The Hobbit in HFR

V

vanvideo

Veteran
OK, The Hobbit is finally out in 48fps 3D and I attended a midnight showing. My thoughts:

I like 48fps! The detail is breathtaking. The motion looked fluid. The special effects really shine at this frame rate. I've always found CG characters look a bit choppy at 24fps, but they look much more natural at 48fps - as much as a troll and an ogre can look natural, anyway.

The faster frame rate didn't make me feel dizzy, or hurt my eyes, or any of the other side effects I've heard about. To be honest, most of the time I really didn't notice that it was a whole new way to shoot a film. It never took me away from the story of the film, but I admit I went to see The Hobbit specifically to check out an HFR film. At times, the image could look a bit video-ish, but I never thought it looked like I was watching a TV soap-opera. Indeed, it really gave that "looking through a window" effect.

I can see more films being shot at 48fps, even 60fps. I wouldn't be surprised to see James Cameron shoot the Avatar sequels at HFR, as he's a big advocate for the format.

Now, as for a review of the film itself, with no spoilers - let me say that I actually fell asleep several times during the film. Understand that it was a midnight showing and I has stayed up almost the whole previous night with my sick dog, but I still found the story and pace of the movie to be tedious and plodding. The latter third of the film did quicken its pace and there were a lot of very good action scenes, and this is where I feel the HFR really shines. The special effects were the strong point of this film.

Many will probably disagree with my viewpoint and won't care for 48fps, and that's cool. I do look forward to future films being shot in HFR.
 
I do wonder what shutter speed was used though. 48fps is backwards-compatible with 24fps but shutter speed is not, if they left the cameras on 180deg shutter, that would amount to 1/96th, which would remain 1/96th if shown in 24p, which is a bit much IMO...

I wonder what 48fps at 1/48th would look like, double frame rate but the same shutter speed.
 
Just saw the 48fps version yesterday and it looked very realistic.

3D definitely looks a lot better in the higher frame rate and gives more of the illusion of actually being there.

The moving landscape shots really shined with the new frame rate, and I felt I could see more of the detail.

Overall I was very impressed.
 
Samuel H said:
IIRC, 270º, or 1/64s
Click to expand...
Sounds like a good compromise. I think that HFR will get it's time in the spotlight with proper source material, like Sci-Fi, 3D animation, "found footage" films and so on. A fantasy epic probably wasn't a good choice to sell this technology with.
 
Kolor-Pikker said:
I do wonder what shutter speed was used though. 48fps is backwards-compatible with 24fps but shutter speed is not, if they left the cameras on 180deg shutter, that would amount to 1/96th, which would remain 1/96th if shown in 24p, which is a bit much IMO...

I wonder what 48fps at 1/48th would look like, double frame rate but the same shutter speed.
Click to expand...

It looks like 50p at 1/50th or 60p at 1/60th. 48p is not really that big of a deal. Some of us in the video world have shot 60p 1/60th for broadcast for many years. Not that big of a deal really. The 180 degree shutter thing applies to 24p and film and not so much to digital cameras. Shutter is not always directly related to framerate. 60i and 60p video are typically shot at 1/60th. Not sure what the Hobbit used for shutter but I sure the heck hope they kept it at 1/48th.
 
I wish there was a 48fps 2D, I am interested to see 48fps but will tolerate none of this 3D nonsense. Maybe if they can find a way to do it without the stupid glasses...
 
I embrace new technology, but I just thought it looked terrible.

I think different people are sensitive to different aspects of moving images. For example, I've never been bothered by CGI movement, but my girlfriend is and she thought the CGI movement in HFR was much better.

But for me, this video/soap opera look was just distracting and I thought it made what should have been a beatiful movie look cheap and kind of ugly it was just so sharp, edgy, contrasty, just not the beautiful soft creamy look that I really liked in the Lord of the Rings movies. I would not see the next installment in HFR. I would go see the 24fps version.
 
Lee Saxon said:
I wish there was a 48fps 2D, I am interested to see 48fps but will tolerate none of this 3D nonsense. Maybe if they can find a way to do it without the stupid glasses...
Click to expand...

You should give it a try just for the 3d. I always have a hard time with 3d movies, but this is some of the brightest sharpest easiest to look at 3d I have ever seen. It looked like a 3d version of a reality TV show, but it was very good 3d.
 
Gillvane said:
You should give it a try just for the 3d. I always have a hard time with 3d movies, but this is some of the brightest sharpest easiest to look at 3d I have ever seen. It looked like a 3d version of a reality TV show, but it was very good 3d.
Click to expand...

I knew the moment I left the theater that this movie was going to get beat down by the critics as well as us DVXUsers...
It also has me rethinking the RED and just how powerful this camera really is.

I totally agree,... This was the sharpest, easiest to look at 3D I have seen to date. Yes, there were many times where it felt like I was watching a scene form the perspective of 60i Behind the Scenes Camera,... however, the Story took over and I was sucked in,... it wrapped around me and brought me right back to my childhood curled up with the book.
I was very impressed with Jackson's choice T.Stops and focal lengths in this movie,... very pleasing to the eye... When my eye would drift from the talent, I was impressed with the dimension of the scenes, set design and lighting,... I'd find myself uttering, "This is the Sharpest Looking Image I have ever seen"!
I've spent my entire film making career trying to obtain that "24P Look"... saved every penny... I had to buy a DVX100b and a 35mm adapter, then an HVX200 and then an HPX170, 7D, and then a 5Dmkii... when all is said in done "Story" Trumps it all! Jackson achieved just that! Every time I started to analyze the shot and pixel peep, the story pulled me back in to wonder of this incredible film.
 
I really was not a fan. Fair or not, I couldn't get over the daytime soap look of the HFR. All of the action looked sped up like it was one those old 18FPS silents played back at 24FPs. It did help sell the special effects but mostly because the photographed elements of the composite were overly sharp which is what usually gives away VFX. YMMV of course.
 
I thought it was horrible. I mean it was so good, that it was bad. EVERYTHING was completely unnatural, especially the lighting. You could see how everything was lit, done on a soundstage somewhere with a bunch of greenscreen. The caves looked plastic. Weapons were horribly weightless and plastic. The wooden planks that fell on everyone were not wood. Daytime scenes were color corrected to look like Emmerdale. Everyone had fake beards and I thought I could see the glue on them. It was...theater. Theater with cgi.

The night scenes...oh my god. A huge ball of blue light is supposed to be the moon? And another huge yellow non-moving blob is light that comes from the small bonfire? Everyone was backlit the whole time. And when you can see it so clearly, it really pulled me out of the film on occasions. Normally these things don't matter. These guys are lighting these sets like we couldn't see that they are sets. I'd rather take a C300 and film stuff for real under moonlighting than look at this. Grain and warts and all. Where's the atmosphere? Not in this cgi-land. Only the Gollum scene really worked and brought back memories from the original LotR.

Now after that rant... I can see the technology having great potential. But Jackson didn't do it any justice. Maybe Cameron will.
 
NC17z said:
Every time I started to analyze the shot and pixel peep, the story pulled me back in to wonder of this incredible film.
Click to expand...

The story?? Seriously? The story is so weak that I couldn't take it seriously for a second. I felt absolutely no empathy nor sympathy for any of the characters.
Just the way that the characters are brought in the story line is totally weak. The white ork for example, that plays a big role in the story is brought in the story line as an quick story that's told over "camp fire". And this is an important character! Weak. This is a film for kids - IMHO off course.

As for the picture: the whole film was so unrealistically lit that it absolutely screamed FAKE. It's absolutely tacky. I would imagine this kind of lighting for something like "Alice in wonderland" or something similar but I guess that this film falls in the same category? I didn't mind the 48fps though. But then again I'm not used to 3D so at this point anything looks good to me...
 
Finally saw it in 3D but I think it was the 24p 3D version. Visually I have to agree with a few of the others here. The lighting and CG actually looked less realistic then LOTR. This was with the 24p version so I am not being influenced by the 48p to give me a sense of oddness. Gollum was of course great as usual but then again he had to be because we all know his look and style almost better then real human actors. To me old Bilbo and Gandalf looked kind of funny as well. Like they were wearing too much makeup or too much CG was used to make the actors look younger.

I thought the movie was decent but it just didn't hit that same level. We do have to keep in mind however how different the Hobbit is from the LOTR in the books. Very different scope and detail and there is only so much to work with.
 
Has anyone seen the 24fps 2d version yet? Interested as how that looks/feels overall.
 
LiamR said:
Has anyone seen the 24fps 2d version yet? Interested as how that looks/feels overall.
Click to expand...

I did, looks like a normal movie shot on RED. but most CGI is not good. I was also stunned at who many times I could see when they used greenscreen.
 
I have seen it now in IMAX 24P 3D and IMAX HFR 3D in different locations. I have somewhat mixed opinions about both, though some of my issues might be related to the theaters.

The HFR looked really weird at times, but more so toward the beginning than at the end, so I guess I was getting used to it somewhat. There were definitely some times where I noticed an improvement over 24p, most noticeable in the pan across the map and the city toward the beginning, which were a blurry mess in 24p. I haven't quite figured out why some shots still stand out as being very video throughout the film (in terms of motion), while some feel much more filmic.

The 3D in the 24P screening looked like crap, though that could have been the theaters fault, as there were 24p 3D trailers before the HFR 3D that looked nice and crisp (though judging from the prologue, Star Trek seems to have received a bad 3D conversion - very cardboard cut-out like).

In both screenings I felt that there were points where the image was noticeably over-sharpened and lacking in detail, looking like uprezzed SD. These were not common, but they stood out. And the skys seemed to be always blown out.

Need to see it in 2D still, which I will probably do over the Holidays.

I enjoyed it as a movie & I liked the new cast members.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top