|
|
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 08-10-2012 02:45 AM
quote: Joe Redifer from this thread
we all know why this is happening. It's because most people will think it looks like shit and it's not worth spending the money for.
Ok, Joe hit the nail right on the head, but there is much more to it than he is letting on.
Warner Bros is a bunch of geniuses. Seriously. Here they have a movie that NEEDS to do gargantuan business, and they have a new technology that quite honestly...looks like shit.
By limiting the number of HFR screens, they are ensuring people will not be distracted by the cheap "tv movie" look of the show. At the same time, just like how iNerds will flock to ANYTHING that Apple makes no matter how great or how shitty, Hobbit nuts will drive across the country if need be to "see it in HFR" because they are brainwashed. And let's face it, no matter how awful it looks even after "post production", these Hobbit fanboys will think is is just as awesome as the concept of having sex with someone.
But therein lies the real genius. These fanboys will then dedicate the next sizable section of their lives to tweeting and reviewing online "how incredible the HFR was and OMG you must see it!"
Plus let's not discount the fact that by severely limiting the release of HFR screens, it will falsely give the impression that "everyone wants to see it in HFR because the screen to dollar ratio was so high...just like with 3D!". Ummmmm, no...but that's what the statistics will say.
So here we have the majority of the population that sees the movie, and assuming it is a good movie as we all expect it to be, will give positive reviews. Then we have all of the Hobbit nerds going berserk over the HFR and ranting about it...to the extent that by the second and third week Warner can release HFR to more theaters, and the people who enjoyed the movie at 24FPS and want to see it again will now be curious to see what the big deal is with HFR and will then buy HFR tickets.
It doesn't matter how shitty they all agree HFR is at that point, at that point the MONEY figures show HFR was the biggest draw on week 1, then again on week 2.
It's all bullshit, just like HFR. Props to Warner for such a diabolical scheme though, because sadly it WILL work. Then the industry will be in a HFR panic and it will all be SHOVED down people's throats. Meanwhile people will say "fuck it" and stop coming to the movies (sort of like how a bad presentation will do in general) and the industry will suffer a bit more and pay per view day-and-date will be closer to reality.
You know its true. And for the record, HFR really DOES look like shit!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Macaulay
Film God
Posts: 2321
From: Toronto, Canada
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-10-2012 10:30 AM
I've had several people say that "normal" digital projection "looks like TV" and that they miss the film look. Personally I find that if the show was shot on film it doesn't look weird and I like the lack of 48Hz flicker, image jitter, and film damage... but some stuff that's shot in video does look pretty crappy - Justin Bieber's biopic and the Celine Dion thing, for example, look strange to me in 2D although in 3D I didn't have that impression as much.
I have not had the pleasure of seeing the HFR system. I have heard that the Hobbit demo was not impressive but also I spoke to someone who has seen a bit of the final version and that it looks really great, the "video" effect in the demo is not so problematic.
I had a similar reaction to some Showscan material: it just didn't look right - maybe this is the "uncanny valley" effect of having the image look too real to be believable? Some Showscan stuff looked spectacular though.
The IMAX 48fps system had so few movies available (was there more than the one?) that although it didn't bother me I don't know what a longer, more scripted,and less "wow this is a cool effect!" film would look like.
I'm not sure of the quote that "no screens can play HFR now". I've installed and upgraded a few IMB systems that should be able to play it, I am not aware of any further patching required. But that doesn't preclude it of course. We're generally kept in the dark about such stuff until it's the week of the opening and suddenly a panic develops. We, naturally, have no HFR test material to check with.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul H. Rayton
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 210
From: Los Angeles, CA , USA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 08-10-2012 02:04 PM
FYI, here are some comments about HFR from the "production" side of things, as summarized from a panel discussion at the recent SIGGRAPH ["Special Interest Group for Graphics" - with a tech gathering held annually] meetings in L.A.
This article is from a trade journal, Studio Daily:
quote:
Trumbull, Muren, and Others Vouch for High-Frame-Rate Cinema
Despite Questions About Cost and Audience Reactions, SIGGRAPH Panel Endorses Judder-Killing Technology
By Bryant Frazer / STUDIO DAILY / Aug 8, 2012
A funny thing happened when renowned VFX supervisor Dennis Muren bought a new Sony TV. He started to become absorbed by the effects of the MotionFlow system that increases image smoothness by interpolating frames.
"I was looking at the old Mac and PC commercials," Muren recalled at a SIGGRAPH panel on high-frame-rate cinema. To his surprise, he found that the "I'm a Mac" and "I'm a PC" actors were funnier with MotionFlow turned on. Why? "The performances are better at a high frame rate," Muren said. "You see more clearly the intent of the actors. This is an incredible thing …. It's a closer thing to reality and I'm a big proponent of it."
The panelists convened by SIGGRAPH sponsor Christie at the Wednesday-morning session spent their time explaining why higher frame rates are the future of cinema. The session kicked off with a lengthy demo reel curated by James Cameron making the case for the dramatic visible reduction in image strobing at 48fps and 60fps. Other panelists vouched for further advantages of 48fps and faster cinematography.
Matt Cowan from RealD mentioned research IBM performed in the early 1970s that demonstrated 72 Hz was an adequate frame rate to meet the flicker-fusion threshold (the rate at which human observers no longer discern flicker in a moving image). He related that to RealD's own experiments with double- and triple-flashing 24fps images to reach frequencies of 48fps and 72fps per eye, in which it found that 48 fps was still uncomfortable for "a big portion of the population", but that flicker disappeared at 72 fps. "Satisfying the human visual system's flicker-fusion frequency of 55 to 60 frames per second seems to be part of moving to the next level of experience," he told the audience.
Trumbull's Take
"I think frame rates should be variable," said VFX legend Douglas Trumbull, touting the ShowScan Digital system that sprang from the ruins of the high-frame-rate ShowScan system he developed in the 1970s. Because it's possible to shoot a scene at 60fps with a digital camera set to a 360-degree shutter angle (essentially a shutter that doesn't close at all between frames), he says different frame rates for different pixels in a shot can be derived from the original data captures. "You could dynamically change the frame rate on any pixel, object, scene, or character," he said.
Trumbull spoke of a concept he calls "hypercinema," imagining a combination of high-frame-rate 3D footage, an extra-large screen, and extra-bright projection that would combine to make a screening feel more like a live performance. "We can create an experience where you are in the movie and on the adventure of the movie," he said, describing his experiments with projecting on high-gain hemispherical screens and fully 35 foot-lamberts of illuminance. "[The filmmakers could] actually embrace the presence of the audience and take them on the adventure to Pandora."
Hip Hip Hooray (But How Much Will You Pay?)
The session was mostly a cheerleading rally for high-frame-rate cinema, although voices from the visual-effects industry — this is SIGGRAPH, after all — warned of the increased complexity they faced. You might think twice the frames per second at the same resolution means twice as much work for a VFX facility, but Luke Moore of Side Effects Software said the situation is more complicated because perceived detail can also increase. "The effective resolution is much higher at high frame rates," he said, meaning that models might need to be more detailed to pass muster at 48 fps or higher. "You see defects you wouldn't have noticed before." On the other hand, there may be some time savings in eliminating motion blur.
Digital Domain Media Group CTO Darin Grant said the workload will increase dramatically. "It may be two times the data, but it's two times a lot of data," he said. "If you have to do paint-fix and roto in every frame, now you're up to two times the frames."
Producer Jon Landau of James Cameron's Lightstorm Entertainment had a pointed response to that concern. "There are [also] tremendous complications in going from 2D to 3D," he said. "That doesn't mean it's not worth doing."
But the impact of increasing frame rates for production and post-production budgets was never directly addressed by the panel. Digital Domain's Grant noted, "No one's even asked us to bid on a high-frame-rate film yet."
Cold Hobbit Feet?
Cost was one elephant in the room. The other was the decidedly mixed reception 48fps footage from Peter Jackson's The Hobbit got when it screened at CinemaCon earlier this year (some attendees said the increased frame rate made the film look more like a TV show), combined with a Variety report yesterday that cited an unnamed source who said Warner Brothers was drastically limiting the film's 48fps release to "select locations," and "perhaps not even … all major cities." Panelists largely shrugged off those concerns, with Landau venturing that the studio was simply "managing expectations" for the scale of the rollout.
The big-studio representative in the room was Jim Beshears, head of post-production at DreamWorks, who admitted that he had his doubts when he first saw raw 48fps footage last year but came around after viewing more finished footage. Even now, he said, he thinks 24fps gives more satisfactory results for some types of shots. He also echoed concerns about the costs involved. "150,000 frames in a 90-minute movie is a massive amount of data to move around, and that needs to be addressed through the entirety of the post process," he said. "And we have to be careful. Movies cannot look like television, or we will lose our audience. Otherwise, I'm endorsing it."
Phil Oatley from Park Road Post, which is currently busy on The Hobbit, offered some info about that film's high-frame-rate workflow. He said the production decided to shoot at 48fps because it offered the best prospect for exhibitors to actually have equipment in place to show the film, and a 270-degree shutter angle was selected because it produced motion that was immersive and smooth "but not too video-like," and also because it downconverted well to 24fps with only some shots requiring extra work in post.
The 3D toolkit in use is the SGO Mistika; the stereographer and colorist are working simultaneously. The pipeline incorporates a 24-frame offline editorial workflow that is conformed to a 48-frame online. Anywhere between 6 and 12 TB of camera data was generated on each day of the six-days-a-week production, with about two hours of 48fps 3D screenings taking place daily. A total frame-to-frame equivalent of 24 million feet of film was processed.
Dialing It Up and Down
The main takeaway from the session was the idea that films don't have to be married to a given frame rate, given the costs and complexities involved. If a scene features a locked-down camera and not much motion in the frame, it's not going to benefit from an increased frame rate, and the cost savings of shooting and post-producing much of a film at 24fps rather than 48 or 60 fps could be significant.
On that note, Trumbull — for decades a vocal proponent of high frame rates — pointed out the long heritage of variable-frame-rate cinematography. "In silent movies, projectors and cameras were hand-cranked," he said, describing how certain scenes would be over- or under-cranked on the fly to achieve the best comedic or dramatic effect. "Nothing's new, frankly."
That crack earned the biggest ovation of the day.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 08-10-2012 02:52 PM
Trumbull, THE ambassador of high frame rates also said:
'I love high frame rates, because I like to make simulation rides and reality-based experiences that are looking to be as realistic as they possibly can, but 24 frames is what I call the “texture” of feature films. And I don’t think anybody’s really ready to see what you would categorize as a feature film shot at 60. And that was one of the tests I did when I was at Showscan; we shot a fully dramatic short film with sets, props, actors, the whole thing at 60 and it was very disturbing. Because it was like live news, or sports, or something.'
( http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/douglas-trumbull-showscan-digital/ )
It's obvious that rides, documentaries, etc. are quite different in perception than narrative footage. Which explains why a lot of HFR demos are quite impressive - until it comes to narrative scenes.
I love this one - although I have to turn down the volume, as I am german myself ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcv4gJoJ7PM&feature=related
- Carsten
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic