Higher Frame Rates and The Hobbit

[Moco Loco]

Two links here, one is a video and one is a more substantial article from Kotaku. Both are almost a month old, but I at least haven't heard anyone mention this before. They say that a higher frame rate is jarring and makes CG objects stand out from live action, but I have to think JC can do better

Is it really that bad?
On the other hand, Bert Dunk, director of photography and technology supervisor at Toronto's Screen Industry Research and Training Center, told me on the phone that he's not sure what everyone is complaining about. He saw The Hobbit in 48fps, and he loved it. A member of both the Canadian and American Societies of Cinematographers, he's worked extensively with HFR footage, and he seems to have an almost over-the-top adoration for the new format. In fact, Dunk insisted, the experience should only get better as frame rate increases—he explained that even 120fps footage is being tested.

When viewers do experience issues, he said, it's likely due to the way a high frame rate film is being projected, and not a problem with the format itself. The same has been said of 3D, but still, that contention seems at odds with the sheer volume of complaints being leveled at the format. Dunk was adamant that the photography process itself is not to blame, though.


"The more you watch it, the easier it is to watch," he insisted, though even he conceded that ultimately "it's a very personal thing."

Avatar 2 Could Look Even More Like A Video Game Than The Hobbit Does. But That Might Not Be A Bad Thing.

Movies: Is James Cameron Eyeing 60fps For 'Avatar 2' Film?

[Human No More]

48, not bad, but I'm hoping for 60

Remember that RealD 3D is projected at 144, although due to the 3D system, this isn't 144 frames actually visible to the viewer, but it shows the technology is already there.

The problem is that a lot of people are used to low quality - they accept motion blur as an inevitability rather than a symptom of technical deficiency, and even consider something without it 'unrealistic', even w hen the motion blur is the actual unrealistic part (a bit like lens flares or the sound of a 'silenced' gun). Still, JC has brought about large improvements before

[CyanRachel]

Here's what I posted in the "TV & Movies" section under The Hobbit thread:

I've seen "The Hobbit" 3 times -- twice in the HFR 3D and once in regular 24fps 3D...and overall I actually prefer the HFR 3D. Yes, the HFR technology can be improved upon (probably by Peter Jackson/WETA and James Cameron), and it does take a bit of getting used to, but by the 2nd time of seeing the film in the HFR 3D, I was already more used to it.

I would recommend my fellow Avatar fans to see "The Hobbit" (it's a darn good movie regardless of the format it's shown in!) in the HFR 3D if possible...and even to see it twice in that format if possible. That way, you can start getting used to it in preparation for the Avatar sequel films, which just might be filmed in the HFR 3D (JC might go higher than the 48fps of "The Hobbit"). I think it would be VERY interesting to see what the Na'vi would look like in the HFR 3D (though I can't even imagine what a *higher* frame rate than 48fps would look like).

[Taronyu Eywa]

Pandora and the Na'vi at 60fps?

Yes please ^_^

[Alan]

I did go to see The Hobbit in the HFR 3D and when it started it was a marked difference to 'normal'. It was actually like watching a very crystal clear, extremely large TV! For me it actually seemed to make the film sets look more like, well, film sets...as though I was in a theatre watching a stage production. Kinda hard to describe really.

Another thing I noticed was that the huge vistas of New Zealand seemed to look more like model sets. I think that might have been an effect of the 3D setting and where the convergence was set rather that the HFR.

I also noticed in one or two shots the 'join' in some of the composites. This was perhaps due to the high resolution, whereas such joins would have been covered up by the 'low res' in standard formats.

My most favorite scene for composite integration was the dwaf/mountain troll scene. This seemed seamless and completely real!

At the end of the day we go to the cinema to be entertained and come out feeling better than when we went in. The Hobbit did both of these for me...but never as good as Avatar. That bar is just so high

Alan

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Alan

At the end of the day we go to the cinema to be entertained and come out feeling better than when we went in. The Hobbit did both of these for me...but never as good as Avatar. That bar is just so high

Alan

The Na'vi never got a "Blunt the Knives" scene though.

(Unfortunately, I've never seen the Hobbit in HFR. )

[Nìmwey]

I watched Avatar once in a normal theater, and once 3D. No problems, the 3D was awesome. Then I watched The Hobbit in 3D, with high frame rate. That was very exhausting, I felt like I couldn't "take the whole screen in at once", but had to "look all over the place", and I had a horrible headache for the rest of the day. (I didn't sit any closer or farther away from the screen than I use to, so it wasn't that.)

[Alan]

^ Interesting. I wonder why that was? I didn't get a headache when I watched it. It just had a really different look to it. I must admit some of the huge vista did look like model sets even though they were real New Zealand. Maybe it has something to do with how or where they set the convergence (the plane where you line of sight converges; if it is in front of the screen then things seem to pop out at you, if it is behind the screen then it's like looking through a window. Hope that makes sense)

Alan

[Human No More]

When I first watched Avatar, the 3D trailers were disorienting for about 1 minute, then I never had a problem again. Maybe I adapt quickly to that compared to others though; not sure.

[Sìkat]

I didn't have a problem adapting when I saw The Hobbit in HFR 3D right after Christmas, although I left the theatre feeling like I'd been watching TV for the last few hours.

I did see in the pre-show ads a 3D ad for the Avatar 3D Blu-Ray, though

[Alan]

Originally Posted by sfc78

... I left the theatre feeling like I'd been watching TV for the last few hours.

^^This. Which was a bit of a shame in a way as I was hoping it would look like they were really there, just in the screen. Duno... Just wasn't quick what I was expecting. I still enjoyed it having said that.

Alan

[Lone warrior]

I don't know why movies still published mostly in 24 or 30fps. Most of the high budget or action films, are shot with really high framerates, because in editing state, higher framrate gives the editor higher flexibility and accuracy (for example in CGI the motion tracking is much more accurate, or the footage can be slowed down multiple times, and yea yea I know, if you slow down a 240fps footage to 60, it will be 2X times slower, and in 30fps it will 4X slower, and dinamic framerate also exists). And especially at movies, like Avatar, where 2/3 it is computer generated, and it lacks motion blur, it can look really choppy, if its framerate not high enough. (I have the blu-ray full HD version copy of Avatar and its choppy as hell...)
It would not take a lot more effort. Just set the final render's framerate to 60fps dinamic. But this also has some cons: double the amount of frames, double the size, and double rendering time. But the film industry has the instruments to do it, and we have the storage space...
So my hopes are in Mr. Cameron. I would love to see a 60fps Avatar.

I link here an upscaled Avatar footage. Do you like it, or not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChsT-y7Yvkk

[Neverman]

So do you think the decision whether the film will be shown in 120fps, 60fps, 48fps or 24fps will be made in the editing phase of the movie due to the fact that it is filmed in higher frame rate anyway? That would be very late, wouldn't it?
I remember the whole HFR discussion very well, also because of Douglas Trumbull who at that time introduced his visionary MAGI POD which supposedly is being able of projecting 4K 3D at 120fps. Since then and Trumbulls vague comment on how he is trying to convince Jon Landau to come to his lab and see the results for himself there were no further updates. In one of his latest interviews he said, there are a couple of movies in the WIP but he isn't allowed to say what movies. That made me hyped that I could actually see a 120fps movie at all in my lifetime. Damn shame what happened to Trumbull and his groundbreaking ideas in the last decades. Also a shame the negative response to "Billy Lynns long halftime walk". Would have loved to see that in its real format.
But where Trumbull und Lee failed due to their insignificance when it comes to box office gold James Cameron could prevail!
Its my only fear for this film that it could be shown only in 24fps because of some stupid white collars reigning from their desks.
JC is king!

[Lone warrior]

Originally Posted by Neverman

So do you think the decision whether ... white collars reigning from their desks.
JC is king!

I have the same fear too. If this comes true, I hope that the consumer version (Blu-Ray copy, the version that you can see on Netflix, etc.) also will be in 60fps format.

[allroock123]

I have seen the film in both formats and in my experience will simply say the HFS "Feels" strange,, "But" I will also say the Hobbit's Artistic Stereoscopic presentation as a whole takes a very different tact then Avatar Did and that was more stressing to view in both formats , I think you will possibly see filmmakers take the approach that Showscan Digital uses that allows a Film Artist to dynamically change the internally "perceived" film look and "feel" along with building a much deeper understanding of 3D scene presentation and perspective impact viewing stress ,, The biggest issue we have here is cinemas not presenting 3D films bright enough to account for the loss of the glasses and this makes the film "stressful to watch" Sharing a presentation on Showscan digital.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg