Hobbit: Overly detailed 5K and HFR failing to please

[harddrive]

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.

Surely the reason why 24p in a relatively low priced camera was seen as such a big thing was the difference it made in shooting for a film-out? When real film was the end product. Far better results than deinterlacing 1008i/30?

Even if not that, then the whole terms "video-look" and "film-look" had much more of a meaning back then - were more instantly identifiable? And "film-look" was identified with film (hardly surprisingly) - so if you wanted to make your low budget "film" (shot on video) look "filmic", you tried to use as many of the "film look" tricks as possible. And frame rate is undeniably one of the them. But it is only one. Nowadays, the terms "video-look" and "film-look" have lost much of the meaning. I don't know if it has yet been shown outside the UK, but one of the biggest peak time dramas here over Christmas was "Death Comes to Pemberley". (It's been written to pick up the story of Elizabeth and Darcy, five years after the "The End" of Jane Austens "Pride and Prejudice".) Could it be described as "video-look" or "film-look"? Frankly, neither. It was "extremely pleasing HD look", and that had much less to do with frame rates than other factors.

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!

If "Death Comes to Pemberley" had been shot high frame rate (with all else equal), it wouldn't have looked like the weather channel. After a bit of hunting I've found this reference - http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP053.pdf - and as just one example, I'd expect the weather channel to use differing levels of detail enhancement to most high budget dramas..... You wouldn't look at a still from each and say "oh, both "video look"!

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.

Barry went on to say "The only thing wrong with 24 is that it looks awful during pans. Simply awful. Strobing is not a pleasant sensation." It's worth bearing that in mind in conjunction with the Section in the link above (2.1.1) about film judder:

Experienced film makers deal with this problem in several ways

*Avoid rapid camera movement. If the image doesn't move, it can't judder.
*Avoid rapid object movement. Pan the camera to follow the action, it won't judder, but the background will. The viewer is supposed to be concentrating on the action rather than the background anyway, so this works.
*Use short Depth of Field to soften the moving parts of the image. They will judder less. Again, the viewer is not supposed to be concentrating on the background anyway, so this is no loss.

Which really translates to something like "if you don't have high movement, there's no problem anyway". So two ways to deal with the "judder problem". Shoot in a way that it's lessened in the first place, or use a higher frame rate. So where we are now is that for less predictable programming (news, sport being the obvious examples), it's not possible to take advice like "avoid rapid object movement" or "avoid rapid camera movement" without serious compromise of coverage.

Or - when everything is fully under your control - don't pan at more than the recommended speed, and try to follow all the other "rules". If you don't, it won't look very good, and there are examples when 24fps has had exactly that problem. In high end shoots, the crew are normally experienced enough to know what they can and can't do.

So why should the likes of Cameron and Jackson therefore be wanting to change the rules? I think that 3D has firstly rewritten the book about what motion is acceptable, and what isn't. To avoid sickening judder, the "rules" are more strict than 2D shooting. Add to that higher resolutions, and maybe production desires for fast paced action, and I suspect they just feel they don't want the limitations 24fps imposes.

 

[David Jimerson]

Surely the reason why 24p in a relatively low priced camera was seen as such a big thing was the difference it made in shooting for a film-out? When real film was the end product. Far better results than deinterlacing 1008i/30?

Even if not that, then the whole terms "video-look" and "film-look" had much more of a meaning back then - were more instantly identifiable? And "film-look" was identified with film (hardly surprisingly) - so if you wanted to make your low budget "film" (shot on video) look "filmic", you tried to use as many of the "film look" tricks as possible. And frame rate is undeniably one of the them. But it is only one. Nowadays, the terms "video-look" and "film-look" have lost much of the meaning. I don't know if it has yet been shown outside the UK, but one of the biggest peak time dramas here over Christmas was "Death Comes to Pemberley". (It's been written to pick up the story of Elizabeth and Darcy, five years after the "The End" of Jane Austens "Pride and Prejudice".) Could it be described as "video-look" or "film-look"? Frankly, neither. It was "extremely pleasing HD look", and that had much less to do with frame rates than other factors.

If "Death Comes to Pemberley" had been shot high frame rate (with all else equal), it wouldn't have looked like the weather channel. After a bit of hunting I've found this reference - http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP053.pdf - and as just one example, I'd expect the weather channel to use differing levels of detail enhancement to most high budget dramas..... You wouldn't look at a still from each and say "oh, both "video look"!

Barry went on to say "The only thing wrong with 24 is that it looks awful during pans. Simply awful. Strobing is not a pleasant sensation." It's worth bearing that in mind in conjunction with the Section in the link above (2.1.1) about film judder:

Which really translates to something like "if you don't have high movement, there's no problem anyway". So two ways to deal with the "judder problem". Shoot in a way that it's lessened in the first place, or use a higher frame rate. So where we are now is that for less predictable programming (news, sport being the obvious examples), it's not possible to take advice like "avoid rapid object movement" or "avoid rapid camera movement" without serious compromise of coverage.

Or - when everything is fully under your control - don't pan at more than the recommended speed, and try to follow all the other "rules". If you don't, it won't look very good, and there are examples when 24fps has had exactly that problem. In high end shoots, the crew are normally experienced enough to know what they can and can't do.

So why should the likes of Cameron and Jackson therefore be wanting to change the rules? I think that 3D has firstly rewritten the book about what motion is acceptable, and what isn't. To avoid sickening judder, the "rules" are more strict than 2D shooting. Add to that higher resolutions, and maybe production desires for fast paced action, and I suspect they just feel they don't want the limitations 24fps imposes.

One of the reasons I've thought you're not a fan of 24/25 fps is because you've tried so hard to downplay a frame rate's importance in the visual texture. You do give it credit, but I don't think you give it enough credit.

That said, I agree with you in that using the terms "film" and "video" is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and to the extent I've used them, it's only through old habits and because everyone else seems to use them when referring to two related, but also distinct, ideas, which are the terms I TRY to use when discussing this:

"Cinematic" and "live."

Something can be cinematic without being shot on film. Cinematic, of course, generally involves appearing as fiction, or something other than simply documenting/presenting a live event (such as that awful Carrie Underwood Sound of Music).

"Live," of course, implies presenting something live, real, happening, which could be a live news report, sports, a concert, a stage play. (Of course a stage play is fiction, but when you're watching it, you're watching live people.)

I submit that indeed, you can have the finest sets, makeup, acting, production, camera work, and at 50 or 60, it still looks live, not cinematic. The aura of cinema is broken, and it looks like a live event, like a stage play. I have seen this countless times. I have created this myself. And most, if not everyone, who's reporting back on The Hobbit at 48 fps say the same about it. That doesn't mean there's anything cheap or low-quality about any of the production. It does mean that a lot of all that work loses something when shot and presented at HFR. It also drives people batty when they're watching a movie on a TV using that infernal "true-motion" setting which makes everything appear to be 60 or 120 fps.

At the same time, you could take an actual stage play and shoot it 24/25, and the frame rate will give it fictional, not live, feel. I have also seen and done this many times.

Now, there are always people who just plain don't care either way. But I'd venture to say that's not most people.

So yeah, simply saying "film" and "video" is outdated. But those were just easy shorthand terms, throwing back to when your medium -- film or video -- determined your frame rate, which just isn't true anymore. But the underlying consequences still are.

Now, as for the hassles of 24p -- frame rate being something which gives you an artistic texture, it's an artistic choice. I'll say what I've always said, and what I say in the 24p tute -- if you genuinely believe that the artistic needs and goals of your project are served by using a faster frame rate, then by all means, use that which serves your vision. But if you're choosing a faster frame rate because you're avoiding a technical hassle, even though you actually think the slower frame rate works better artistically, then that's not the right reason for choosing a faster frame rate. In the end, it's the art that matters, not the ease of creating it.

 

[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... 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.

Here's the research I would like to see.

There's a physiological reaction to strobing light called the Bucha effect, which actually creates physical conditions within the brain that has effects on perception. And of course, it's common knowledge that strobing light can cause things like seizures in particularly sensitive people.

What are frame rates other than different speeds of strobing light? As such, is the root of the perceived difference actually physiological? Does it affect certain perceptions, or different parts of brain? Do different frame rates elicit different limbic responses? If so, to what extent? And are there differences in physiology which could, perhaps, explain the popularity of 60 fps in Japan?

That would be science.

 

[lightstrum]

H is H

H is H

In the best of all cinema worlds David Lynch would have been able to extend Dune through 3 films and Peter J would have gone on to something else after LOR. The Hobbit is Horrible.

 

[R Hudson]

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.

Although drifting from the original subject matter a bit, I agree on everything you mention about LOTR. ROTK hit me harder than any other film for a very long time because I felt like I was actually a part of what was going on.

At first I was kind of excited about the idea of The Hobbit being made but when I started thinking about it more I felt that it may fall short compared to LOTR so I haven't even seen any of the Hobbit films yet and I may not.

I think Jackson still has it in him to do something spectacular. I just hope that he gets a true opportunity to do so.

 

[16mman]

I just saw the film in 48fps, and I've got to say that I really liked the look! Now, I'm a hardcore old-school cinema guy. I graduated from a film program taught by no one under 60 years of age who all swore by and shot almost exclusively on 16mm film. So when it comes to digital video, If it aint 24p, count me out. That was my attitude until I saw this film. I had seen it twice already in 24fps and the blurry action scenes and strobing frames really bothered me. I think the reason for this is that Jackson and his team shot with 48fps in mind, and it shows. The fast action is much clearer and the effects and details are much crisper in the 48fps version. I'm still a huge fan of 24fps, film grain and DOF, but I think I finally understand why Jackson is claiming this is the future. It looks incredible and my mind quickly adjusted to the new frame rate. It only looked un-cinematic to my brain for a few minutes, then I got sucked in and loved it.

 

[David Jimerson]

I think the reason for this is that Jackson and his team shot with 48fps in mind, and it shows.

That raises a very good point.

If you're planning to shoot a higher frame rate and then convert it to 24p in real time (not slo-mo), then you need to handle the camera as though you're shooting 24p all along. If you don't, you'll have those problems. You don't get smoother motion by shooting in HFR and then converting to 24 fps.

 

[NorBro]

It only looked un-cinematic to my brain for a few minutes, then I got sucked in and loved it.

You and millions of people will as well in due time.

 

[Guest]

24fps is as outdated as film and vinyl.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Those who criticize Peter Jackson need to take a look at the books as well here. The Hobbit is basically JRRT's training wheels for the LOTR.

The LOTR movies were amazing because the books are amazing with rich epic detail and a lot of human emotion. The Hobbit as a book is even a bit lacking once you explore the rest of Middle Earth. As a fan of the books and Middle Earth in general I was always a bit underwhelmed by the Hobbit itself. Don't get me wrong it is a good book and part of our classic literature but the LOTR is so much more of an epic story. Based on this there is only so much Peter Jackson can do with the story. Honestly he should have made the Hobbit first.

 

[R Hudson]

Those who criticize Peter Jackson need to take a look at the books as well here. The Hobbit is basically JRRT's training wheels for the LOTR.

The LOTR movies were amazing because the books are amazing with rich epic detail and a lot of human emotion. The Hobbit as a book is even a bit lacking once you explore the rest of Middle Earth. As a fan of the books and Middle Earth in general I was always a bit underwhelmed by the Hobbit itself. Don't get me wrong it is a good book and part of our classic literature but the LOTR is so much more of an epic story. Based on this there is only so much Peter Jackson can do with the story. Honestly he should have made the Hobbit first.

Agree!

 

[R Hudson]

24fps is as outdated as film and vinyl.

Disagree.

 

[David Jimerson]

Disagree.

I'm pretty sure he was being facetious.

 

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure he was being facetious.

Absolutely.

Film and vinyl are still important and relevant, is what I was really saying.


But I also meant it in another serious way, buried down in there. Film and records no longer represent the cutting edge. And while it may not happen in the next couple years, but I do believe motion mediums of the future will move towards higher frame rates, though, this may not be the case with 2D drama.

My feeling is that 24fps is more hypnotic, and as there is no high frequency movement, it is less critical. While HFR is more immersive and/or surreal.

So, I was being three things in one: Facetious and making two different serious observations.

 

[harddrive]

One of the reasons I've thought you're not a fan of 24/25 fps is because you've tried so hard to downplay a frame rate's importance in the visual texture. You do give it credit, but I don't think you give it enough credit.

It's wrong to say I'm not a fan as such - but it is correct to say I think it's significance has been overestimated. I do give it credit - but it's of a qualified form. If people like it for a certain application, then let's go for it - and obviously there are indeed many who do like it.

What I certainly don't agree with is opinions that were common 10-15 years ago along the lines that 24p alone transformed a any given "video" into a "film", ignoring contrast and highlight control, artificial sharpening etc etc. If you switched the weather channel to 24fps, left all else the same, does anybody then think that would look cinematic......?

BUT - 24fps imposes limitations, let's be absolutely clear about that. If a given film maker isn't inclined to accept them (pan speed and type of motion) then things can only go one of two ways - disturbing "judder" or use a higher frame rate. Given the choice, I'll go for the higher frame rate. I seem to remember a James Bond film ("Quantum of Solace"?) which opened with a high speed chase (OK, they all do ) but this was even more faster paced than usual....) which to me was totally ruined by the gross amount of judder, to the extent it was hard to make out was what going on. David, you say that work may lose something when shot and presented at HFR - sometimes, maybe - in other cases I'd argue it loses something by not being shot at HFR.

OK, we have a difference of opinion, and we're not the only ones on either side of the fence. But I stress I'm not arguing "HFR is better than 24fps" - rather 24fps perception is not necessarily the most important factor, and is not necessarily always a good thing. As said before - I don't see it in the "mystical" way that some do, even if sometimes I'll agree it works well.

I'm fully with you in thinking that proper research into the matter would be desirable. I was being flippant earlier when I referred to "a subject for a psychology student", but maybe it is indeed a very suitable subject? But you pose such questions as: "is the root of the perceived difference actually physiological? ............are there differences in physiology which could, perhaps, explain the popularity of 60 fps in Japan?". I'd add that even more fundamental is how much it's dependent on conditioning. Is your own preference for 24fps something hardwired into your brain - or simply that you're used to it for subjects considered "cinematic"?

I've no real, hard evidence either way - which is why true scientific study would be useful - but I do think it's interesting that in the very early days Edison was an advocate of a "frame rate of at least 46fps". (Though many of his earliest films were at about 40fps.) I believe this was before two or three bladed shutters became common, so to Edison frame rate and flicker rate were the same thing. When such shutters became common, and it was possible to have a flicker rate far higher than the frame rate, it would be interesting to know what Edison thought. I'm sure he was very pleased by the economics of far lower film usage, but did he think that the slower frame rate with the bladed shutter had a better aesthetic as well.......?

 

[Oller Visuals]

Well I'm stuck with 30hz on my 4k display and I enjoy the strobing while panning in games... gives it a cinematic feel.

I guess I'm retarded!

 

[David Jimerson]

It's wrong to say I'm not a fan as such - but it is correct to say I think it's significance has been overestimated. I do give it credit - but it's of a qualified form. If people like it for a certain application, then let's go for it - and obviously there are indeed many who do like it.

What I certainly don't agree with is opinions that were common 10-15 years ago along the lines that 24p alone transformed a any given "video" into a "film", ignoring contrast and highlight control, artificial sharpening etc etc. If you switched the weather channel to 24fps, left all else the same, does anybody then think that would look cinematic......?

Crap is crap no matter the frame rate. But that's not what I've been referring to.

And as for the Weather Channel, it will no longer look live, and will look more fictional. Those two frame grabs from the "newsy" footage I posted before? They're from a segment illustrating exactly that. At 60p, it looks like news. At 24p, it looks like news from a movie.

BUT - 24fps imposes limitations, let's be absolutely clear about that. If a given film maker isn't inclined to accept them (pan speed and type of motion) then things can only go one of two ways - disturbing "judder" or use a higher frame rate. Given the choice, I'll go for the higher frame rate. I seem to remember a James Bond film ("Quantum of Solace"?) which opened with a high speed chase (OK, they all do ) but this was even more faster paced than usual....) which to me was totally ruined by the gross amount of judder, to the extent it was hard to make out was what going on. David, you say that work may lose something when shot and presented at HFR - sometimes, maybe - in other cases I'd argue it loses something by not being shot at HFR.

OK, but your entire movie isn't going to be quick action. If it is, you may have problems other than frame rate.

As I said, again, if you really feel your project is better-served by a faster frame rate, then use it. But if you don't, and you're using a faster frame rate to make things easier on yourself, then I don't think that's a very good reason to choose.

I'm fully with you in thinking that proper research into the matter would be desirable. I was being flippant earlier when I referred to "a subject for a psychology student", but maybe it is indeed a very suitable subject? But you pose such questions as: "is the root of the perceived difference actually physiological? ............are there differences in physiology which could, perhaps, explain the popularity of 60 fps in Japan?". I'd add that even more fundamental is how much it's dependent on conditioning.

If it's confirmed to be physiological, then "conditioning" is pretty much eliminated, or at least greatly diminished, as a factor.

Is your own preference for 24fps something hardwired into your brain - or simply that you're used to it for subjects considered "cinematic"?

I can tell you this -- even when I was a little kid in the 1970s, watching movies, watching TV, and before there could have been any "conditioning," I could see the difference exactly as I've described it throughout this thread, and had the same view on it as I do now, even if I could not describe the difference or had the first clue what produced the difference.

I've no real, hard evidence either way - which is why true scientific study would be useful - but I do think it's interesting that in the very early days Edison was an advocate of a "frame rate of at least 46fps". (Though many of his earliest films were at about 40fps.) I believe this was before two or three bladed shutters became common, so to Edison frame rate and flicker rate were the same thing. When such shutters became common, and it was possible to have a flicker rate far higher than the frame rate, it would be interesting to know what Edison thought. I'm sure he was very pleased by the economics of far lower film usage, but did he think that the slower frame rate with the bladed shutter had a better aesthetic as well.......?

Edison wasn't an artist. Edison was an engineer, and made recommendations based on engineering (and just plain profit, at times). Frame rate is a canvas used for artistic purposes. You can approach art thinking like an engineer, or you can approach art thinking like an artist. Which do you think is going to produce better art?

 

[Silenkiller]

lol there is like 19 pages of debate going on, tbh I don't know what the deal is here. 24p still looks like movie. the new high fps, 3d vfx looks fake as all hell. How is there even a discussion going on lmfao

My buddy got one of those new 240 or whatever refresh rate TV's. At first it looked HORRIBLE, to him. After six months, he is used to it - until he tries to watch a movie that he expects to have motion blur.

Why fix something that isnt broken idfk.

 

[roxics]

What I want to know is this; if James Cameron decides to shoot the next Avatar at 60fps and then also provides a 24fps version, will the 24fps version look better or worse than the 24fps version of The Hobbit movies?

 

[harddrive]

If it's confirmed to be physiological, then "conditioning" is pretty much eliminated, or at least greatly diminished, as a factor.

The key word there being "if". If that was indeed was to be confirmed, your statement is completely true. But AFAIK, there is no evidence at all one way or the other.

I can tell you this -- even when I was a little kid in the 1970s, watching movies, watching TV, and before there could have been any "conditioning," I could see the difference exactly as I've described it throughout this thread, and had the same view on it as I do now, even if I could not describe the difference or had the first clue what produced the difference.

David, nobody is saying a difference can't be seen between 24fps and 60fps material, if you showed the same material at both framerates (all else equal) to anyone, there is no doubt that they would be able to distinguish a "different look" to them. That's not being argued about.

But as you describe yourself in the 1970s, then is it not true that what you tended to see at 24fps was most likely to have been made by Hollywood (with larger budgets, high production values etc etc), whilst what you saw at 60fps would more likely have been made electronically with much more limited budgets? Hence, you grow up associating one "look" with quality shows, the other "look" with cheap, local TV? This is exactly what would be meant by "conditioning".

I put it to you that if all the (high budget) films you'd seen at the cinema, if all the major TV dramas (Star Trek, Dallas, etc, etc) had all been shot at higher than 24fps frame rate, and all the sit-com and lower budget TV shows had been shown 24fps motion, do you still think you'd feel as you do now? Especially if the former had looked good on the single-frame level, whilst the 24fps material had poor dynamic range and excessive detail enhancement?

If the conditioning argument is correct, your answer would have to be "no" - you'd have grown up associating high frame rate motion with high quality and vice versa. I cannot prove that to be the case, cannot even be certain it is, but I'd argue that it's at least as likely as any hypothesis as that there is anything intrinsically "good" about 24fps. As I say, I'd really like to see some scientific study on the subject. (If anyone is aware of such, do provide a link.)

Edison wasn't an artist. Edison was an engineer, and made recommendations based on engineering (and just plain profit, at times). Frame rate is a canvas used for artistic purposes.

Edison was first and foremost a human being with human senses. And when developing his version of cinema, right at the beginning, it stands to reason he would want his "baby" to be as good as possible - even if only for reasons that the better it is, the more likely people will come to see it. And be doing so without any pre-existing conceptions or conditioning. His earliest productions were apparently shot at around 40fps, but that seems largely to have been to avoid flicker. Come the advent of the multi-bladed shutter, I cannot believe he saw it as the dawning of "a better artistic canvas" and went to lower frame rates for that reason. Vastly more likely is that the higher flicker rate more than made up for the lower frame rate, and the far lower film costs were a very thick icing on the cake!

You can approach art thinking like an engineer, or you can approach art thinking like an artist. Which do you think is going to produce better art?

Depends on the type of "art" you're referring to, but the above seems to pre-suppose that an individual has to be either an "artist" or "an engineer"?

Fact is, that it's rarely an either/or situation. (Leonardo da Vinci, anyone?) I'd argue that often the best "art" comes from people who have BOTH artistic and engineering talents. An architect is probably the best example. No good if they know everything about strengths of materials - but have no real "vision". But maybe that's better than the opposite extreme - designing a fantastic looking bridge which collapses in the first storm?