|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: HFR in 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Arnold Chase
Film Handler
Posts: 41
From: West Hartford, CT United States
Registered: Nov 2013
|
posted 11-30-2013 08:42 PM
The issue of most people reportedly not responding favorably to HFR continues to intrigue me. After much thought, I think the problem is really a case of "something different" or "It's not what I was expecting or used to" that is being translated as unsettling or off-putting.
I can relate to this when in the 1970's the television networks abandoned their 7.5kHz monaural Telco lines for the first digital audio system that gave them "high-fidelity" sound for the first time. Instead of the narrow, highly compressed sound that was reminiscent of A.M. radio, suddenly the audio was life-like and clear. My first reaction was, "I hate it"! After watching Walter Cronkite for all those years, suddenly he sounded different. Same thing with the cast of "Saturday Night Live". The new dynamic range was driving me crazy!
Here it is, decades later, and I wouldn't think of going back to the "old" sound, yet I still remember my first reactions well. A similar thing happened to me a few years ago, when after having listened to the newscasters on WCBS-880 (A.M.) for decades, I was now able to listen to them through my computer. Again, they sounded so different ! It was audibly far superior to the A.M. broadcasts, but the difference really bothered me the first time I heard them so "up close and personal".
HFR is clearly superior, and we WILL get used to it. For the new generation, they won't notice any problem with it at all. Do any of you want to go back to the old "Academy" sound systems? Even if you did, the audience would abandon your theater in a heartbeat. If people weren't looking for that "better than home" experience, they wouldn't be making the IMAX houses as popular as they are.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 11-30-2013 09:11 PM
I'm not totally anti-HFR, but I absolutely hated the look of the first Hobbit movie. As a side-note, I also hated the look of the 24 fps version, but the HFR version had more issues going.
So, if that same ugly look of HFR cannot be fixed, I'm not going to support HFR, just like I'm not going to support stereoscopic 3D for most releases, if it cannot be done without all the tradeoffs associated with it.
The problem here is that last year's release of The Hobbit made many scenes look absolutely fake. Even my girlfriend, which I explicitly didn't tell we're going to watch a "special version" and who had no real understanding of what HFR even means, did notice that there was something rather wrong with the picture, it looked fake.
I still remember the switch from Dolby SR to SRD. I loved it, why would we ever want to go back? I also remembered the first CDs and I didn't know why anybody would ever want to go back. Personally, I do embrace every step closer to a perfect illusion, but unfortunately, HFR hasn't yet proven to do that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arnold Chase
Film Handler
Posts: 41
From: West Hartford, CT United States
Registered: Nov 2013
|
posted 11-30-2013 09:37 PM
I watched last year's Hobbit film in IMAX 3D, mistakenly thinking the IMAX theater was showing the film in HFR as a matter of course. After, I was able to 'sneak' into another theater that was showing a HFR version, in the few moments I had to analyze it, it looked more like video to me.
I am curious if the problems that you guys have seen are related to the 48 fps rate (maybe we inherently perceive that rate as troublesome), or is it just bad mastering? When the CD players first were introduced, I had my brother-in-law (who was going to Japan) bring me back two different players with some CD's. While I loved the absence of noise, frequency response, dynamic range, and instant access to any track, many discs had a harshness that was noticeable. As time proved, while there certainly were hardware improvements made such as roofing filter refinements, the mastering process itself needed the most refinement and experience to make things sound great. The same thing happened with DVD's.
I personally would like to see 48 fps just forgotten about and go right to 60, that way we know the audience would be experiencing a frame rate they're already used to.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 11-30-2013 10:57 PM
quote: Justin Hamaker
I disagree about HFR being dead. It may not be ready for prime time, but I don't think we should be locked into the mentality that a movie in a theatre should look a certain way. I really think HFR has the potential to make action movies much more watchable and enjoyable.
quote: Arnold Chase
HFR is clearly superior, and we WILL get used to it.
Yes, people will get used to it and it become more commonplace, that is the trend that will happen. Like it or not the movie that will put HFR on the map for the general population will be Avatar 2, from there we will see a few directors take the chance and use it. James Cameron will likely insist on many theatres making upgrades to support HFR. The popularity for HFR for Avatar 2 will be what 15/70 was for The Dark Knight, after that we will have a few copycats but there will be very little buzz for it until Avatar 3.
HFR did not take off all that well with The Hobbit because The Hobbit is a fan-boy type movie. People should remember that The Hobbit did gross a billion dollar worldwide so HFR or not, it did not have any financial impact on the box office. Avatar did gross almost three times that without a built in audience so if James Cameron can get it right and into enough theatres, the general population will then have a chance to view it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justin Hamaker
Film God
Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 11-30-2013 11:46 PM
The only HFR I have seen was the WB demo of The Hobbit at CinemaCon 2012. I agree with what Steve said about the movement of the actors looking different in close shots. I don't know if it looked too fluid, which made it look unnatural, but it was definitely different. I did not run The Hobbit in HFR, or see it in HFR, so I only have that one experience to go by.
That being said, I though the wide outdoor shots were nothing short of amazing, as well as a few other things.
Where I see HFR being best used is for fast paced action scenes, for documentaries such as the Disney Nature films, and possibly for CGI/animated movies.
What I would be interested to see is if it's possible to only shoot action sequences at 48fps, and the rest of a movie at 24fps. Could this be done by essentially double flashing each frame for the 24fps portions of the movie?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-01-2013 07:49 AM
quote: Arnold Chase
I am curious if the problems that you guys have seen are related to the 48 fps rate (maybe we inherently perceive that rate as troublesome)
One of the most obvious problems was the “sped-up” motion in some scenes, that was clearly not present in the 24p version. I’m quite sure that this is a motion blur problem and can be solved by either shooting at another shutter angle or digitally adding more motion blur afterwards. But I don’t think you will ever be able to make it look good on both 24p and 48p without a lot of trickery.
When it comes to the video look, there are probably more things at work. First of all, I found the 24 fps version to be very video-ish too. That might have had several causes, like the lightning and the general aspects of the RED cameras (up until now, I don’t like the look of most features acquired on those cameras). I suspect that the higher frame rate just adds to the problem and thus brings us back to that “80’s sitcom” feeling.
quote: Arnold Chase
I personally would like to see 48 fps just forgotten about and go right to 60, that way we know the audience would be experiencing a frame rate they're already used to.
Large parts of the world are actually quite used to 50 fps or rather 50 fields per second. I guess that’s close enough to 48 fps. So, I don’t think that people inherently see this frame rate as troublesome. The reason for choosing 48p is rather obvious. Once 35mm has sadly gone the way of the dodo, you could probably easily ramp up to 60 fps and down-convert to 30p.
quote: Brad Miller
I'll bet the people who like or are on the fence about HFR have a tv at home they watch with that 120Hz refresh rate bullshit turned on. I've got news for you guys...turn that OFF and watch how much better your picture becomes.
Those same people also stretch 2.35:1 features into place on their 16:9 widescreens or use some “auto-stretcher” (that usually stretches the sides more than the center) to stretch the few remaining 4:3 features across their screen.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 9 10
|
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)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic