my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » HFR - the reviews are in and it "didn't look so good" (Page 2)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

Author Topic: HFR - the reviews are in and it "didn't look so good" Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-26-2012 02:11 AM                     quote: Kris Verhanneman HDMI on a scaler OK but that way you still dont get 5.1 decoding on that signal. And why use a scaler if you can do without? First, yes you can get 5.1 from the scaler, and second because it is cheaper. If you aren't going to do 4K and you don't buy into the whole HFR silliness, an IMB offers you absolutely nothing.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-26-2012 02:35 AM                        Having seen two HFR demos so far (one at the Dolby Atmos demo) I have to agree with most of the sentiments in the articles posted on page 1. It looks SO real as to look bad. My wife compared it to watching a live play. I said, it's like viewing a play while hovering around the stage. It was jarring, to say the least. The outdoor scenery scenes were much much better. As with all new technologies it will probably improve with experience on the part of the film makes. Just like 3-D is. But HFR is not ready for its close-up yet, I fear.  |  IP: Logged Antti Nayha Master Film Handler Posts: 268 From: Helsinki, Finland Registered: Oct 2008 posted 04-26-2012 04:31 AM                     quote: Scott Norwood How does it look when converted to 24fps? Most people will see it that way (either on film or 24fps DCP), so one can only hope that the conversion will look decent. I can only hope that it does not look like 24fps film shot with a very narrow shutter angle (e.g. some scenes in Saving Private Ryan, etc.).... I think this is my third post about this already but here goes again: No, the 24 fps version of The Hobbit is not going to look like Saving Private Ryan. They used a 1/64 sec shutter, which means that the 24 fps version looks as if they shot normally and used a 135° shutter angle. That’s slightly choppier than the usual 180°, but nothing like Ryan at all (I believe they used a 45° shutter for those famous shots). And they can always smooth it out in post a bit. I didn’t notice anything out of the ordinary motion-wise in the 24 fps 3D Hobbit trailer that I saw.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 04-26-2012 07:05 AM                     Well they do not simply have to skip every other frame to make the 24fps. They can just as well merge two 48fps images into a 24fps image, including motion-blur. While this is 'artifical' - it could still result in a 'better' or 'classic' movie experience against HFR, if the HFR stays on the perceptional level that this preview demonstrated. We'll have to wait... - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Antti Nayha Master Film Handler Posts: 268 From: Helsinki, Finland Registered: Oct 2008 posted 04-26-2012 07:12 AM                     Sure, you can do that, but then you’re going to have to shoot at 360° to get continuous motion blur. Otherwise you get double images. And then the frame-merged 24fps footage will also be effectively 360°, which is very very far from the ”classic” movie experience…  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 04-26-2012 07:19 AM                     As I say, we have to wait. Since the existing trailers look 'normal', they may have found a way to address the strobing and motion-blur issues in post. Watching the Hobbit in all these various formats will be a very exciting experience in judging the future of HFR. I find the reactions on the preview quite strange, after watching the trailer again. The trailer DOES have some 'unusual', 'unfilmic' motion. However, it is very dark and limited to judge on. But, in general, nothing that would irritate me. 10min is a different game, however. Hard to say what happened there. Maybe it's a strange mix of HFR and unfinished post/fx. It also seems that the HFR is considered 'great' on panoramic shots, but bad on sets with acting and closeups. Maybe HFR needs a more detailed choice of options in shooting. Maybe not everything should be shot in HFR. Mixing 24fps and 48fps on DCI gear is easy - though not advisable in 3D I guess. When the first HFR trailers come out, we will know more. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Antti Nayha Master Film Handler Posts: 268 From: Helsinki, Finland Registered: Oct 2008 posted 04-26-2012 08:06 AM                     OK, just out of curiosity, I downloaded the trailer and examined the motion blur between consecutive frames. The blur is equivalent to a shutter angle of about 120° at 24fps (or in this case, 240° at 48fps, every other frame dropped). I checked two different shots in the trailer and got identical results. Jackson has stated that they used 270°, but of course they might have varied the shutter speed a bit depending on the scene. 120° is indeed a bit choppier than the ”standard” 180°, which may explain Carsten’s impression of ”unusual” motion”. But still, it’s not even close to the effect used in eg. Ryan and Gladiator. Yes, the idea that frame rate could be changed depending on the scene may sound like a good solution. But to get a rough idea of how it actually looks like, try watching Takeshi Kitano’s ”Dolls” on DVD. It’s a feature that was shot partly on film and partly on 50i video, and at least the Artificial Eye R2 DVD retains the original motion blur of both formats, switching between 24 fps (sped up to 25 fps for PAL) and 50 fps. Watching it on my TV set, I found the changes in frame rate extremely jarring – much more so than changing aspect ratios in some other films. My suspension of disbelief was immediately destroyed whenever the frame rate jumped from 25 to 50; I felt like I was watching bits of behind-the-scenes footage spliced together with the actual narrative! I don’t even want to imagine how that would look on a big screen.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 04-26-2012 04:08 PM                        I don't like it when something changes frame rates during the movie. It is EXTREMELY jarring. Back when I was a stupid little kid (not even a real person yet) I was watching some made-for-TV movie about someone in a prison about to be executed or something like that, I dunno. There was an embedded news reporter on the inside of the prison. The movie was clearly shot on 24fps film except for the parts where the reporter talked to her news camera, then it was 60i. I imagine that's the effect they wanted but it was totally weird. I didn't like it at all even though I was a child and my opinions didn't yet matter. Now they do matter (more so that everyone else's) and I still don't like it. The framerate needs to stay constant throughout the show.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 04-26-2012 04:19 PM                     The framerate can only stay constant for a DCI feature. What can change is exposure time by doubling/halving the image sequence. This happens all the time in movies during fx, slomo, etc. Yes, it hardly goes unnoticed, depending on scene. But that's not the idea anyway. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged John T. Hendrickson, Jr Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 889 From: Freehold, NJ, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-27-2012 09:50 AM                     Could it be that exhibitors are finally telling the emperor that he has no clothes?  |  IP: Logged Sean Weitzel Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 619 From: Vacaville, CA (1790 miles west of Rockwall) Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-27-2012 12:05 PM                     Maybe HFR should be used as a special effect instead of trying to usher it in as an "improved" or "advanced" presentation medium. I've seen 60fps ShowScan, and was always fascinated at the idea that Doug Trumbull wanted to photograph the storytelling elements of "Brainstorm" in traditional 24fps and have the POV fisheye parts of the movie jump to 60fps. I think the effect, though jarring would have worked well without drawing the viewer out of the story.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 04-27-2012 02:35 PM                     I always thought that these statements about 'juddering' 24fps were exagerated. When I watch a movie on the big screen, this happens just a few times - and most of the time, the images in these situations do not actually need to be watched with a high degree of analytical sharpness. I mean, a quick pan is a quick pan. They do it for a reason, and certainly not because they want us to read the writing on the wall they are panning over so quickly. If they want us to read it - they do it in a different way. I don't understand why they go through all these irritations JUST because of some judder or motion blur here and there. This has never been a problem for 100 years. Yes, maybe we will need an improved system for action packed sequences. I do see weaknesses here and there in that sort of movies. But it seems there are large parts of the same movies where it is simply wrong to shoot them the same way. Well, at least we have a choice. And I am quite sure the mayority of features will still be shot at 24fps in the future. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Chris Milton Film Handler Posts: 6 From: London, UK Registered: May 2012 posted 06-11-2012 07:48 AM                     I haven't seen the footage but am looking forward to it. The comments about it looking too real reminds me of when we started getting films shot on digital and they looked like high def video. Miami Vice is a good example of this. They sorted those problems out so hopefully it's just a matter of time before they get it right. I'm sceptical because I don't like the look of television at 100+hz, it looks to me like it is on fast forward.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-11-2012 01:52 PM                     quote: Chris Milton I'm sceptical because I don't like the look of television at 100+hz, it looks to me like it is on fast forward. That's how HFR looks too. It is a TERRIBLE waste of money and an awful idea.  |  IP: Logged Jim Henk Master Film Handler Posts: 364 From: San Diego, CA Registered: Feb 2006 posted 06-11-2012 02:06 PM                     Has anybody heard if Peter Jackson has had any reaction to these negative reports? Any "Uh oh"s out there?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.