED -Realtime-Not slow motion.
- Thread starter PappasArts
- Start date
PappasArts
Veteran
[size=+0][UPDATE:] 12/16/12- The conversations from this post forward are after the release of the Hobbit,
and the conversations that discuss the actual movie and experience from those that have seen it in HFR.[/size]
It seems the HFR version of the Hobbit is not being excepted as Jackson and company had hoped. Wonder if this affects Cameron's decision for the next Avatar to be HFR, and to either go to 60 or 48?
Pappas
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
and the conversations that discuss the actual movie and experience from those that have seen it in HFR.[/size]
It seems the HFR version of the Hobbit is not being excepted as Jackson and company had hoped. Wonder if this affects Cameron's decision for the next Avatar to be HFR, and to either go to 60 or 48?
Pappas
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
Last edited:
I saw the HFR and I think most of these reviews are spot on:
http://www.vulture.com/2012/12/critics-on-the-hobbits-high-frame-rate.html
Also this sums it up nicely:
Director Peter Jackson premiered ten minutes of 48fps footage earlier this year to negative to mixed reviews. Jackson responded that ten minutes of footage was not enough to allow the viewer to get used to the effect and that the response to HFR 3D would be more favorable when audiences were able to get accustomed to the higher frame rate. After first seeing The Hobbit in conventional 3D I was very impressed and was optimistic that Jackson would be right. There was of course a certain logic to his argument; Americans are accustomed to 24fps, it’s been the industry norm since the late 1920s and ten minutes probably wasn’t enough time to get used to a higher frame rate. Unfortunately Jackson was wrong, HFR 3D simply looks terrible.
http://www.movieshateyoutoo.com/2012/12/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-hfr-3d-review.html
The HFR look is nothing new. We've been watching TV for many years and seeing things shot on video (soap operas, reality TV) and things shot on Film or Digital made to look like film such as the Social Network.
Most people would say they prefer the film look over the soap opera look. It's not about re-training the eyes, we've already see both those looks every day on TV and have for many years and already know which one we like best.
Honestly 28 Days later, shot on SD video, looks better than The Hobbit because they did their best to give it a film look rather than try to make it look like video.
Last edited:
androbot2084
Carbonite Member
Actually it is 24 fps that is a failure. It simply can't handle fast action and it looks terrible. Doug Trumbull proposed the only reasonable solution which is the Showscan format which is 65mm film shot at 30 frames per second for drama and 60 frames per second for fast action. The result is fantastic. No soap opera look yet plenty ofm motion fidelity for fast action.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
You're right, no movie shot at 24fps can be great or have great visuals. Except all the ones that do.
i think we have to separate people who try to build a better immersion, and those who are looking for some narrative effect.
Immersion is great....sometime. When you play some scene were realism is the key.
On the other hand, You don't need to be involved necessarily in a story, for the story to be good.
the viewer can feel safe and get an opinion on the story, because he got some distance. The "don't looks real" is at least as much important as the "looks real".
You just need to know when use each.
It is like real life were you can see a conflit very differently depending if you are in or out of it.
Immersion is great....sometime. When you play some scene were realism is the key.
On the other hand, You don't need to be involved necessarily in a story, for the story to be good.
the viewer can feel safe and get an opinion on the story, because he got some distance. The "don't looks real" is at least as much important as the "looks real".
You just need to know when use each.
It is like real life were you can see a conflit very differently depending if you are in or out of it.
yes, all the ones that i admire are shot in 24fps, other stuff is just low budget and comedy but that can be shot on cellphone with 10fps and im not here to learn how to shoot something that looks like home video.
Pretty can be picture with 0 fps.Were talking about motion pictures.
Pretty can be picture with 0 fps.Were talking about motion pictures.
Last edited:
If I have to choose between excessive motion blur/judder and soap opera look, I prefer the motion blur to the soap opera look.
If you can get the best of both, reduced motion blur but save the soft beauty of the film look, that would be fantastic.
androbot2084
Carbonite Member
2001 looked great at 24 fps because the cinematography style forced the slow pans which were unique to the shooting style of Stanley Kubrick. However 2001 was not all about Stanley Kubrick but it was also about Doug Trumbull. The Star Gate portion of the movie 2001 would have looked fantastic at 48 frames per second.
PappasArts
Veteran
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Michael, I am with your comment, even though I know you haven't been exactly with this perspective on facts but still wondering anyhow. Kudos to you anyway : ) That post resumes all the story.
But let me add a bit of fake humbleness on here 'cause I wouldn't need to watch whatever HFR sample* to understand it. And I could have the chance to write it on these boards in several occasions.
Art derives from media, period. 24fps and 48fps are two different media and nothing new to see here.
The problem with these guys behind The Hobbit is the fact some people want to inscribe their name in the history, no matter which way. It is only a matter of ego on here, nothing else.
Cheers,
E
But let me add a bit of fake humbleness on here 'cause I wouldn't need to watch whatever HFR sample* to understand it. And I could have the chance to write it on these boards in several occasions.
Art derives from media, period. 24fps and 48fps are two different media and nothing new to see here.
The problem with these guys behind The Hobbit is the fact some people want to inscribe their name in the history, no matter which way. It is only a matter of ego on here, nothing else.
Cheers,
E
Last edited:
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
PS
PS
http://www.movieshateyoutoo.com/2012/12/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-hfr-3d-review.html
I love this quote: «It doesn’t look more real or natural; in fact it looks unnatural and surprisingly cheap.»
PS
http://www.movieshateyoutoo.com/2012/12/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-hfr-3d-review.html
I love this quote: «It doesn’t look more real or natural; in fact it looks unnatural and surprisingly cheap.»
PappasArts
Veteran
http://www.movieshateyoutoo.com/2012/12/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-hfr-3d-review.html
I love this quote: «It doesn’t look more real or natural; in fact it looks unnatural and surprisingly cheap.»
Hey Emanuel!
I guess it's more integrated with me, the HFR aspect that is, since I was researching at Showscan way back, so I have a personal curiosity to see this in the mainstream as I wanted to see it years ago for larger research numbers on temporal resolutions affects on the brain. However it's taken many years for that to be reality.
Enthusiasm, expectation and reality don't always play in harmony with one another. Truth is, if cinema out the door was all HFR, we wouldn't know the difference. However that's a reality we can not live out. HFR is so clinical in it's process as well immediate in how it connects with our brains ( which I noticed way back while doing research at Showscan ) it changes the entire experience. Not necessarily for the good in some aspects. IMO, 30fps should have been the next jump for a standard if anything. However 30FPS proposal has always been treated like the bastard step son for over 50 years....
Pappas
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Interesting and weird times.
Now, that we finally have video cameras that shoot real 24p (something everybody and his kid brother where clamoring for) people hail the benefit of old video frame rates and motion.
Now that we have cameras that shoot - even in the middle of the night - clean as a whistle, we buy noise/grain plug-ins.
Now that we have cheap steadycams, jibs, dollys and whatnot, folks suddenly love handheld.
I guess as soon someone comes up with a rolling shutter/jello free CMOS sensor, there will be a plug-in that adds it back.
Now, that we finally have video cameras that shoot real 24p (something everybody and his kid brother where clamoring for) people hail the benefit of old video frame rates and motion.
Now that we have cameras that shoot - even in the middle of the night - clean as a whistle, we buy noise/grain plug-ins.
Now that we have cheap steadycams, jibs, dollys and whatnot, folks suddenly love handheld.
I guess as soon someone comes up with a rolling shutter/jello free CMOS sensor, there will be a plug-in that adds it back.
Kolor-Pikker
Well-known member
24p still looks best to me, but faster frame rates will have their place, I'm sure, as they do now.
People should learn to light and invest in lighting again, which thanks to the above mentioned reasons, should be even cheaper and more flexible than ever. Noise is never a problem, if it is, you're probably young and spoiled.
Still looks like the same garbage to me. Every technique has it's place, but somehow directors still find the worst films and scenes to shove the handheld look into. I remember back when a Harry Potter film first got that handheld look, and it just popped in my face all out of nowhere, I nearly choked.
God no, rolling shutter can't die fast enough.
Add one more point to the list: we're at an all-time high of accessible film making, and people still find something to complain about, turn off your browser and go shoot something already!
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Thanks God for Your mercy! ;-)
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Rolling shutter being awesome, in a very conscious way: http://vimeo.com/7878518
(but yes, it can't die fast enough)
(but yes, it can't die fast enough)