Hobbit: Overly detailed 5K and HFR failing to please

[Gillvane]

Perhaps a lot depends of the subject matter? Maybe for some subjects, it's a positive help to make it seem more real to help immerse the viewer in the story? Regarding the Hobbit, then maybe a problem is that the dwarves are neither human nor "something else"? And as a result end up looking like, well - humans with a lot of makeup? And the more realistic the cinematography, the more of a difficulty that is? I found the dragon and other exotic creatures to be far more believable than the dwarves, silly though that sounds.

I think it has to do with the movement of CGI. I noticed in the first Hobbit that the scene with the stone giants fighting in the mountains looked great. It was good 3d and the characters did not have a soap opera look. However, as soon as we went back to the people in the movie, it looked awful again, like a soap opera or the weather channel.

I don't think I would complain at all about the HFR if you made a 3d movie that was entirely CGI with no real people in it. Like if you did a Monsters Inc. movie in HFR that would be fine.

Basically HFR is good for 3d movement. Judder and motion blur on top of the current 3d picture window look is very hard on the eyes. One reason that is true is because there's nothing "real" about the current 3d. You get depth, but it's an artificial depth. You cannot look around a door entrance like you can in real life. It's depth on top of a flat image. Real 3d would mean I'd see something different depending on which side of the theater I sat on. I could peak behind a character if I moved my position.

 

[Guest]

I think if that were true, that people just aren't "used to it", then the soap opera look would have become more popular over time than the cinema look. Why did we all try to shoot video at 24p the moment we could even if it was in SD?

question^

HFR looks more like a soap opera shot on video than a movie shot on film at 24fps.

answer^

 

[Darren Levine]

How about i put this conversation in another context:

What's wrong with 24?

Are there any people who dislike 24? And if so, for what reasons?

Look not at what the supposed benefits of 48 might, but rather as an, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, kind of way.

For me personally, it seems like everyone trying to be at the cutting edge/pioneering new techniques. 3D had been mostly a joke until avatar, and while i enjoyed avatar 3D, i hate pretty much everything else 3D either because it doesn't add anything to the experience or is so horribly done that my eyes hurt.

So, what's wrong with 24? It seems to me, the logical and safe bet, is to stick with what's accepted, and not risk annoying those who might be sensitive to it.

 

[DBP]

The only thing wrong with 24 is that it looks awful during pans. Simply awful. Strobing is not a pleasant sensation.

Admittedly I haven't seen a whole lot of 3D material...but the first thing that jumped out at me when I watched a demo at NAB was that the downsides of 24p were really pronounced with 3D. The strobe/judder became almost unbearable.

 

[David Jimerson]

FWIW, I'm with Jackson on higher framerates. I don't believe 24 was chosen, or is currently beloved, due to any special magical properties of that speed. I believe it was chosen due to technical limitations and is currently beloved just because it's what everyone is so used to. The technical limitations are no longer there, so let's stop with the stuttering motion and blurry-due-to-low-shutterspeed frames. Within five years people will be as used to / satisfied with 48 (or anything we switch to) as they are 24 today.

If that were true, and it were only a matter of technical/cost limitation and what people are used to -- as I said earlier in the conversation, there were plenty of primetime shows shot in the US and the UK on video (HFR) for cost reasons throughout the '70s and '80s, and everyone ran away from that back to slower frame rates (max 30 fps) as soon as cost was no longer an issue and frame rate became a real choice. They wouldn't have if the frame rate doesn't matter artistically. People were plenty used to it by then.

A frame rate is a canvas. Artists still paint on canvas even though it would be cheaper to paint on posterboard. Why? Texture.

 

[David Jimerson]

The only thing wrong with 24 is that it looks awful during pans. Simply awful. Strobing is not a pleasant sensation.

It's no good for shooting slo-mo, either.

 

[Guest]

It's no good for shooting slo-mo, either.

Haha, true.

 

[Gillvane]

The only thing wrong with 24 is that it looks awful during pans. Simply awful. Strobing is not a pleasant sensation.

This is why I bought the HFR argument when I first heard it. I can get distracted by judder, stro\bing, whatever it is in a film pan, and with action movies there can be a lot of it. So when I heard the whole, we don't need this old technology 24 fps spiel I thought, yea! This will look great! No more strobing!

But then I saw the Hobbit, and I thought, bring back the strobing! I will take that over this soap opera look any day.

 

[Barry_Green]

But then I saw the Hobbit, and I thought, bring back the strobing! I will take that over this soap opera look any day.

Absolutely agree, if I had to choose one or the other, I'd choose the pleasing 24p motion rendition and deal with the strobing.

Would be interesting to see 120fps delivery, where we could seamlessly (meaning, without pulldown) embed 24p, 30p, and 60p footage in the same project, and switch between them when necessary or prudent, to see if that would really "work" and provide the best of all worlds... in theory it could, or it could be argued that changing frame rates would be unnecessarily distracting, but I don't know about that... I mean, you can shoot 3D with very mild 3D-ness in it, or you can shoot it with exaggerated depth (the "gimmick" effect which, I would argue, is pretty much the only point to shooting in 3D anyway), and people accept it all. I have to admit that the sweeping vistas and landscape scenes in the original The Hobbit certainly did look better in the HFR version (no jitter, just Discovery-channel-style super HD). If you had 120fps delivery, you could embed 24p dialogue scenes, 30p for mild strobe reduction, and 60p for action sequences (or, heck, 120p for action sequences) all within the same program. Would probably be a mess, but maybe it's a potential way forward or, at least, a potential canvas for some artist to explore on.

 

[Guest]

Absolutely agree, if I had to choose one or the other, I'd choose the pleasing 24p motion rendition and deal with the strobing.

Would be interesting to see 120fps delivery, where we could seamlessly (meaning, without pulldown) embed 24p, 30p, and 60p footage in the same project, and switch between them when necessary or prudent, to see if that would really "work" and provide the best of all worlds... in theory it could, or it could be argued that changing frame rates would be unnecessarily distracting, but I don't know about that... I mean, you can shoot 3D with very mild 3D-ness in it, or you can shoot it with exaggerated depth (the "gimmick" effect which, I would argue, is pretty much the only point to shooting in 3D anyway), and people accept it all. I have to admit that the sweeping vistas and landscape scenes in the original The Hobbit certainly did look better in the HFR version (no jitter, just Discovery-channel-style super HD). If you had 120fps delivery, you could embed 24p dialogue scenes, 30p for mild strobe reduction, and 60p for action sequences (or, heck, 120p for action sequences) all within the same program. Would probably be a mess, but maybe it's a potential way forward or, at least, a potential canvas for some artist to explore on.

Beautiful

 

[David Jimerson]

Would be interesting to see 120fps delivery, where we could seamlessly (meaning, without pulldown) embed 24p, 30p, and 60p footage in the same project, and switch between them when necessary or prudent, to see if that would really "work" and provide the best of all worlds...

You can do that now with 60p. I know you said "without pulldown," meaning 2:3 pulldown for 24p, but there's always a pulldown when you're embedding slower framerates in a higher fps stream. The only difference with 120 fps is that you can embed 24p by repeating each frame 5 times (5:5 pulldown) instead of alternating 2 and 3 (2:3 pulldown), and that, I daresay, is no real visual difference. 24 fps with 2:3 pulldown is already visually indistinguishable from straight 24 fps, and you're talking about a negligible mathematical cadence difference, one that the brain's self-correction software instantly forgives. And there's no visual or mathematical difference at all between 30 fps with a 2:2 pulldown in a 60 fps stream and 30 fps with a 4:4 pulldown in a 120 fps stream.

So, if you wanted, you could indeed include all three frame rates in the same program. You saw me do it in the 24p tute.

 

[Gillvane]

Absolutely agree, if I had to choose one or the other, I'd choose the pleasing 24p motion rendition and deal with the strobing.

Would be interesting to see 120fps delivery, where we could seamlessly (meaning, without pulldown) embed 24p, 30p, and 60p footage in the same project, and switch between them when necessary or prudent, to see if that would really "work" and provide the best of all worlds... in theory it could, or it could be argued that changing frame rates would be unnecessarily distracting, but I don't know about that... I mean, you can shoot 3D with very mild 3D-ness in it, or you can shoot it with exaggerated depth (the "gimmick" effect which, I would argue, is pretty much the only point to shooting in 3D anyway), and people accept it all. I have to admit that the sweeping vistas and landscape scenes in the original The Hobbit certainly did look better in the HFR version (no jitter, just Discovery-channel-style super HD). If you had 120fps delivery, you could embed 24p dialogue scenes, 30p for mild strobe reduction, and 60p for action sequences (or, heck, 120p for action sequences) all within the same program. Would probably be a mess, but maybe it's a potential way forward or, at least, a potential canvas for some artist to explore on.

I also saw a video a while back on the technique of using different frame rates with a tool similar to color correcting with Divinci Resolve, only with motion. Just like you can color correct the sky and not the rest of the frame, you could sort of superimpose 24fps on top of 48fps motion and then reveal the 48fps motion whenever you want to. So let's say there's a fight scene and you see this Jackie Chan style kick to the head, you can carve out just the leg of the actor and put that in 48 fps so you don't get any blur and see the entire kick, while the rest of the picture remains in 24fps and doesn't look soap opera.

Also 100% agree that the gimmick effect is the real reason to shoot 3d. I WANT things to come out of the screen into my face in a 3d movie and I'm always disappointed when directors turn it into a picture window instead. The really cool part of 3d is what's in front of the screen not what's behind the screen, but directors ignore this so they can make "serious" 3d. It's a movie. I don't want serious. Poke me in the eye.

 

[DBP]

Absolutely agree, if I had to choose one or the other, I'd choose the pleasing 24p motion rendition and deal with the strobing.

Would be interesting to see 120fps delivery, where we could seamlessly (meaning, without pulldown) embed 24p, 30p, and 60p footage in the same project, and switch between them when necessary or prudent, to see if that would really "work" and provide the best of all worlds... in theory it could, or it could be argued that changing frame rates would be unnecessarily distracting, but I don't know about that... I mean, you can shoot 3D with very mild 3D-ness in it, or you can shoot it with exaggerated depth (the "gimmick" effect which, I would argue, is pretty much the only point to shooting in 3D anyway), and people accept it all. I have to admit that the sweeping vistas and landscape scenes in the original The Hobbit certainly did look better in the HFR version (no jitter, just Discovery-channel-style super HD). If you had 120fps delivery, you could embed 24p dialogue scenes, 30p for mild strobe reduction, and 60p for action sequences (or, heck, 120p for action sequences) all within the same program. Would probably be a mess, but maybe it's a potential way forward or, at least, a potential canvas for some artist to explore on.

I assume appropriate motion blur would have to be added in post if a 120fps source was converted to 24fps?

120fps would have to have at least a 1/120 shutter speed. 24fps with a 1/120 shutter speed looks like a special kind of garbage unless that super strobe-y effect is meant a specific reason.

60fps @ 1/60 produces wonderful 30p by dropping every second frame because the shutter speed is appropriate.

I am really curious about multiple frame rates within a given project. It might be too jarring for a lot of people at first. I shoot a lot of 60p and 24p material. Reviewing my footage... if I'm looking at one for too long, the other always looks really odd and wrong when I switch to it abruptly. Almost like my eyes have to adjust for a little while before it looks normal again.

 

[David Jimerson]

I assume appropriate motion blur would have to be added in post if a 120fps source was converted to 24fps?

120fps would have to have at least a 1/120 shutter speed. 24fps with a 1/120 shutter speed looks like a special kind of garbage unless that super strobe-y effect is meant a specific reason.

60fps @ 1/60 produces wonderful 30p by dropping every second frame because the shutter speed is appropriate.

That's actually the opposite of what he's talking about doing, which is displaying those frame rates at 120 fps. The acquisition shutter speed won't really matter.

I am really curious about multiple frame rates within a given project. It might be too jarring for a lot of people at first. I shoot a lot of 60p and 24p material. Reviewing my footage... if I'm looking at one for too long, the other always looks really odd and wrong when I switch to it abruptly. Almost like my eyes have to adjust for a little while before it looks normal again.

It's your job as a filmmaker and editor to present the shift in framerates within a context where it would make sense to the viewer. Analogy: presenting flashbacks in black and white within a color movie. If you just switched to black and white for no reason, it would be jarring and would make no sense. If you do it for an artistic reason, it works.

 

[Guest]

The really cool part of 3d is what's in front of the screen not what's behind the screen, but directors ignore this so they can make "serious" 3d. It's a movie. I don't want serious. Poke me in the eye.

Haha, that's what I loved about the Epcot Michael Jackson 3D film.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Absolutely agree, if I had to choose one or the other, I'd choose the pleasing 24p motion rendition and deal with the strobing.

Would be interesting to see 120fps delivery, where we could seamlessly (meaning, without pulldown) embed 24p, 30p, and 60p footage in the same project, and switch between them when necessary or prudent, to see if that would really "work" and provide the best of all worlds... in theory it could, or it could be argued that changing frame rates would be unnecessarily distracting, but I don't know about that... I mean, you can shoot 3D with very mild 3D-ness in it, or you can shoot it with exaggerated depth (the "gimmick" effect which, I would argue, is pretty much the only point to shooting in 3D anyway), and people accept it all. I have to admit that the sweeping vistas and landscape scenes in the original The Hobbit certainly did look better in the HFR version (no jitter, just Discovery-channel-style super HD). If you had 120fps delivery, you could embed 24p dialogue scenes, 30p for mild strobe reduction, and 60p for action sequences (or, heck, 120p for action sequences) all within the same program. Would probably be a mess, but maybe it's a potential way forward or, at least, a potential canvas for some artist to explore on.

This is why honestly I always wished in the US we had PAL as opposed to NTSC. One of my biggest regrets of the move to HD was that the world didn't come up with a universal frame rate. Even today we are still clinging to the old school NTSC and PAL mindset even though we don't need to as much anymore. I understand the reason was to offer backwards compatibility with the TV standards in place at the time but it was still frustrating. To me as one who worked in international video I was always much more annoyed with 60i to 50i conversion than I ever was with 3:2 pulldown. Honestly for me one of my biggest drives for shooting 24p was a cleaner and easier 25p conversion for our international markets.

120p still doesn't solve the PAL markets since 25p or 50p doesn't fit nicely in 120p. The only universal frame rate this would work for is 600p.

 

[Darren Levine]

sounds to me like 30p would have been a better overall bet for jackson than 48. Like already mentioned, if strobing is really the sole big consideration for shooting 24p, and 48, albeit a nice divisible into 24 number, just jumps too far from what we all accept as a pleasing image, and supposing his intention was to negate strobing on those sweeping landscapes, than a middle ground/stepping stone would have been the smarter choice to gain some strobe reducing benefits, but whilst not straying too far from what we already like motion wise.

30p @ 1/180 also gives us americans the added convenience of flicker reduction in certain lights/tvs
1/60 vs 1/96 is also a notch more exposure when you might need it. though less of a problem in iso 500,000 days

one frame rate is of course the simplest, but since there can't be one framerate to rule them all (sorry, had to), then something like barry's all encompassing framerate stew would have to be the compromise.

 

[yoclay]

Honestly, even after all this discussion I barely noticed these kind of issues when watching the film, and I am a filmmaker. Of much deeper concern was the total lack of actual character progression. Just passing through so many forests of death, canyons of evil and fire breathing, slouching, slimy, mythical what-not things was actually kind of BORING. Is it just me or as this particular franchise seems to roll on, don't the characters seem to have less and less personality? Personally, I think Jackson is as lost as his characters. He cannot see the forest for the trees. Dramatically the whole film is flat.

 

[Darren Levine]

Honestly, even after all this discussion I barely noticed these kind of issues when watching the film, and I am a filmmaker. Of much deeper concern was the total lack of actual character progression. Just passing through so many forests of death, canyons of evil and fire breathing, slouching, slimy, mythical what-not things was actually kind of BORING. Is it just me or as this particular franchise seems to roll on, don't the characters seem to have less and less personality? Personally, I think Jackson is as lost as his characters. He cannot see the forest for the trees. Dramatically the whole film is flat.

I think it was just way too soon.

LOTR may have been a good number of years ago, but i think it should have been a good bunch more years before revisiting the franchise.

and i think a big part of the problem of extrapolating it into 3 films is that you're stuck basically with this one group for all that time. in LOTR, you have several groups with different struggles going on, it's dynamic and gives you more interest by wondering whats going on with who you not seeing at any particular time.

 

[KyleProhaska]

I think it was just way too soon.

LOTR may have been a good number of years ago, but i think it should have been a good bunch more years before revisiting the franchise.

and i think a big part of the problem of extrapolating it into 3 films is that you're stuck basically with this one group for all that time. in LOTR, you have several groups with different struggles going on, it's dynamic and gives you more interest by wondering whats going on with who you not seeing at any particular time.

I've gotten yelled at by people for sounding opinionated on this subject. They're just not good movies, bottom line. The story is stretched too thin, the characters aren't as well built, there is a lot more indulgence on the action sequence end of things, etc. We can talk about the technical side all day long, but the story/characters is why the world went nuts for LOTR, and The Hobbit misses the mark big time…along with the fact that it suffers from prequel syndrome, where we're along with Bilbo, a character we know makes it in the end. Was anybody afraid he'd get burnt to a crisp in Hobbit 2? Doubt it. I'm very thankful I never read the books prior to watching the LOTR movies…because they were so deep and engaging, the stakes so high, the characters so lovable, that by the time ROTK came along, my body felt the pain of it all ending and wrapping up. I don't think I've ever cried more in a theater.

I hope Jackson can find some new material after these movies are over and give us something magical again.