quote:

---

What the Critics Are Saying About The Hobbit’s High Frame Rate

By Jesse David Fox

In his review of The Hobbit, David Edelstein wrote: "How nice it would be to weigh in on Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit without having to lament its newfangled double-speed 3-D 48-frames-per-second projection rate, which must be seen to be disbelieved." (The Hobbit was shot at 48 FPS, as opposed to 24 FPS, which has been the cinema standard for a century. Jackson did this because 48 FPS offers a much sharper image that more mimics how we see the real world. It will only be shown at 48 FPS in certain theaters, though, and only in 3D. The majority of theaters will show it in a 24 FPS version.) Edelstein's is a negative sentiment implicitly echoed by essentially every single film critic, who all strived to come up with the perfect way to explain why 48 FPS was so problematic. And yet, they often landed on similar analogies. Here is a rundown of the most common comparisons.

Video Games

"At first, in the Smaug battle, I thought I was watching a video game: pellucid pictures of indistinct creatures." – Time

"One thing The Hobbit is not is a celebration of the beauty of film. A celebration of video-game realms, perhaps." – Philadelphia Inquirer

"There are scenes when it causes the images to be crisper and brighter but, especially in instances of high CGI content, it creates a non-cinematic picture. That may be the primary reason why isolated moments feel like video game outtakes." – ReelViews

HD TV

"Available for viewing only in select cinemas in major cities (the rest will feature a standard 24-frame presentation), this 'high-frame rate' Hobbit features exceptionally sharp, plasticine images the likes of which we might never have seen on a movie screen before, but which do resemble what we see all the time on our HD television screens, whether it's Sunday Night Football, Dancing With the Stars, or a game of Grand Theft Auto. (Indeed, most TVs now have a menu setting that can, if you so desire, lend this look to everything you watch—a setting appropriately christened by some gearheads as the 'soap opera effect.')" – Village Voice

"The 3-D film will be presented in select theaters at 48 frames per second — twice the normal rate — an innovation that renders images as unnaturally crisp and clear as an over-amped hi-def LED screen." – Minneapolis Star Tribune

"Depending on lighting, backgrounds and other factors, it can deliver that sheen that one associates with bizarrely calibrated HD displays in big-box stores." – MSN

"Audiences looking for a rich, textured, cinematic experience will be put off and disconcerted by an image that looks more like an advanced version of high definition television than a traditional movie." – L.A. Times

"It was still like watching a very expensively mounted live TV show on the world’s largest home TV screen."— Time

"Couple that with 3D and the movie looks so hyper-real that you see everything that's fake about it, from painted sets to prosthetic noses. The unpleasant effect is similar to watching a movie on a new HD home-theater monitor, shadows obliterated by blinding light – yikes! – reality TV." – Rolling Stone

"The clarity creates a sense of hyper-reality that reminded me of the first time I saw an LED TV." – The Dallas Morning News

"The rest of us will be reminded of high-definition television — better known, in my household, as a reason to avoid viewing films on TV, unless they contain characters named Woody and Buzz." – The New Yorker

Theater

"The immediacy of the ­actors is startling, but the background is weirdly foreshortened, the fakeness of the sets and makeup an endless distraction. Staginess does nothing for a ­fantasy-film epic ... the grandeur of the Lord of the Rings trilogy having been replaced by something that resembles tatty summer-stock theater." – David Edelstein, New York

"The Hobbit in the 48 format resembles an incredibly high-definition simulcast of “The Metropolitan Opera Live from Middle-earth." – Chicago Tribune

"At 48 frames, the film is more true to life, sometimes feeling so intimate it's like watching live theater. That close-up perspective also brings out the fakery of movies. Sets and props look like phony stage trappings at times, the crystal pictures bleaching away the painterly quality of traditional film." – Associated Press

"While striking in some of the big spectacle scenes, predominantly looked like ultra-vivid television video, paradoxically lending the film an oddly theatrical look, especially in the cramped interior scenes in Bilbo Baggins' home." – The Hollywood Reporter

"Instead of the romantic illusion of film, we see the sets and makeup for what they are. The effect is like stepping into a diorama alongside the actors, which is not as pleasant as it might sound." – Minneapolis Star Tribune

"The high frame rate, or HFR, version of The Hobbit has such crystalline, videolike clarity that it reduces everything and everybody to mere props and actors. Swords lack heft, the castles look like dioramas." – Newsday

"Watching 48fps is a bit disconcerting at first, a bit like gazing at a high-definition TV showing a live theatre presentation." – Toronto Star

Home Movie

"Consequently, everything takes on an overblown, artificial quality in which the phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious, while well-lit areas bleed into their surroundings, like watching a high-end home movie." – Variety

"The best way I can think to describe the quality of the 48fps image in The Hobbit is this: It looks like an ’80s-era home video shot by someone who happened to be standing around on set while The Hobbit was being filmed." – Slate

Documentary

"Instead of feeling like we've been transported to Middle-earth, it's as if we've dropped in on Jackson's New Zealand set, trapped in an endless 'making of' documentary, waiting for the real movie to start." – Village Voice

"The technique seems more suited to a documentary about the making of the movie than a whimsically inventive tale." – USA Today

"HD has the unfortunate effect of turning every film into what appears to be a documentary about a film set, not just warts-and-all but carefully supplying extra warts where a wart has no right to be." – The New Yorker

Other

"Over all, though, the shiny hyper-reality robs Middle-earth of some of its misty, archaic atmosphere, turning it into a gaudy high-definition tourist attraction." – New York Times

"The best single description of which came in a tweet from Salon contributor Bob Calhoun: It looks like Jehovah’s Witness art." — Salon

"More than anything, it resembles an insanely high-end Masterpiece Theatre production: I, Claudius with a big budget and endless banks of computers." – Boston Globe

"Other visual analogues scribbled down in my screening notes include Teletubbies and daytime soap operas." – Slate

---

quote:

---

Should You See The Hobbit in High Frame Rate, 48 FPS 3-D? Let the Critics Help You Decide

By Mark Lisanti on December 14, 2012 1:45 PM ET

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Peter Jackson's first trip to Middle-earth since his three-part, Oscar-winning Lord of the Rings sojourn, makes its long-awaited debut today. As you may or may not have heard by now, the visionary director is shooting this new Tolkien trilogy in "High Frame Rate" 3-D, utilizing a 48-frames-per-second speed that is double the usual 24 fps presentation you're used to seeing on a movie screen. It's impossible to discuss The Hobbit without trying to describe the unfamiliar, potentially deal-breaking High Frame Rate effect to potential audiences, and so our nation's critics have been tasked with trying to evoke the unfamiliar experience of watching the movie in this novel, exciting, and amazingly divisive way. Below are selected blurbs about the The Hobbit's bold new look so that you can decide whether to seek out one of the few theaters projecting it as Jackson intended, or opt for the less-jarring, 24 fps version that will play on the vast majority of multiplex screens. And oh yeah: We may have made some of these up. The answer key follows the pull quotes.

1. " … you are looking through a very clean window, but you have a slight ear infection that makes the world beyond seem too real and slightly sickening."

2. "The immediacy of the ­actors is startling, but the background is weirdly foreshortened, the fakeness of the sets and makeup an endless distraction … [it becomes] something that resembles tatty summer-stock theater."

3. " … predominantly looked like ultra-vivid television video, paradoxically lending the film a oddly theatrical look, especially in the cramped interior scenes in Bilbo Baggins's home."

4. " … Faerie Tale Theater circa 1985, only in amazingly sharp clarity and with hobbits."

5. " … watching a 1976 BBC drama called The Hobbingtons Before Holiday about little people packing for a complicated vacation. But you can see every item as it's squirreled away into a tiny valise with stunning detail, and that's not nothing for anal-retentive suitcase enthusiasts."

6. "[It] sounds miraculous, and you will indeed notice and marvel at the difference, but only if you happen to be a snowy owl who likes watching voles from a hundred and fifty yards."

7. "HFR looks like a documentary about the making of a Cronenberg film shot with some unsettling new camera technology that makes viewers' eyeballs vibrate at a very uncomfortable frequency before sprouting teeth and exploding from their heads."

8. " … like giving Bilbo Baggins a piggyback ride where he keeps playing peekaboo with your eyes, causing you to walk into a series of doors and walls. There's a heady rush of amazing clarity as the doors and walls snap into incredible focus just inches in front of your nose, but then there's the immediate and startling dislocation of actually slamming into the doors and walls as the Hobbit on your back cackles with impish delight."

9. " … brings the images to an almost hallucinatory level of clarity …. Over all, though, the shiny hyper-reality robs Middle-earth of some of its misty, archaic atmosphere, turning it into a gaudy high-definition tourist attraction."

10. " … I found myself doubled over on the floor in front of my seat, violently voiding the contents of my stomach over and over, so powerful was the effect of this bold new cinematic reality … the Haribo Gummi Bears I had just served back up glistened with an unbelievable radiance … I was not unlike an interstellar traveler finally wakened from my sleep-pod upon arrival at our decades-distant destination; the world had been a gauzy dream observed through a tiny window for as long as I could remember, but now I was a full participant in it, ready or not, and I gasped desperately for the breath that would come only after our robot manservant could assist me in clearing my lungs of the liquid oxygen that had sustained me in my slumber. And I said to him — it's not really a 'him,' but his creators gave 'him' a male appearance — 'This is some crazy shit, Steve.' And he answered in a surprisingly gentle, empathetic tone, 'Welcome to the future. There is no going back.'"

---

quote:

---

The Science of High Frame Rates, Or: Why 'The Hobbit' Looks Bad At 48 FPS

By: Jen Yamato

The hero of Jean-Luc Godard's Le Petit Soldat declared “The cinema is truth, 24 times per second,” as The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw noted while pondering frame rates and cinematic standards last year. Peter Jackson insists that it’s closer to 48 frames per second, as demonstrated by the groundbreaking new frame rate he utilized for this weekend’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. But do scientific theories about the way our brains perceive images and reality — truth unfolding onscreen, in front of our eyes — support Jackson’s brave new vision for cinema, or undermine it?

There is a great gulf between the cinematic look of 24 fps, the traditional rate at which film images are presented in succession to simulate moving images on a screen, and 48 fps. The latter packs more visual information into each second of film, for better and worse. Jackson and his fellow HFR enthusiasts (including James Cameron and Douglas Trumbull) argue that 48 fps and even higher frame rates result in greater clarity and a closer approximation to real life. They also contend it reduces motion blur, thus improving the look of 3-D images.

But scientists and researchers in the field of consciousness perception say that the human brain perceives reality at a rate somewhere between 24 fps and 48 fps — 40 conscious moments per second, to be more exact — and exceeding the limit of the brain’s speed of cognition beyond the sweet spot that connotes realism is where Jackson & Co. get into trouble.

Movieline spoke with filmmaker James Kerwin, who lectured on the subject of the science of film perception and consciousness at the University of Arizona’s Center for Consciousness Studies. (His presentation included an analysis of the work of Dr. Stuart Hameroff and British cosmologist/philosopher Roger Penrose, and their quantum theory of consciousness.) According to Kerwin, there really is a simple scientific answer for why The Hobbit’s 48 fps presentation plays so poorly with some viewers — and it's not something we'll get used to over time.

HOW OUR BRAINS PERCEIVE REALITY
James Kerwin: “Studies seem to show that most humans see about 66 frames per second — that’s how we see reality through our eyes, and our brains. So you would think that 48 frames per second is sufficiently below that — that it would look very different from reality. But what people aren’t taking into account is the fact that although we see 66 frames per second, neuroscientists and consciousness researchers are starting to realize that we’re only consciously aware of 40 moments per second.”

“Dr. Hameroff’s theory has to do with the synchrony of the gamma waves in the brain — it’s called gamma synchrony — the brain wave cycle of 40 hertz. There’s a very strong theory that that is why we perceive 40 moments per second, but regardless of the reason, most researchers agree we perceive 40 conscious moments per second. In other words: our eyes see more than that but we’re only aware of 40. So if a frame rate hits or exceeds 40 fps, it looks to us like reality. Whereas if it’s significantly below that, like 24 fps or even 30 fps, there’s a separation, there’s a difference — and we know immediately that what we’re watching is not real.”

HIGH FRAME RATES AND THE UNCANNY VALLEY
“You’ve got guys like Cameron and Jackson saying, let’s make it more real because the more realistic, the better; the higher the definition, the more 3-D, the more this, the more that. They’re not taking into account what’s called The Uncanny Valley in psychology. The Uncanny Valley says that, statistically, if you map out a consumer’s reaction to something they’re seeing, if they’re seeing something artificial and it starts to approach something looking real, they begin to inherently psychologically reject it."

"Not every person perceives the Uncanny Valley, however. There are some people that just do not reject things that look too real, although the vast majority of people do experience that phenomenon. So you’re going to get some individuals who see it and go, This looks great! The problem is anecdotes are not evidence. You have to look at the public as a whole, and I think that’s what Jackson and Cameron are not doing."

FORWARD-MOVING HFR VS. TRADITIONAL FILM CONVENTIONS

“There are all sorts of conventions in film that are not found in reality. People talk to each other in ways that they don’t in reality. Things are lit in ways that they’re not lit in reality. The make-up, the hair, the props, everything is fake. If you stand on a film set and you watch the actors performing, you don’t for a second think that it’s real. There are acting conventions that we have chosen to accept."

“One thing a lot of people are saying about The Hobbit in 48 is that the acting is bad — well, the acting’s not bad, they’re simply acting with cinematic conventions but it’s such a high frame rate that the motion looks too real and you can see through the artifice of the acting.”

THE NECESSARY SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF — WHICH 48 FPS LACKS
“It’s psychological: we need suspension of disbelief, and suspension of disbelief comes from the lower frame rate. The lower frame rate allows our brains to say, Okay — I’m not perceiving 40 conscious moments per second anymore; I’m only perceiving 24, or 30, and therefore this is not real and I can accept the artificial conventions of the acting and the lighting and the props. It’s an inherent part of the way our brain perceives things. Twenty-four or 30 frames per second is an inherent part of the cinematic experience. It’s the way we accept cinema. It’s the way we suspend our disbelief.”

“Those high frame rates are great for reality television, and we accept them because we know these things are real. We’re always going to associate high frame rates with something that’s not acted, and our brains are always going to associate low frame rates with something that is not. It’s not a learned behavior; [Some say] you watch it long enough and you won’t associate it with cheap soap operas anymore. That’s nonsense. The science does not say that. It’s not learned behavior. It’s an inherent part of the way our brains see things.”

---

quote:

---

Why does ‘The Hobbit’ look so weird?
By Michael O'Sullivan

A lot of the buzz about “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” — the first of Peter Jackson’s trilogy of films adapting J.R.R. Tolkien’s beloved book, which opens tonight with midnight screenings — has nothing to do with the story, the acting or the cinematography, but with the camera technology used to make it. Although the movie is being shown in both traditional 2D and 3D versions, several hundred screens around the country will also be making “The Hobbit”available in a brand new format called High Frame Rate (or HFR) 3D.

The early reviews of HFR, a kind of video that captures 48 frames per second instead of the traditional 24 of film, have been mixed-to-negative, and not just from the geeks. Todd McCarthy of the Hollywood Reporter complained that “The Hobbit” looked like “ultra-vivid television video, paradoxically lending the film a oddly theatrical look, especially in the cramped interior scenes in Bilbo Baggins' home. ”

McCarthy isn’t the lone curmudgeon either. Others have pointed out that the look of the HFR version, while admittedly sharper than traditional film, feels like a projection error, with the movement of the actors appearing unnaturally speeded up. Here’s James Rocchi’s amusing take, on Boxoffice.com: “What the 48 frame-per-second projection actually means is flat lighting, a plastic-y look, and, worst of all, a strange sped-up effect that makes perfectly normal actions — say, Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins placing a napkin on his lap — look like meth-head hallucinations..”

Being a lifelong Tolkien geek, I had to check it out myself, and I have to agree that it’s very disconcerting, although you do eventually start to get used to it. (Heck, after nearly three hours, I could get used to Gilbert Gottfried as Gandalf.) Gollum does look fabulous, and the epic battle scenes are pretty impressive.

Here’s the thing about HFR, though, which was invented to make movies look more like real life. It’s not necessarily that it looks cheap. It just doesn’t look like a film, or what we’re used to films looking like.

Film has warmth, texture and grain, all of which lend the moviegoing experience a kind of artificial grandeur that signals that you’re about to enter a world that isn’t real. HFR may look more like life, but it does so in a way that comes across as cold, slick and clinically — almost uncomfortably — close. More like science than art.

An early scene of Bilbo Baggins’s underground dining room, with his table covered in food and surrounded by jolly dwarves, felt like studio camerawork from a frenetic Food Network cooking show, not a cozy visit to Middle Earth.

Already, the studios behind “The Hobbit” have shifted to a defensive crouch. In a joint statement earlier this month, New Line Cinema, Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures attributed the negative reviews of HFR to “two anonymous sources” in media reports. “We share the filmmakers’ belief,” the statement continued, “that by offering filmgoers the additional choice of HFR 3D, alongside traditional viewing formats, they have an opportunity to be part of a groundbreaking advancement in the moviegoing experience, and we look forward to having audiences everywhere share in this new way of storytelling.”

---

Don't worry though, projector and server manufacturers will continue to shove IMBs down our throats with this HFR junk.
 

---

Posted by Frank B. McLaughlin (Member # 6683) on 12-15-2012, 07:29 AM:
 
This time you are "spot on." This from the Denver Post:

As for the ballyhooed look of this film, which was shot on 3D at a higher frame-per-second rate (48 instead of film's 24) , it alternately resembles a teleplay from the early 1960s and a contemporary high-production-value video game. It lacks warmth.

http://www.denverpost.com/movies/ci_22179587/hobbit-sets-off-lots-action-but-not-enough#ixzz2F7v1Ilws

However I believe this format has possibilities (especially in 3D). I suggest whomever goes back out to the woodshed and work on it some more.
 

---

Posted by Olivier Lemaire (Member # 5579) on 12-15-2012, 09:29 AM:
 
"Let the Critics Help You Decide" - is that called modern journalism 2.0?

You want to know what HFR looks like? just go to the theater and make your own opinion.

You don't wanna know? just close your eyes next time you'll go - to be sure.

Nota: you can use this very same method for Atmos sound, or any new innovation that will come in the following years - no pb
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-15-2012, 12:54 PM:
 
I watched about 15 min in Real D 48fps.I think this is single flash due to the illusion of sped up motion when anything moved which I found more jarring than the HD video look of HFR.

Since film has been put down and discarded like antiquated technology, I am all for advancing digital cinemas potential.
I don't enjoy watching video trying to duplicate 24 fps film unless I am in my home theater.It is bland compared to the real thing done right. I would rather see how good ultra HD HFR can look but 48 fps is not very good with single flash.

I want to see it taken all the way with 60 fps or the Digital Showscan concept of shooting at 120 fps and having multiple frame rates available for any texture desired by the director including pixel by pixel control of HFR texture.
I am more interested in 2D than 3D HFR.
So it looked good and like crappy video at the same time in my opinion.
There is no chance of stopping all of this HFR change,the cat was let out of the bag when film was pulled from the plexes.
At least Trumbulls system has respect for the 24fps texture while allowing the potential of HFR to go all the way.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-15-2012, 01:51 PM:
 
I am right now on my way to see THE HOBITT at the Regal Dole Cannery in HFR on their RPX screen. I thought is was going to be in the IMAX house but I guess Regal must have decided RPX was better. The 3-D will be in Real D. Despite all the negative things I had read in all the reviews about hFR, I am going with an open mind hoping I will like it.. I will render my opinion after I see the movie later this afternoon.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-15-2012, 02:42 PM:
 
So, apparently the "it's not finished yet, it will look much better after post production" stuff they were saying at CinemaCon was a load of crap.

Guess this time we'll be advertising that we DON'T have the latest gimmick. That's a switch!
 

---

Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 12-15-2012, 03:56 PM:
 
It definitely looked more like a video recording of an elaborate stage play than a movie.
 

---

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 12-15-2012, 06:09 PM:
 
I've now seen the Hobbit twice at 48fps (edit units per second) 3D (once for a QC run, once with my wife and a few hundred other people in the audience) at the Fremont Theater in San Luis Obispo (http://www.kcet.org/arts/artbound/counties/san-luis-obispo/the-many-lives-of-the-fremont-theater.html ). It DOES look different. It'd be interesting to see it at 24fps to see the difference. In this whole discussion, I'm reminded of the US TV series "All In The Family" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_in_the_Family#Production ). It was the first TV show I remember seeing on tape. Prior series were done on film. The Wikipedia article says the show looked more like a live show (like the Honeymooners, which was broadcast live) when compared with other shows of the time, which were shot on film. Since the film was eventually scanned for television use, the difference in the process seems to be the insertion of film in the path. So, why did it look different? I suspect it has to do with the nonlinearity of film to light exposure (gamma for television). The resolution of film was clearly more than that of television, and is more than 2k, and perhaps 4k digital cinema. But now, all television is shot and edited electronically (no longer tape, but still electronic capture).

So, is the issue that HFR looks different (not what we're used to seeing at the movies)? I was sitting about half way back in the 850 seat auditorium. I think the picture looked quite real, but it suddenly stopped at the edge of the screen. So there's disruption to the realism that might not have been present if I were sitting closer or the screen were larger.

The previous discussion in this thread on speed of perception (about 40Hz) is interesting. So, anything below that should appear different from reality (with reality's infinite frame rate), while above that should look more like reality. The confusion of something appearing real in some aspects (frame rate and 3D) while not in others (limited field of view, visible props, etc.) might be what's jarring. Should we add imperfections to make it apparent this is not reality? I've seen a local TV station run news promotions where the actualities are apparently run through an effects generator that gives them a film look, complete with scratches. Film at 11!

So... the movie was interesting to watch. It's not really my kind of movie. It would have been interesting to see Life of Pi in 3D HFR. I saw it in 2D 24fps.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. What's the next step in digital cinema? Higher frame rate? Higher resolution? Lower compression ratio? More bits per pixel?

Harold
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-15-2012, 08:11 PM:
 
Just saw THE HOBITT in HFR and I agree the image did not look like film but I had no problem with that. some said the movie had a cheap looking image quality but I will have to differ with that. Actually, I thought the special effects looked pretty good but not as great as the LOTR trilogy. The 3-D was excellent in Real D. and so was the Regal Theatre's RPX sound. The picture was a little on the dim side but this had nothing to do with the 3-D because I have seen many movies in that format that was brighter. The only fault I had with the movie was how terribly boring it was and I have decided to pass on the next two films.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-16-2012, 12:21 AM:
 
This zing about the difference between 24fps and 48fps is like our HDTV's with the newer ones that have a higher refresh rate.

In our house, we have two, 37inch LCD TV's made by the same company (Visio). I bought the first one two years ago and this unit has the older 60hz refresh rate. The second one I bought last year, contains the higher 120hz refresh rate.

Now, wife can watch a program on the older one, and I switch the newer one on the same channel and the same program can look much more life like due to the higher refresh rate.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-16-2012, 12:33 AM:
 

quote: Olivier Lemaire

---

"Let the Critics Help You Decide" - is that called modern journalism 2.0?

---

quote: Olivier Lemaire

---

You want to know what HFR looks like? just go to the theater and make your own opinion.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

Journalism is writing about current news/events, which does not exclude taking a consensus of what the critics think about something. Using your reasoning of what is/isn't journalism, writing about current political stuff is "let the politicians help you decide."

---

Journalism is just reporting facts, for people to think about things they could not if not aware of. Nothing less, nothing more.

It excludes taking any position: if it does, this is not anymore journalism, it's mass manipulation (or call it politics as it fits too).

Of course, it's not forbidden to try to convince other and make them think the way you think, or just to share your enthusiasm on a given topic. But please, be fair, don't call that journalism

quote: Chris Slycord

---

If a bunch of people tell me they got sick at a certain restaurant, I don't need to eat their food to tell me the place sucks.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

That said, I'll be having a look at it in HFR sometime next week.

---

Have a nice show!
 

---

Posted by Antti Nayha (Member # 4980) on 12-16-2012, 10:06 AM:
 
The criticism quoted in the first post seems to be from critics who have watched the whole finished film in a press screening. It’s a fact that there has been a lot of negative reactions. Nothing wrong with reporting that, is there?

That said, there are also some people who have complimented HFR – both pros and non-pros. I hope someone compiles a similar article about those. Would be interesting to know how much the reactions differ statistically between age groups, between people who use / don’t use the motion-interpolation feature on their TV’s, between people who play / don’t play a lot of video games, etc.

I don’t think Brad is trying to tell anyone here not to check out HFR with our own two eyes and form our opinion based on that. If anything, he’s telling us not to believe the hype, which tends to be healthy advice most of the time. (And of course he want to say he was right, which is always satisfying. )

Professionally, it doesn’t even really matter if we like it or not. If the audience wants HFR, we’re going to have to give it to them. If they don’t like it, well, then we don’t have to invest in IMB’s anytime soon. That’s what counts.

And regarding the audience: The Hobbit’s box office figures are not going to tell us yet whether they like HFR or not. At least the first film would break box office records even if it was projected exclusively in DVD resolution…
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-16-2012, 10:51 AM:
 

quote: Olivier Lemaire

---

Journalism is just reporting facts, for people to think about things they could not if not aware of. Nothing less, nothing more.

---

quote: Antti Nayha

---

I don’t think Brad is trying to tell anyone here not to check out HFR with our own two eyes and form our opinion based on that.

---

I don't even suggest that - in Brad did not want people to share and discuss things, he will probably never opened a public forum!

I just want to pinpoint the fact that for most (but not all) press articles we can find out there on the HFR, they are just text unworthy of journalism, reporting supposed facts by supposed peoples, and aiming at sensationalism instead of pure facts.

I ever did find a article on HFR in the french national press "reporting" that people were sick after the movie - of course, the author of this text did not ever see the HFR session nor see any sick people, this was just a buz aiming at placing his article in good place.

I take paper I can read generally with care - call it modern paranoia - but the HFR series were just too exaggerated to go unnoticed, until the movie came on the screen - where papers tends to be more factual.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-16-2012, 03:45 PM:
 
Here's a quote from an interview with Peter Jackson:

quote:

---

What is the reaction to the 48 frames that you’ve observed personally?

I am fascinated by people’s reaction to this now. I’ve been waiting so long to actually let the people see the movie and have the firsthand experience – nobody at all under the age of 20 has criticized it to me. I keep asking people and they all
think it’s fantastic. It’s the older film critics, it’s the people that obviously have a strong emotional investment in the look of film. Just, I guess, the way that some people still buy vinyl records and that’s the only way to listen to real music
is from vinyl. There is a bit of that going on, the nostalgia for how they perceive something should look or sound. But young kids don’t care, they think it looks cool.

---

quote:

---

Imax screens playing the film in the 48 fps format averaged $44,000 per location.

---

quote:

---

About 460 theaters showed "The Hobbit" in the groundbreaking but controversial 48 frame-per-second format -- which doubles the standard film speed and provides more clarity -- that Jackson utilized when he shot the movie. Between the high-speed film, 3D and Imax versions and combinations of those formats, moviegoers had six available options for viewing "The Hobbit."

---

quote: Joseph L. Kleiman

---

Dolby 3D, REALD 3D, and REALD 3D HFR

---

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.

---

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.

Well, I will finally get to see this myself on Wednesday. Can’t wait to see what I think of it!
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-17-2012, 06:24 PM:
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-17-2012, 06:53 PM:
 

quote: Peter Jackson

---

nobody at all under the age of 20 has criticized it to me.

---

quote: Mike Blakesly

---

Kids are content to watch a movie on a freakin' PHONE for crying out loud.

---

quote: Olivier Lemaire

---

Critics were based on a 20'' shots at the pre-production level, not corrected - seen by very few people (comparing to a large audience - like "bunch of people" that came to that restaurant), and even among this peoples, sentiment about HFR were really splitted - but of course, only "criticism" was broadly reported.

---

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.

---

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°.

---

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]

---

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.

---

quote: Robert LaValley

---

I found the above quote on msn.com.. are they mistaken or did IMAX upgrade some of their screens to HFR as well?

---

Yes, a few Digital IMAX locations are playing it in HFR as well. I even got invited to see a screening of it, but I thought it wasn't worth the 2 hour drive .

I doubt that there will ever be a HFR printed IMAX version. There are a few IMAX installations out there that can play "IMAX HD", which is 48 FPS, but those are primarily being used for theme park attractions.

Furthermore, I guess the costs for the prints would be prohibitive and no theater would have platters large enough to fit it anyways .
 

---

Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 12-18-2012, 05:29 AM:
 
i want to see 2D in HFR... 3D messes with the brightness, contrast and colours... I'm not too font of 3D. The film was so so... started slooooow.. could have easily been done in 1 one instead of 2 (or 3?!)..

Camerapans were smooth. Looked like some were thrown in just to show the effect
 

---

Posted by Antti Nayha (Member # 4980) on 12-18-2012, 11:52 AM:
 

quote:

---

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°.

---

quote: Antti Nayha

---

Yes, it does.

---

If I had equipment lying around that could record at 48 FPS I would try it myself. Did you ever try it?

I guess the result will be pretty close, but even a sensor forged by elves in moonlight will not be perfectly linear.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 12-18-2012, 12:19 PM:
 

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Afaik, most 3D systems are operating at a double flash in 48 FPS

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

If I had equipment lying around that could record at 48 FPS I would try it myself. Did you ever try it?

I guess the result will be pretty close, but even a sensor forged by elves in moonlight will not be perfectly linear.

---

quote: Antti Nayha

---

If you keep in mind that the RED has no real physical shutter, it’s very simple: When you shoot 48 fps at a ”270° shutter angle”, you’re actually just telling the sensor to expose each frame for 1/64 sec. When you shoot 24 fps at ”135°” – exactly the same thing.

---

• The Hobbit: An Unexpected Masterclass in Why HFR fails, and a reaffirmation of what makes cinema magical
• The Aesthetics of High Frame Rate Cinema

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Some day we will make fun of theaters that use multiple projectors per screen like this.

---

quote: Antti Nayha

---

48 fps feels exactly as the 50/60 fps stuff we’ve all watched on TV since childhood.

---

quote: Antti Nayha

---

The 50/60 fps TV stuff is traditionally shot with a ”full” 360° shutter, which is why it doesn’t look sped up. ... They don’t tell us which shutter speed they used, but I’d bet it’s no larger than 180°.

---

quote: Antti Nayha

---

OK, finally caught a HFR 3D presentation of The Hobbit a week ago. No surprises there: 48 fps feels exactly as the 50/60 fps stuff we’ve all watched on TV since childhood. Cheap and anti-dramatic.

---

quote:

---

Apart from the HFR, the picture looked video-ish and downright ugly a lot of the time. At worst, it was almost like a competitor’s demonstration of how poorly the RED camera handles high-contrast situations. This certainly contributes to the cheap TVish look and feel. It feels like a weird decision to use the RED for such a huge production. In comparison, just look at all the beautiful and cinematic 3D images in Hugo, shot with the Arri Alexa.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

I don't know if DCI is capable of variable frame rate. My opinion would be that 48 fps should only be used for select shots to eliminate strobing and motion blur.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

What did Ebert think of Hobbit 48fps?

---

I guess he's not seen it yet, because he seems to have fractured his left hip recently.

Edit: Chris came to the same conclusion before me
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-29-2012, 06:32 PM:
 
An alternating frame rate would drive me NUTS! That'd really make it look like a videogame as current games are rarely ever locked to a specific framerate. The game industry doesn't care much about consistency.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-29-2012, 10:03 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

What did Ebert think of Hobbit 48fps?

---

quote: Jarod Reddig

---

I do know Ebert raved about Showscan. I believe it had variable farm rates. I will wait to judge HFR until I see it. And one example of a technology is not enough to right it off or declare it a success. I seen The Hobbit in 24fps RealD and enjoyed the movie and the 3D. I thought it had a smoother than normal and video look at times itself in just 24fps. Sure was long but I had a good time.

---

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.

---

quote: Bajsic Bojan

---

Working in a cinemateque I have seen a feature with instructions on when you should "play it back slower to achieve a more dramatic effect" and which sections should be played faster, in the same feature. Dont know what it was as that was some 8 years ago, but it was a silent movie from early 1900, so probably the instructions were for the people hand-cranking the projectors.

---

Those were the days when being a projectionist was a serious physical workout and your frame rate was dependent on how lazy or drunk your projectionist was .
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-30-2012, 11:29 PM:
 
While Ebert probably loved the hell outta the 48fps film demos, he's never sat through a full length dramatic movie in 48fps. Now he has to sit through one for 3 hours. Not only that, but in 3D. Ebert loves 3D more than life itself so that should not be a problem. But I wonder if he would still be so enthusiastic about 48fps in a full-length dramatic movie setting.
 

---

Posted by Jure Maticic (Member # 7197) on 12-31-2012, 08:44 AM:
 
Well, I just saw The Hobbit yesterday on 35mm and it looks just fine, very "cinematic" actually ... a bit dark-ish in terms of contrast, but fine in all other aspects.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-31-2012, 06:44 PM:
 
I've seen it.

I hate it.

Pretty much everything you've heard is true.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-31-2012, 07:12 PM:
 
Told ya it was poo.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 12-31-2012, 08:59 PM:
 
I dunno... I actually liked the HFR version of the Hobbit. Maybe it was because I like the hobbit better than any of the LOTR series which all put me to sleep. One problem I had with it was that several outdoor scenes looked way overexposed, I don't know if this was because of the HFR or just a way to balance out the additional dimness from the 3d. I don't think HFR will be the next "cinemascope" fix to change the industry, but I think it'll stick around for a while.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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).

---

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...
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-01-2013, 06:50 PM:
 
If they are, they're stupid. HFR is a relatively cheap upgrade that requires no upkeep. I can see the extra charge for 3D since it is expensive to install and a lot more work. Charging extra for HFR is just being greedy.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 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 ), but that choice, off course, went away after some time and the up-charge became the new standard.
 

---

Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 01-01-2013, 11:03 PM:
 
It is in no way impossible to have different framerates in the same film. Let's assume you want to have 24fps and 48ps content in the same film. All you do is shoot 48fps and edit in a 48fps timeline and frame drop every other frame in the section that should be 24fps, and then double each remaining frame to fill in the gaps. You could even create a mask and have particular parts of the image run at 24 and others at 48.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-02-2013, 05:54 AM:
 

quote: Andrew Thomas

---

It is in no way impossible to have different framerates in the same film. Let's assume you want to have 24fps and 48ps content in the same film. All you do is shoot 48fps and edit in a 48fps timeline and frame drop every other frame in the section that should be 24fps, and then double each remaining frame to fill in the gaps. You could even create a mask and have particular parts of the image run at 24 and others at 48.

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote: Antti Nayha

---

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.

---

I would really like someone trying to get that prettier soap opera look for once, just so we have a comparison .

quote: Antti Nayha

---

Perhaps a trip to Futuroscope in France would be in order one of these days.

---

quote: Andrew Thomas

---

It is in no way impossible to have different framerates in the same film. Let's assume you want to have 24fps and 48ps content in the same film. All you do is shoot 48fps and edit in a 48fps timeline and frame drop every other frame in the section that should be 24fps, and then double each remaining frame to fill in the gaps. You could even create a mask and have particular parts of the image run at 24 and others at 48.

---

quote: John Roddy

---

They also said we'd need to buy a new module to run it, but that wasn't the case at all. We just used one of the four we've had on site for years, and it was totally plug and play

---