|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: HFR - as sucky as I called it months ago?
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 01-01-2013 05:08 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
There has never been a film format that supports multiple frame rates in the same feature, that would be technically almost impossible to achieve. Every projector needs some time to accelerate or decelerate from one frame rate to another.
I do believe you are incorrect; if memory serves me, Maxivision 48 did have as part of its design, the ability to change frame rate within the film. Whether or not I am accurate about this, fact is, 35mm projectors are routinely outfitted with variable speed controls so they can properly project silent films at varying speeds, at times within the same film, to mimic the way handcranked projectors of the day sped up or slowed down scenes as Bajsic mentioned, but it's done today as well.
But my question still remains -- wouldn't the 48fps of Maxivision cause the same negative "video" look as digital HFR seems to cause? And if it didn't (Ebert seemed to orgasm over Maxivision 48), then perhaps it is something more going on than just the high frame rate. Same thing with ToddAO -- everyone seemed to gush when talking about what OKLAHOMA! looked like with they ran that 30fps print a few years back. So is it just something about digital PLUS 48fps that causes negative reactions that doesn't happen with film and 48fps?
Then again, maybe Joe is right, maybe Ebert loved it because he only had to watch a 15m demo and not a 3 hour movie.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 01-01-2013 09:42 AM
I never liked the look of the Jackson Lord of the Rings trilogy, but now they look like Ben Hur to me compared to the HFR Hobbit.
Many people have said the image looking too sharp and detailed, I cannot complain about that. I saw The Hobbit on a 62 ft. screen from a Barco 2K/RealD setup, and the whole thing looked soft, with less detail and sharpness than I expect from any 2K projection, comparable to a Super-35 originated film in a poor high-speed print (minus steadiness weave).
The first 45 minutes looked unbelievably cheap and ugly, after the dragon attack (video game without interaction)the sequence at Bilbo's home was nothing but bad cinematography, amateur direction and that cheesy interlaced 1970s TV drama look reminding me of The House on Eaton Place or Monty Python's Flying Circus.
The only part of The Hobbit where HFR added something (for me) was the escape from the Orc caves, here the higher frame rate made the flying camera shots and the fast action more exciting, although the business with the bridges and ladders is quite ridiculous and makes the old Indiana Jones lifeboat-as-parachute stunt look realistic.
To me, the combination of HFR and 3D looked best in dark scenes (Bilbo and Gollum in the cave) and worst in bright sunlight (like Radagast with his rabbit sleigh detracting the orcs).
Surprisingly, many battle shots did not have the smooth flow I would have expected from 48fps shooting, they did not strobe, but had a kind of smear - like the artifacts of converting NTSC to PAL, but definitely not the way one sees fast moving objects in real life.
Most exterior scenes had what I consider ugly colors, especially greens looking sick and artificial, highlights burnt out. Maybe the projection setup is to blame for this, I noticed some color fringing on white letters. It all had the look of light valve projection from the 1980s, smooth but always soft and very un-cinematic.
I really wonder if audiences will pay more for this in the long run.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 01-01-2013 11:39 AM
No, I checked it again - the price is the same for 3D and HFR 3D.
€ 13,40 ($ 17,70 / GBP 10,90) for 3D HFR & 3D 24fps
€ 10,40 ($ 13,70, GBP 8,48) for 2D 24fps
Mixed it up eith the added € 1,50 per ticket for RealD glasses because I forgot to bring my own.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 01-01-2013 06:07 PM
quote: Frank Angel
I do believe you are incorrect; if memory serves me, Maxivision 48 did have as part of its design, the ability to change frame rate within the film. Whether or not I am accurate about this, fact is, 35mm projectors are routinely outfitted with variable speed controls so they can properly project silent films at varying speeds, at times within the same film, to mimic the way handcranked projectors of the day sped up or slowed down scenes as Bajsic mentioned, but it's done today as well.
Sure, many of those silent films predate any real fixed frame rates. But, the frame rate was not encoded onto the film itself and is at the discretion of the projectionist, following the instructions of the movie maker of course.
Still, I don't believe there ever was a format that allowed the frame rate to be automatically adjusted on the same reel or even feature, especially not from e.g. 24 fps to 48 fps, which essentially means double the speed. How would this ever work with sound? And how would this speeding up/slowing down look on screen? Especially, since every projector would have different characteristics regarding acceleration and deceleration.
quote: Frank Angel
But my question still remains -- wouldn't the 48fps of Maxivision cause the same negative "video" look as digital HFR seems to cause? And if it didn't (Ebert seemed to orgasm over Maxivision 48), then perhaps it is something more going on than just the high frame rate. Same thing with ToddAO -- everyone seemed to gush when talking about what OKLAHOMA! looked like with they ran that 30fps print a few years back. So is it just something about digital PLUS 48fps that causes negative reactions that doesn't happen with film and 48fps?
Due to the lack of other feature films in 48 fps or higher frame rates, this question is difficult to answer. But have you ever been to Soarin' over California or the Floridian counterpart? That movie is essentially an IMAX film running at 48 fps.
To me, that movie doesn't feel like a normal cinematic feature, but it is not supposed to feel like one. It also doesn't feel like a soap opera. It tries to mimic reality and it comes very close to that.
quote: Christian Appelt
Many people have said the image looking too sharp and detailed, I cannot complain about that. I saw The Hobbit on a 62 ft. screen from a Barco 2K/RealD setup, and the whole thing looked soft, with less detail and sharpness than I expect from any 2K projection, comparable to a Super-35 originated film in a poor high-speed print (minus steadiness weave).
Did this 62ft. screen have a RealD XL-DP or just a single projector setup? I guess having a single projector for a 62 ft. screen is really pushing it.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Are they charging more for HFR? I thought it was just the standard 3D charge.
That's entirely up to the theater or chain. Most of the theaters around my area are charging extra for HFR actually...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 01-01-2013 08:08 PM
Well, I've done my homework a bit and I found just two theater chains that charge more for HFR, so I'm a bit mistaken:
Kinepolis (from their Belgian site):
Supplement 3D € 2.00
Supplement HFR 3D € 3.00
Pathé (from their Dutch on-line ticket sales):
The Hobbit 3D € 10.50
The Hobbit 3D HFR € 11.50
Disclaimer: The shows start around a different time, I'm not sure if the non-HFR show still counts as a matinee.
All the others seem to charge the same or I just didn't find any relevant info.
I would qualify Kinepolis as extremely greedy. They were one of the first chains in Europe that went fully digital but they also asked an up-charge for a digital presentation. For a time, you could choose between 35mm or digital (It was marketed as HD, not really far off actually ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ), but that choice, off course, went away after some time and the up-charge became the new standard.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antti Nayha
Master Film Handler
Posts: 268
From: Helsinki, Finland
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 01-05-2013 06:12 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Have you also seen it in a non-HFR version? If so, what did you think about it? Was the video/soap-opera look entirely gone according to you?
Yes, I watched a bit of both 24 fps versions (2D and 3D). The shortened shutter angle was immediately obvious to me. It makes for a distracting stroby look whenever there is fast motion on the screen – and there’s a lot of it in this one. And the problem gets worse in 3D, of course. It’s almost as if they made the 24 fps versions intentionally stroby to highlight the smoothness of HFR in comparison!
So it certainly doesn’t look like they added any motion blur in post for the non-HFR versions. The Benny Hill Effect seems to disappear in 24 fps, though.
Watched on a properly maintained setup, the 24 fps DCP is very sharp, stable and noiseless. But I fully agree with Christian in that a lot of the exterior RED cinematography is just plain ugly, no matter which version you watch. The combination of stroby motion, poor highlight handling, unnatural hues and sometimes flat lighting (check out the first scene with Bilbo and Gandalf) does add up to a cheap video look even in 24 fps. Still, it’s much more cinematic compared to the HFR version.
Anyway, I maintain that it’s the HFR itself that’s responsible for most of the soap opera look. Sure, you could make the colours prettier, but it would still be just a prettier soap opera look.
Sadly, I still haven’t seen any film-based projection faster than 25 fps. Perhaps a trip to Futuroscope in France would be in order one of these days. Since we’ve been discussing shutter speeds, it might be worth noting that any film-based projection will always have a ”shortened” shutter angle by technical necessity – a 360° shutter is only possible in digital. So by all reasoning, Maxivision should unavoidably suffer from the Benny Hill Effect.
Even Trumbull doesn’t seem to think that HFR is suitable for dramatic feature films, no matter whether it’s film or digital. Here’s a 2010 quote from the man:
quote:
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.
| 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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic