Hobbit: Overly detailed 5K and HFR failing to please

[Thomas Smet]

Honestly I'm kind of surprised that so many people didn't expect the motion to look a certain way. Many of us started working with video during a time when we had no choice at all but to shoot 60i. (50i for our cool friends across the pond.) Most of us were stuck in a 60/50 fps world no matter how much we wanted to escape. It wasn't really until the DVX100 when we were even thinking about shooting 24p. Even many HDV cameras for the longest time were stuck in a 60i world.

So for most of us we should know exactly how HFR will look. Even more so true of our 50i friends. I honestly went into the Hobbit expecting the motion to look closer to 60i/60p and I more or less knew what to expect.

Personally I don't really like the look of HFR but for 3D it does help in some areas. As long as HFR sticks to 48p, 72p or 96p I think it may be ok. As soon as somebody uses HFR for 60p however things are going to get even weirder. At least 48p can have a near perfect conversion to 24p excluding the odd shutter speed of course. Although I do tend to shoot with my GH3 at 1/40th which is getting a bit closer to the look of the Hobbit shutter speed. Not to mention a HFR movie shot at 60p would be a nightmare for distribution for 50i/p based countries.

 

[visugeek]

Saw all of the 3D HFR today and about half of it again at 24FPS. Wow, what a difference. The comments about it looking like 70's Dr. Who or Hitchhikers Guide is correct for some specific scenes, but it really depended on the lighting. The HFR while wearing 3D glasses definitely seemed to have less DR or more contrast, a different grade than the 2D version. Both had high amounts of detail, but I think they are not just dropping every other frame when they do their 24 FPS version. I think they may be using Optiflow, also know as pixel tracking to create new frames. It what programs like Twistor use, Nuke and After Effects can also do it either to speed up or slow down motion. It often creates artifacts, but it creates proper motion blur when it works. I just finished working on a project and every shot in this commercial was retimed in a Smoke suite before we got the plates and we had to paint fix everything before we could comp the shots. It would explain why the 24 FPS version of the film would not be as crisp. We know the film was shot at 48, so in a shot with little to no camera motion, the amount of detail should look identical. The grade should be identical, the crispness should be identical. The sharpness/softness issue was particularly noticeable with many of the exteriors like Gandalf on the cliff side, many of the open fields, the barrel rapids, anything with lots of rock texture.

The shots with lower key, less contrast in the lighting or where the grading was light held up the best for the HFR. Light on people's faces did not gently wrap quite the same way, shadows fell off very quickly, both key and fill lights generated lots of spec hits on actor's skin. Makeup on Bilbo seemed heavy at 48, but not at 24, but color saturation in HFR seemed boosted compared to the 2D 24fps. Part of this may have to do with the glasses. When I worked at DWA, we did a lot of adjustment to dial in the 3D versions of our features to make them comfortable to watch and keep the look consistent. Adding HFR to that equation would be an interesting twist. I kept the glasses with me for the 24FPS version but they didn't change the color that much, there was a slight shift towards red to my eye, but overall saturation was less.

The 2D version appeared to have more added film grain, or perhaps it was more noticeable in 2D.

Those are my observations having seen both films today. HFR does have more detail, but it feels graded differently, particularly the interiors, and I think they are purposefully softening the 24fps version in post since the footage is from the same 48fps camera.

 

[Gillvane]

Saw all of the 3D HFR today and about half of it again at 24FPS. Wow, what a difference. The comments about it looking like 70's Dr. Who or Hitchhikers Guide is correct for some specific scenes, but it really depended on the lighting. The HFR while wearing 3D glasses definitely seemed to have less DR or more contrast, a different grade than the 2D version. Both had high amounts of detail, but I think they are not just dropping every other frame when they do their 24 FPS version. I think they may be using Optiflow, also know as pixel tracking to create new frames. It what programs like Twistor use, Nuke and After Effects can also do it either to speed up or slow down motion. It often creates artifacts, but it creates proper motion blur when it works. I just finished working on a project and every shot in this commercial was retimed in a Smoke suite before we got the plates and we had to paint fix everything before we could comp the shots. It would explain why the 24 FPS version of the film would not be as crisp. We know the film was shot at 48, so in a shot with little to no camera motion, the amount of detail should look identical. The grade should be identical, the crispness should be identical. The sharpness/softness issue was particularly noticeable with many of the exteriors like Gandalf on the cliff side, many of the open fields, the barrel rapids, anything with lots of rock texture.

The shots with lower key, less contrast in the lighting or where the grading was light held up the best for the HFR. Light on people's faces did not gently wrap quite the same way, shadows fell off very quickly, both key and fill lights generated lots of spec hits on actor's skin. Makeup on Bilbo seemed heavy at 48, but not at 24, but color saturation in HFR seemed boosted compared to the 2D 24fps. Part of this may have to do with the glasses. When I worked at DWA, we did a lot of adjustment to dial in the 3D versions of our features to make them comfortable to watch and keep the look consistent. Adding HFR to that equation would be an interesting twist. I kept the glasses with me for the 24FPS version but they didn't change the color that much, there was a slight shift towards red to my eye, but overall saturation was less.

The 2D version appeared to have more added film grain, or perhaps it was more noticeable in 2D.

Those are my observations having seen both films today. HFR does have more detail, but it feels graded differently, particularly the interiors, and I think they are purposefully softening the 24fps version in post since the footage is from the same 48fps camera.

I think tests show that if you shoot 48 fps then convert to 24 fps or shoot 24fps to start with, the 24fps version is EXACTLY the same in both instances, no difference whatsoever. You will get no extra detail in your final 24fps finished product if you shoot 48 in acquisition. It is not like shooting 4k, then doing a 2k finish, which is better than shooting 2k acquisition.

 

[David Jimerson]

but I think they are not just dropping every other frame when they do their 24 FPS version. I think they may be using Optiflow, also know as pixel tracking to create new frames.

I'm not sure why you would think they're creating new frames when going from 48 fps to 24 fps. The only correct timing would be to drop every other frame; the remaining 24 frames per second will be in a perfect 24 fps cadence, because they will be pictures taken every 1/24th of a second. There's no reason whatsoever to create new frames from the footage, and I would be astonished if they did, at least as a general matter.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Saw all of the 3D HFR today and about half of it again at 24FPS. Wow, what a difference. The comments about it looking like 70's Dr. Who or Hitchhikers Guide is correct for some specific scenes, but it really depended on the lighting. The HFR while wearing 3D glasses definitely seemed to have less DR or more contrast, a different grade than the 2D version. Both had high amounts of detail, but I think they are not just dropping every other frame when they do their 24 FPS version. I think they may be using Optiflow, also know as pixel tracking to create new frames. It what programs like Twistor use, Nuke and After Effects can also do it either to speed up or slow down motion. It often creates artifacts, but it creates proper motion blur when it works. I just finished working on a project and every shot in this commercial was retimed in a Smoke suite before we got the plates and we had to paint fix everything before we could comp the shots. It would explain why the 24 FPS version of the film would not be as crisp. We know the film was shot at 48, so in a shot with little to no camera motion, the amount of detail should look identical. The grade should be identical, the crispness should be identical. The sharpness/softness issue was particularly noticeable with many of the exteriors like Gandalf on the cliff side, many of the open fields, the barrel rapids, anything with lots of rock texture.

The shots with lower key, less contrast in the lighting or where the grading was light held up the best for the HFR. Light on people's faces did not gently wrap quite the same way, shadows fell off very quickly, both key and fill lights generated lots of spec hits on actor's skin. Makeup on Bilbo seemed heavy at 48, but not at 24, but color saturation in HFR seemed boosted compared to the 2D 24fps. Part of this may have to do with the glasses. When I worked at DWA, we did a lot of adjustment to dial in the 3D versions of our features to make them comfortable to watch and keep the look consistent. Adding HFR to that equation would be an interesting twist. I kept the glasses with me for the 24FPS version but they didn't change the color that much, there was a slight shift towards red to my eye, but overall saturation was less.

The 2D version appeared to have more added film grain, or perhaps it was more noticeable in 2D.

Those are my observations having seen both films today. HFR does have more detail, but it feels graded differently, particularly the interiors, and I think they are purposefully softening the 24fps version in post since the footage is from the same 48fps camera.

I think you are seeing the optical illusion of how higher frame rates can make us perceive higher detail even if it isn't really there. Similar to the argument I used to hear about 24p as too blurry although the shots would be just as sharp as if I shot at 60p. I had clients insist 60i was sharper than 24p. I believe it also helps hide grain more because the grain pattern shifts twice as fast making it harder for our eyes to focus on the grain.

I am also willing to bet you saw the movie on different screens with a different level of focus on the screen. You cannot really compare the two formats unless you saw them on the same screen under the same exact viewing conditions. I have seen the HFR version at two different theaters and the first one was much lower detail for whatever reason. Even though movies are now projected digitally there are still human factors at play when they are projected. I was at one theater where all the 3D previews were out of focus until somebody complained and then they magically looked better. This is why I saw it a second time because whoever was running the projector at the first viewing I had was a fool. There was no guarantee he/she ever had it in focus.

 

[Samuel H]

If I had to do it, I would drop half the frames, end of story. If they shot 48fps with 1/96s shutter, they could think of blending every two frames in order to get longer motion blur, but that's going to end with a 270º shutter, best case, and is likely to create IQ issues. I saw the 24p 2D version and didn't notice any of this.

I did think that several shots in the river-and-barrels scene were shot with a GoPro. Very fast takes, maybe 6 frames long, that had extremely bright water foam and a very fast shutter. Distracting. Plus, I had already seen this. And I was thinking constantly that the only reason that scene was so long was so they can create a ride for their WB theme parks.

 

[Oller Visuals]

my family bought a new 3D TV when the first hobbit came out and none of them could stand 48fps in 3D. They enjoyed the 24p/3D version, but not 48.

They actually thought there was something wrong with the disc or the TV... I had to explain that the "future" is 48fps... well, at least until it's all forgotten about If there's one man on this earth that COULD make a good 48p movie it is James Cameron, but I haven't heard him spoke about it that much?

 

[Shoots56]

Cameron actually doesn't like 48 that much. He said he will use it for SOME scenes, I assume action, in Avatar 2, 3, etc. I would think this would be jarring but maybe if the cuts are on action it wont be as much. Whatever, 24p is what I want and will keep to.

 

[harddrive]

It wasn't really until the DVX100 when we were even thinking about shooting 24p. Even many HDV cameras for the longest time were stuck in a 60i world.

But as far as many independent film-makers thought at the time, was the appeal of the DVX100 and 24p more that it made for FAR better film out transfers, than intrinsic appeal of 24p for it's own sake? At the time, end delivery was still mainly seen as a true film print and projection - and the DVX100 and 24p was vastly better than trying to end up with that via a 60 fields/sec interlace original?

my family bought a new 3D TV when the first hobbit came out and none of them could stand 48fps in 3D. They enjoyed the 24p/3D version, but not 48.

They actually thought there was something wrong with the disc or the TV...

Unless I've missed something, I don't see how they could have been watching HFR (48fps) via a disc and TV - since I'm pretty sure it's not in the Blu-ray spec!?! (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Codecs

I believe an extension to the spec does allow for 50p and 60p at 1080 resolution (and 720p/50(60) were already in the spec).......... but 48p? And the 50/60p extension only applies (AFAIK) to a single 2D stream of that framerate - not any 3D equivalent.) I can't find any reference to such a 3D 48fps disc available for public sale - are you sure that's what you were watching?

Anyway, we have booked to see the Hobbit ourselves tonight at the cinema, so I'll feel in a better position to comment after that!

All I'll say for now is that judging by the number of screenings in the differing formats (2D/3D, HFR, non-HFR, IMAX) I was struck by how few at our local cinema were in plain 24fps 2D - especially considering the supplements payable for the alternatives. The breakdown over four screens is close to one screening per day each for 2D and 3D at 24fps, two per day for 3D HFR, and three per day for IMAX 3D.

Since theatre owners are going to allocate resources to satisfy demand (make the most money), and assuming they have a pretty good idea of the demand, I think that says quite a lot about how HFR has been seen as popular - showing how the general public are talking with their wallets.

 

[harddrive]

Cameron actually doesn't like 48 that much. He said he will use it for SOME scenes, I assume action, in Avatar 2, 3, etc. ...........

This is completely opposite to what I've heard. If he doesn't like 48fps, it's because he sees it as NOT ENOUGH, not that he prefers 24fps. It's my understanding that the debate around Avatar is whether it can be managed in 60fps or "only" 48fps! I've not heard of any desire to use 24fps? As one reference - http://www.avnetwork.com/latest/0013/hfrbehind-the-scenes-of-a-major-video-projection-rollout/91486

After The Hobbit/48fps drama, is the industry ready for the brash-talking James Cameron to pull them into 60fps? Indeed Cameron has been on a soapbox for two years, saying that 48fps isn’t enough– and all but promising that the next Avatar would be shot and presented in 60fps. Avatar II shooting has not begun, and the question of whether that will be 48 fps or 60 fps still hasn’t been answered publicly. Cameron likes to keep the industry guessing. And Cameron is not worried about the limited but vocal “the magic looks too real” backlash against HFR from some Hobbit reviewers and audience. Mainly because almost all the effects created on an Avatar production are CGI and not as human actor/make-up¬ and physical prop-reliant as the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit .....

Some of the word behind the scenes in the SMPTE world this summer is that 60fps could be too much of a gamble and Avatar will go out in 48fps. No one will say this publicly, and Cameron and team are still hyping 60fps in general while not committing to anything.

And the logic is very similar now as it was in the 1920s. Cost. Money. 3D doubles the data compared to 2D for acquisition. HFR makes the problem worse. Terabytes more data to deal with, and the question of whether the equipment in the cinemas is capable of dealing with it. Cinema technology has greatly moved on since the 1920s, but there's still a "where do we draw the line?" argument.

But the arguments are more technological, not down to laws of physics. And memory etc costs are falling far faster than film stock prices ever did. The hope is for 120fps in the future - not just for it's own sake but for ease of derivation of legacy formats - from 2D 35mm film all through 48/60fps 3D cinema versions. A 120fps master, then derive the standard that the cinema is capable of handling.

 

[Gillvane]

And the logic is very similar now as it was in the 1920s. Cost. Money. 3D doubles the data compared to 2D for acquisition. HFR makes the problem worse. Terabytes more data to deal with, and the question of whether the equipment in the cinemas is capable of dealing with it. Cinema technology has greatly moved on since the 1920s, but there's still a "where do we draw the line?" argument.

When you're making a medium budget Hollywood movie, a $30 million plus budget, the media or storage is not a big concern. The camera you use, whether digital or film, whether you shoot 24 or 48, doesn't change the budget by 1% or more. I don't think any medium budget movie is saying we can't afford to shoot HFR, it's not in the budget. The real cost is in crew, locations, talent, studio time, set building, FX, etc.

On a small budget production it could be a huge part of your budget of course, but on major movies it's really just not an issue what they are going to shoot on. That's a director/DP artistic decision that isn't usually affected by budget concerns and generally producers aren't going to quibble over something that's less than 1 or 2% of the total budget. When you say you're going on location for 30 days in the middle of Africa, then producers start to get concerned.

I don't think the Cinema equipment is a concern either. You can very easily make a 24fps version that works in every Cinema.

Maybe the box office says HFR is doing better than 24fps but you have to take into consideration that HFR makes more money per person than 24 fps tickets, so you need less people to make the same money. I haven't seen any box office numbers of attendance of HFR vs 24fps. It would definitely be interesting to see.

 

[harddrive]

When you're making a medium budget Hollywood movie, a $30 million plus budget, the media or storage is not a big concern. The camera you use, whether digital or film, whether you shoot 24 or 48, doesn't change the budget by 1% or more.

Don't underestimate the issues. The link I posted earlier also says:

Cameron and Avatar producer John Landau are probably more worried this summer about how to deal with the “avalanche of data” that the Avatar 2 HFR shoot is going to release– as Phil Oatley, head of technology at Park Road Post, who did post on The Hobbit production last year, described the 6-12 TB (terabytes) of original shoot data from the cameras each day of the The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey shoot.

That sort of data is not insignificant, even for a very major production, not when it's that much EVERY DAY! And it requires securely backing up, as well as transferring off the original media. We're not just talking about the cost of the harddrives, it's the labour involved in keeping secure track of it all, and perhaps - most significantly of all for a production so dependent on effects work and CGI - the post production and rendering. Doubling an already huge amount of RAW data can have a huge impact not just on sheer storage space, but time to manage it all.

I don't think the Cinema equipment is a concern either. You can very easily make a 24fps version that works in every Cinema.

Yes - but if you've put a large amount of work in to the HFR version, you don't want to be heavily restricted to only being able to show such in a very limited no of venues. Certainly not when you're actually hoping for HFR to make more money than it costs. Again, the link I posted earlier goes into the hardware issues in some detail, together with compatibility within SMPTE DCP.

Maybe the box office says HFR is doing better than 24fps but you have to take into consideration that HFR makes more money per person than 24 fps tickets, so you need less people to make the same money. I haven't seen any box office numbers of attendance of HFR vs 24fps. It would definitely be interesting to see.

I've no access to box office figures, was just going on the number of screenings for HFR/24fps at my local multiplex. (Many more for HFR.) I also can't pretend to know the capacities of the theatres for each type of performance, nor the average percentage fill for each type, but on the assumption that they are roughly equal, it would mean roughly double the no are watching a HFR performance *AND* paying considerably more to do so.

I think the "roughly equal" assumption is reasonable, on the basis that if any type of performance was underperforming, it would be likely to be moved to a smaller theatre and/or the number of showings reduced. (And it's a little way into the run, enough for adjustments to have been made.)

Yes, it's dangerous to judge the battlefield on the view from one shellhole, and yes, all that is applicable only to my local multiplex. I'd be interested to know what it's like elsewhere. But it is an objective measure that's freely available and free of any subjective opinion - at least close to my own shellhole!

 

[Mike Harvey]

...But I can disagree about an artistic choice without calling him blind, selfish and/or egotistical...

Bingo.

People seem to forget that their own artistic opinions are not the same as facts.

 

[Guest]

Bingo.

People seem to forget that their own artistic opinions are not the same as facts.

Dang, sweet.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

Take a look at this:

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

What looks better to you? Where's the Cinderella spot?

This proves nothing other than what a ball looks like while bouncing in different frame rates. Sports? Sure, shoot and broadcast it in 4k 120fps and I'll happily watch it. Shoot a drama the same way and it will make it very hard for the suspension of disbelief to set in so that the viewer can get engrossed in the story. I suppose there is a point of HFR, resolution, and 3D pushed far enough to create a completely immersive experience where we can again achieve the suspension of disbelief to get even more into the story, but we're just not there yet. My guess is that was what Peter Jackson was striving for, a totally immersive experience, but I think he just wound up in the middle of the uncanny valley instead. It's a fine line at this point, and one that is still a little ways off.
Even on a smaller scale it's a fine line to cross. For example, I lent my C100 to my nephew to shoot a music video last week. He did a great job creating a dreamy look, but there was a shot he wanted to slow down so he switched it to 60i, but forgot to switch it back for the next few shots. That simple little change of frame rate totally ruined the feel on those few shots when played back and it wasn't just me who noticed it. 24fps is a tool, just as HFR is, and they communicate different things. Dream vs reality. Maybe one day we'll get to a point where we can completely recreate a believable version of the real world through a camera, but in the meantime we'll have to keep working on creating our impression of it instead.

 

[Guest]

This proves nothing other than what a ball looks like while bouncing in different frame rates. Sports? Sure, shoot and broadcast it in 4k 120fps and I'll happily watch it. Shoot a drama the same way and it will make it very hard for the suspension of disbelief to set in so that the viewer can get engrossed in the story.

It is important to note, that you are talking about film language as we know it. Jackson is attempting to change that language with 48fps. Or at least expand it. 24fps definitely smooths out the kinetic movements of subjects, but it does not inherently dominate the 'drama and suspension of disbelief' debate.

 

[Guest]

"Lo-fi", of all types, aids artistic interpretation. Black and white is better than color. Stage acting is better than method. 24 fps is better than 60. 2D is better than 3D. Vinyl is better than digital. One aspect of one character is better than a bunch of random people. Impressionistic is better than realism. And so on.

 

[harddrive]

Anyway, we have booked to see the Hobbit ourselves tonight at the cinema, so I'll feel in a better position to comment after that!

OK, so now having seen what all the fuss is about first-hand, what can I say?

Probably, more confused than ever just about sums it up! Eight of us went, and reactions were very varied. Two of the party hated the HFR look - actually used the words "video game". Four either didn't notice or weren't bothered either way, though one of the four expressed a negative POV about 3D. One positively liked the look.

For myself, reactions were mixed. Whilst I like 3D in some ways, the glasses are a special pain as I have to wear them over ordinary glasses. But at least with HFR, the other problem I have with 3D (flicker) largely goes away. To me, the HFR was good much of the time - but there were occasions when I could see why people didn't like it. A couple of times I tried looking over the glasses and I wonder how much of the problem was down more to the 3D effect than the HFR as such? There have been a couple of programmes on TV over Christmas shot (presumably) 1080i/25, which I'd have previously expected to be 25p, and generally they seemed to work quite well.

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.

 

[Lee Saxon]

... And I think classifying him as blind, selfish, and egotistical is wrong at the outset...

I agree that Shoots56's way of putting it is way too harsh, but I think my "he's reached that level where people are afraid to tell him he's had a bad idea" is a pretty reasonable assessment looking at the sprawl of Kong (and maybe The Hobbit; we're guessing studio greed is the only reason it's being stretched out but we don't really know that).

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.

 

[Gillvane]

I agree that Shoots56's way of putting it is way too harsh, but I think my "he's reached that level where people are afraid to tell him he's had a bad idea" is a pretty reasonable assessment looking at the sprawl of Kong (and maybe The Hobbit; we're guessing studio greed is the only reason it's being stretched out but we don't really know that).

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.

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? We already had what you think is a superior look with 60i frame rates. We've had it for a very long time. It didn't have good Dynamic Range like it does now, but the motion was there.

HFR looks more like a soap opera shot on video than a movie shot on film at 24fps. It's not like no one has ever seen this new look and now we have to "get used" to some brand new concept. We're "used to it" every time we see the weather channel which has been on since 1982. Why aren't we "used to it" already when we've been looking at it since 1982? Why haven't people been going, gee, I sure hope someone can figure out how to make a movie that looks like the weather channel!

That's why I don't think the "you're just not used to it yet" argument holds any water. We're used to it. We've seen it on TV for over 30 years now. For anyone under 30 there's never been a time when they weren't looking at something with a higher than 24 frame rate, whether it was soap operas, the weather channel, or video games. They grew up with that look, yet they still don't want to see it on the big screen.

I think you're confusing "get used to it" with the fact that some people are not very sensitive to movement, just like some people are color blind. Some people stated they could not see the difference in HFR and 24fps. That's not "getting used to it" that's just an inability to see a difference.