|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: HFR - as sucky as I called it months ago?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joseph L. Kleiman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 380
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 12-16-2012 04:21 PM
I count 9 formats the film will screen in: 35mm 2D, digital 2D, IMAX 1570 2D (for domes), IMAX 1570 3D, IMAX digital 3D, IMAX digital 3D HFR, Dolby 3D, REALD 3D, and REALD 3D HFR.
About 50 IMAX digital theaters are showing the film in HFR. Of course, IMAX did perfect 48fps 1570 in 1986 and 48fps 835 in 1995, but who cares about that when you don't have to have film? (BTW: Hobbit could be done at 48fps 1570, which would provide amazing resolution, using two five-deck QTRU's and an intermission)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-17-2012 03:15 PM
I've seen this movie in Dolby3D HFR, in Dolby3D (24 FPS) and in RealD HFR (although I left during the scheduled intermission).
I posted my full review here.
So, in my opinion, the non-HFR version has the same TVish look as the 24 FPS version. Only, the 24 FPS version clearly doesn't have this sped-up scenes, that are quite obvious in the HFR version (the Benny Hill style movements of mostly the human actors).
So, I guess we should not blame the higher frame rate for that look, but other factors like the flat lightning, almost total lack of any noise in the picture, etc. Take a look at Public Enemies, that one had the same "video look" all over it and it was released in plain 24 FPS.
It was clear that this was sampled at a high resolution and then was downsized to 2K. The 2K picture is extremely clear, stable and crisp.
I'm almost certain that this fast-forward look is simply the result of the lack of motion blur, less than it would be in real life. Your eye gets bombarded with a very fast sequence of very sharp images and perceives this as something that's moving in fast forward.
But, I could also see the merits of HFR, especially the total elimination of judder and lack of motion blur in action scenes with lots of camera movement really is a big advantage.
The remaining problems are entirely solvable in post production for any future releases by adding some extra motion blur, just as they did in the 24 fps version.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antti Nayha
Master Film Handler
Posts: 268
From: Helsinki, Finland
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 12-17-2012 04:08 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
The remaining problems are entirely solvable in post production for any future releases by adding some extra motion blur, just as they did in the 24 fps version.
Did they? I thought they simply used a 270°(ish) shutter angle, and then simply dropped every other frame to create the 24 fps version and left it at that. That gives you an effective shutter angle of 135°.
(I actually examined some sequential frames in the 24fps trailer, and the motion blur corresponds to a shutter angle of about 120°. Of course, there may be differences between the trailer and the final on-screen version.)
You’ve probably seen this, but here’s what Jackson had to say:
quote:
The news about us filming The Hobbit at 48 frames per second generated a lot of comments. Of course, it's impossible to show you what 48 fps actually looks like outside of a movie cinema, but there were several interesting and insightful questions raised.
We will be completing a "normal" 24 frames per second version—in both digital and 35mm film prints. If we are able to get the Hobbit projected at 48 fps in selected cinemas, there will still be normal-looking 24 fps versions available in cinemas everywhere.
Converting a film shot at 48 fps down to 24 fps is not a hugely difficult process, but it requires testing to achieve the best results. Some of this involves digital processes during post-production. We are also shooting the film a slightly different way, which is a question several of you asked. Normally you shoot a movie with a 180-degree shutter angle. Changing the shutter angle affects the amount of motion blur captured during movement. Reducing the shutter angle gives you the stroby (or jerky) "Saving Private Ryan" look.
However, we're going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master.
More soon ....
Cheers,
Peter J
So apparently he preferred the 240/270°/whatever HFR look to the usual 360° 50/60Hz video look.
Whatever the case, the ”looks like it’s sped up” comment seems to be very common. Your Shutter Angle Theory might just be the correct explanation. Or maybe it’s just a bug in the IMB’s. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Well, I will finally get to see this myself on Wednesday. Can’t wait to see what I think of it!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-18-2012 02:00 AM
quote: Victor Liorentas
I believe the sped up look is the fault of projectors which can't do enough flashes per eye per second during 48 fps 3D.
Afaik, most 3D systems are operating at a double flash in 48 FPS for now and triple flash for 24 FPS. Double flash would result in 96 Hz per eye. I didn't notice any flicker in the HFR presentations I've seen and I'm usually capable of detecting anything below about 60 Hz.
Even if you would just achieve a single flash per eye in 48 FPS, that would amount to 48 Hz per eye. We have been looking at single flash 24 FPS for ages now and just recently mass migrated to digital systems that could handle 2D entirely without "flashing". So, wouldn't the problem be even worse on 24 FPS film, if this theory would be correct?
Of course, there is one major difference is that in normal 2D presentations, your eye sees both pictures at once.
Unfortunately, I didn't have the possibility to watch this in a dual projector setup using passive glasses. If your theory would be correct, this problem should not be present there, right?
quote:
Did they? I thought they simply used a 270°(ish) shutter angle, and then simply dropped every other frame to create the 24 fps version and left it at that. That gives you an effective shutter angle of 135°.
In theory, this sounds correct. In practice, I don't know if filming at 48 FPS at 270° and dropping every odd frame gives you the same look as 24 FPS at 135°. I guess, the actual physics of the sensor array also play a huge role in this.
quote:
Whatever the case, the ”looks like it’s sped up” comment seems to be very common. Your Shutter Angle Theory might just be the correct explanation. Or maybe it’s just a bug in the IMB’s. [Wink]
Then this same bug is present in both Barco and Christie IMBs (and/or both Dobly's and Doremi's server gear), which is possible but unlikely. Additionally, how would this bug work? It could only work if the IMB would be playing back the content faster than the timeline would allow. That would get you into trouble with the sound track or the picture would have to freeze now and then.
I've noticed this same look somewhere else. I happen to play some video games now and then and this same "fast forward" look can sometimes be noticed there. Some games are capable of achieving very high frame rates, especially on modern equipment. Although simulated motion blur is quite common in modern video games nowadays, it wasn't always like that, especially because it's a very CPU/GPU intensive process.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic