Hobbit: Overly detailed 5K and HFR failing to please

[combatentropy]

I tried to thumb up this post but accidentally thumbed down, and I can't change it. Sorry, Barry!

A couple of other things.

1. Like 3-D, HFR is not new. Thomas Edison said that 46 frames per second was the minimum: "anything less will strain the eye." (But shot at just 40 frames per second anyway?) In 1999 Dean Goodhill tried to introduce Maxivision, which shot 35mm film at 48 frames per second. Even Roger Ebert liked it.

2. One big reason why we've stuck to 24 frames per second through the decades is projectors, I would think. You can shoot at wonky frame rates all you want, but the huge infrastructure of 35mm film projectors that saturated the world until recently --- aren't they a reason we stayed at 24? I don't know, maybe it they were capable of variable frame rates too, but it seems to me like the studios would just say shoot at 24 to keep all the logistics simple.

 

[David Jimerson]

The wording I used was "I have a feeling that if compared with some modern drama, shot with modern high-def cameras and lit in a more low-key fashion, a non-expert observer would think the former had more of the "video-look" about it." - my apologies if it is not written very clearly, but the key words there are "more of the....".

What I was trying to get over (obviously not successfully) was that if you listed all the attributes that years ago made someone tick the "video" box or likewise the "film" box, then clean, high key lighting would often be associated with "video". Good dynamic range, good highlight handling would almost certainly put a tick in the film box, as - dare I say - would most often be simple good cinematography. Nowadays, dynamic range and similar attributes are typically as good on electronic cameras as they were on film, and you're likewise likely to find the best cinematographers happily working with such.

Which leaves little other than frame rate. The point I was trying to get over was what would someone now think looked more "video like" out of a high key scene at 24fps *OR* a low key scene at a higher frame rate. As to the answer, we'd better agree to disagree. Maybe it would have been better if I'd worded the original question "I have a feeling that if compared with some modern drama, shot with modern high-def cameras and lit in a more low-key fashion, a non-expert observer would think the former had less of the "film-look" about it"

No, I simply disagree. The "video" look is about how things move. And things move the way they do because of frame rate.

As I said, when you can compare two things directly, where the only difference is frame rate -- and I've cited any number of things where you can do this, including my own work -- one looks like "video," and the other doesn't; which is which is always the same, and it can be plainly seen by the "non-expert observer."

 

[adkimery]

What does that tell you?

Tells me that maybe it's conditioning. Maybe it's not. If it is conditioning then it's no surprise that people want to emulate it because that's one of the attributes they associate with high quality, Hollywood movies. Same with shallow depth of field and widescreen formatting. Many people so cling to these qualities as signs of 'high art' and 'cinema' that they forget about (or never saw) many classic films that utilized deep focus and/or were shot 4x3 (the move to widescreen of course being a way for cinema to differentiate itself from TV).

With that being said maybe lower frame rates like 24fps are magical. I've read a theory recently about how humans process visual information and that there might be an 'uncanny valley' with regards to frame rates. It basically goes that at lower frame rates our brains know what we are watching isn't real so it just kinda goes with it but at higher frame rates things look very close to real but not quite real which makes the experience less enjoyable.

Of course that doesn't seem to explain why I'm fine watching sports shot at 60Hz and displayed at 120Hz but watching a movie shot at 24Hz and displayed at 120Hz makes me want to break the TV. To me that sounds like conditioning as I seemingly expect sports to look one way and movies to look another.


It would be interesting to find a large group of people that had never seen a movie or tv show before and have them watch the Hobbit in 24 and in 48 to see which they prefer.


-Andrew

 

[Gillvane]

Tells me that maybe it's conditioning. Maybe it's not. If it is conditioning then it's no surprise that people want to emulate it because that's one of the attributes they associate with high quality, Hollywood movies. Same with shallow depth of field and widescreen formatting. Many people so cling to these qualities as signs of 'high art' and 'cinema' that they forget about (or never saw) many classic films that utilized deep focus and/or were shot 4x3 (the move to widescreen of course being a way for cinema to differentiate itself from TV).

With that being said maybe lower frame rates like 24fps are magical. I've read a theory recently about how humans process visual information and that there might be an 'uncanny valley' with regards to frame rates. It basically goes that at lower frame rates our brains know what we are watching isn't real so it just kinda goes with it but at higher frame rates things look very close to real but not quite real which makes the experience less enjoyable.

Of course that doesn't seem to explain why I'm fine watching sports shot at 60Hz and displayed at 120Hz but watching a movie shot at 24Hz and displayed at 120Hz makes me want to break the TV. To me that sounds like conditioning as I seemingly expect sports to look one way and movies to look another.


It would be interesting to find a large group of people that had never seen a movie or tv show before and have them watch the Hobbit in 24 and in 48 to see which they prefer.


-Andrew

The first moving images many people are exposed to are often high frame rate. Things like video games, the local news, youtube videos. Why doesn't that condition them to want to see everything at a high frame rate? Why don't they look at lower frame rate movies in the theater and go, oh, this looks awful! That doesn't ever seem to happen. Seems like it's probably NOT conditioning.

 

[David Jimerson]

With that being said maybe lower frame rates like 24fps are magical. I've read a theory recently about how humans process visual information and that there might be an 'uncanny valley' with regards to frame rates. It basically goes that at lower frame rates our brains know what we are watching isn't real so it just kinda goes with it but at higher frame rates things look very close to real but not quite real which makes the experience less enjoyable.

Yes, that's more or less what I said above.

Of course that doesn't seem to explain why I'm fine watching sports shot at 60Hz and displayed at 120Hz but watching a movie shot at 24Hz and displayed at 120Hz makes me want to break the TV. To me that sounds like conditioning as I seemingly expect sports to look one way and movies to look another.

Actually, that explains it perfectly. You expect sports to be a live, real event. You don't expect a movie to be.

 

[R Hudson]

Actually, that explains it perfectly. You expect sports to be a live, real event. You don't expect a movie to be.

Winning post!

 

[adkimery]

The first moving images many people are exposed to are often high frame rate. Things like video games, the local news, youtube videos. Why doesn't that condition them to want to see everything at a high frame rate? Why don't they look at lower frame rate movies in the theater and go, oh, this looks awful! That doesn't ever seem to happen. Seems like it's probably NOT conditioning.

Because movies, cinema, is supposed to be the high point of the art of visual storytelling and the frame rate is one aspect that gives cinema its look. Again, same reason so many people would strap 35mm adapters onto their cameras or mask off their SD movie so it was widescreen instead of 4x3. They associate that look with prestige and quality even though many great films were made using deep focus and in 4x3.

 

[adkimery]

Actually, that explains it perfectly. You expect sports to be a live, real event. You don't expect a movie to be.

Right. I've been condition to expect a movie to look like a movie so if it doesn't meet my expectations of what a movie should like then I think it looks wrong. It has nothing to do with inherent values of the frame rate it just has to do with what I've come to expect. So conditioning, not magic.

If the visual 'uncanny valley' theory was true then shouldn't my reaction to frame rates be uniform regardless of content since no matter what I'm just watching images flicker on a screen? If my reaction changes based on content then doesn't that suggest that I've been condition to certain types of content to look one way and other types of content to look another?

 

[David Jimerson]

If the visual 'uncanny valley' theory was true then shouldn't my reaction to frame rates be uniform regardless of content since no matter what I'm just watching images flicker on a screen? If my reaction changes based on content then doesn't that suggest that I've been condition to certain types of content to look one way and other types of content to look another?

No, that's pretty much the opposite of what the theory says.

 

[harddrive]

Right. I've been condition to expect a movie to look like a movie so if it doesn't meet my expectations of what a movie should like then I think it looks wrong. It has nothing to do with inherent values of the frame rate it just has to do with what I've come to expect. So conditioning, not magic.

Well, if we've got any psychology students it sounds like the makings of a great final year thesis! Nature or nurture for frame rates....?

It looks like there won't be agreement, but I'm afraid my money is still more on conditioning than "magic". Sorry.

Not scientific, but the pro-24fps lobby does seem far stronger in the US, much less so in the UK, not sure about the rest of Europe. And (as Barry says above) in Japan they positively prefer higher frame rates. Doesn't that point towards conditioning rather than "magic"?

My thoughts were also far more thinking of drama on TV rather than cinema. Which may be relevant. In the UK there's been a significant amount of TV drama at 50Hz framerates, I suspect it's been mostly 24fps in the US - I wonder what Japanese TV drama is mainly shot as? This all would point towards conditioning - people just like what's most familiar.

 

[High1ander]

I might be doing a brain fart here, but to me 24 or 25 fps is great with correct shutter speed and thus correct motion blur. As Barry points out higher frame rates have higher motion fidelity. But, to come to the potential brain farting part, when you get HFR you mess with shutter speed and motion blur. Lets say you shoot and display something at 1000fps, with 1000 shutter speed, I bet it would look like crap to my eyes (for narrative use), because it wouldn't have any motion blur, my eyes and my brain would have to create that blur (if there is any), it would be too hyper-real, which to some extent with movie magic is the opposite. High-end games today that run on 120hz monitors, with 120 or above FPS output (not that the display FPS will be higher than 120) have the option to add motion blur. I find that motion blur help when trying to get into the game and get absorbed by it (and it makes the strain of playing for longer duration less), but it sucks when you want to be efficient in shoot em ups so you turn it off (or, rather when you want to be competitive you turn it off).

 

[David Jimerson]

In the UK there's been a significant amount of TV drama at 50Hz framerates

Like what? 25p is a 50 Hz framerate, but it's almost identical to 24p. What UK dramas are shot at 50i/50p?

 

[Barry_Green]

As I said, when you can compare two things directly, where the only difference is frame rate -- and I've cited any number of things where you can do this, including my own work -- one looks like "video," and the other doesn't; which is which is always the same, and it can be plainly seen by the "non-expert observer."

Guys, wasn't this debate absolutely, completely, and definitively settled when "The Hobbit" came out? You could watch it at 24fps, or 48fps. Everything else stayed exactly the same. You could experience the identical frames, identical framing, identical lighting, identical costuming, identical set design, identical dynamic range, identical gamma, identical grading, identical EVERYTHING, where the ONLY difference was the frame rate. You could even experience it on the big screen in a movie theater.

And the result? 24fps version looked like an epic film like LOTR. 48fps version looked like a stage play.

When it all gets down to it, frame rate is THE factor that differentiates "the video look" from "the film look".

 

[Gillvane]

Guys, wasn't this debate absolutely, completely, and definitively settled when "The Hobbit" came out? You could watch it at 24fps, or 48fps. Everything else stayed exactly the same. You could experience the identical frames, identical framing, identical lighting, identical costuming, identical set design, identical dynamic range, identical gamma, identical grading, identical EVERYTHING, where the ONLY difference was the frame rate. You could even experience it on the big screen in a movie theater.

And the result? 24fps version looked like an epic film like LOTR. 48fps version looked like a stage play.

When it all gets down to it, frame rate is THE factor that differentiates "the video look" from "the film look".

Yes.

 

[DBP]

Agreed, that would be a very interesting study to observe!

I'm always a bit surprised with what the average person doesn't notice. Especially with online playback that's all over the place. It may have been shot at 24 or 30fps or whatever, but due to joe blow's crappy computer and internet connection, it's effectively playing back at 12 - 18 fps.

I asked a room full of people once if they noticed anything strange about the incredibly choppy youtube video we were watching... and I got a lot of blank stares with "what do you mean?"

I'd love to see some serious frame rate studies, it'd be really interesting.

 

[visugeek]

As far as too much detail is concerned from 4K or 5K, it hasn't been a problem in the past. Anyone remember Far and Away? Or any other film shot on 65mm or 35mm Vistavision? Vista Vision has twice the detail of standard 35mm, and 65mm has 4 times the detail. No one said Lawrence of Arabia looked too sharp, too fake, or had too much detail.
When Trumbull was experimenting with Shoscan, basically 65mm at 60fps, it looked amazing. Trumbulls technique looked Hyper real, but not fakey like a soap opera. I haven't seen the HFR version yet, but will this week. I missed the last one as it left theaters so quickly.
Perhaps it's how Red deals with the HFR, it's DR, it's sharpening filter, DOF, how it deals with highlights, or how Jackson has graded it.
David Lean didn't have the targeted grading tools that Jackson has, and I think those new tools lead to over thinking, over adjusting, and over complicating something to the point that it can look completely artificial. In the days of 70mm and VistaVision you couldn't do that, you had printer lights and chemical baths and you had to stop there.
When we blew up the White House on Independence Day, we had 10 cameras. 3 were Imax and all were HFR cameras. No one said there was too much detail or it looked like a soap opera.
I'll check it out this week and see for myself, but there is more going on than just high frame rate and high resolution.
As a VFX artist, I love high resolution. 2K is soft and mushy after you play with 4k or 5k for a while.
Oh, and Chris Nolan loves high resolution, particularly for VFX shots on the Batman flicks.

 

[Gillvane]

As far as too much detail is concerned from 4K or 5K, it hasn't been a problem in the past. Anyone remember Far and Away? Or any other film shot on 65mm or 35mm Vistavision? Vista Vision has twice the detail of standard 35mm, and 65mm has 4 times the detail. No one said Lawrence of Arabia looked too sharp, too fake, or had too much detail.
When Trumbull was experimenting with Shoscan, basically 65mm at 60fps, it looked amazing. Trumbulls technique looked Hyper real, but not fakey like a soap opera. I haven't seen the HFR version yet, but will this week. I missed the last one as it left theaters so quickly.
Perhaps it's how Red deals with the HFR, it's DR, it's sharpening filter, DOF, how it deals with highlights, or how Jackson has graded it.
David Lean didn't have the targeted grading tools that Jackson has, and I think those new tools lead to over thinking, over adjusting, and over complicating something to the point that it can look completely artificial. In the days of 70mm and VistaVision you couldn't do that, you had printer lights and chemical baths and you had to stop there.
When we blew up the White House on Independence Day, we had 10 cameras. 3 were Imax and all were HFR cameras. No one said there was too much detail or it looked like a soap opera.
I'll check it out this week and see for myself, but there is more going on than just high frame rate and high resolution.
As a VFX artist, I love high resolution. 2K is soft and mushy after you play with 4k or 5k for a while.
Oh, and Chris Nolan loves high resolution, particularly for VFX shots on the Batman flicks.

If you saw The Hobbit in 48 fps you'd know that there is no grading that would make it look better, or to put it another way you could not grade 24 fps to make it look as fakey and plastic as 48 fps. It's the movement that makes it look so bad.

http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails

 

[Gillvane]

Well, if we've got any psychology students it sounds like the makings of a great final year thesis! Nature or nurture for frame rates....?

It looks like there won't be agreement, but I'm afraid my money is still more on conditioning than "magic". Sorry.

Not scientific, but the pro-24fps lobby does seem far stronger in the US, much less so in the UK, not sure about the rest of Europe. And (as Barry says above) in Japan they positively prefer higher frame rates. Doesn't that point towards conditioning rather than "magic"?

My thoughts were also far more thinking of drama on TV rather than cinema. Which may be relevant. In the UK there's been a significant amount of TV drama at 50Hz framerates, I suspect it's been mostly 24fps in the US - I wonder what Japanese TV drama is mainly shot as? This all would point towards conditioning - people just like what's most familiar.

The most familiar images are high frame rate. People have been familiar with high frame rate since video cameras were invented. Turn on the weather channel. Everyone is familiar with that look. When's the last time you heard someone say, gee, I wish movies looked like the weather channel.

As far as the Japanese go, well they also like tentacle porn.

 

[stoneinapond]

That's it. I'm learning Spanish so I can watch that weather channel....rogar-Kriz(DBG):

 

[combatentropy]

As far as too much detail is concerned from 4K or 5K, it hasn't been a problem in the past. Anyone remember Far and Away? Or any other film shot on 65mm or 35mm Vistavision?

A crucial point. Pictures don't degrade with more detail, they get better. What ruins them, as we know, is too much edge contrast --- "sharpening." Compared with video and even reality, film is downright soft. That's why with 70mm you didn't see more pimples and make-up. And by "soft" I don't mean more blur. Blur means the circles of confusion getting larger. By softness I mean lower edge contrast (which also is different from overall contrast).