Why 'The Hobbit' Looks Bad At 48 FPS

[OmahaAudio]

http://movieline.com/2012/12/14/hobbit-high-frame-rate-science-48-frames-per-second/

[Marc Wielage]

Here's a compilation of several very negative reviews about the HFR (high frame rate):

http://www.studiodai...re-not-so-good/

http://bit.ly/RhdhmQ

http://www.variety.c...w/VE1117948867/

The CNN review is particularly damning:

"An Unexpected Journey" may look sharp in TV showrooms or on your PS3, but in the movie theater the picture's clarity comes at the loss of texture, shading and consistency. Shifts from exteriors to dark interiors are especially jarring. Look also at the dull, flat orange tint that is meant to approximate candle light in numerous scenes, and compare that with the glow you find in "Barry Lyndon," or "Fanny and Alexander," or your own birthday snaps.

Did Jackson embrace 48 fps to keep himself interested, because he knew he was retreading old ground? Is he really blind to the limitations of this technology at this stage of its evolution? I won't say it has no future, but for now this emperor has no clothes. It's a colossal misjudgment. He's put his name to the ugliest film of the year, a $270 million three-hour epic that looks like a TV show ("Teletubbies" was the first to pop into my head, and "Doctor Who" was the most flattering comparison I could come up with.)

I have to admit, we're rapidly getting to a point where directors change things simply because they can, not because it necessarily makes the movie better, tells the story more effectively, or enhances the characters. Whole lotta gimmicks going on. And the line between movies and video games continues to blur...

On the other hand, here's a positive assessment of 48fps (in the interests of equal time):

http://magazine.crea...ame-rate-cinema

Edited December 16, 2012 by Marc Wielage

[ccsnd]

Sounds like they are making excuses...

[ccsnd]

Look also at the dull, flat orange taint

That sounds like it might burn a little

[Marc Wielage]

I have fixed the obvious typo from the quote (which was a cut-and-paste). One wonders how they got their taint sunburned...

[stephensharrod]

I specifically avoided the HFR, and saw the the 2D instead. It looked pretty good in terms of what to expect but it made me wonder if some of special effect were meant to be seen at 48.

[jozzafunk]

It doesn't - I thought it looked gorgeous. In places I thought the 3D was odd, but the pro's definately outweigh the cons.

- I've seen it twice at The Embassy, where the world premiere was. I'm wondering if it's a eyesight thing, a calibration thing, a getting used to it thing or something else ( most probably a combo ). I've heard a range of opinions, however all in the instance of the viewer having seen both formats 24/48 FPS say it's far better at 48.

[Jesper Magnusson]

I'm hoping to see it in a couple of days, mostly because I want to experience the HFR 3D. In that sense the gimmick works - I'm interested, and I will pay to experience it.

I really liked reading the first article, though I feel it was dangerously short and summarized from what must have been very complex and varying data (simply saying that we see in 66fps, how do you even translate a mind activity into an exact amount of a film specification?). I think I'll read up it that some more.

About wether it's a good or bad technology I think it's really too early to tell, and probably will be for another year or more. All new changes to the film format since it's beginning have met resistance, from the advent of synchronized sound and color, to HD and 3D (and the latter is still a bit wet behind the ears). Often the responses as I understand have been very similar to what I'm reading about HFR; that it's not filmic, makes the acting unrealistic and the lighting weird (which if it's true, simply means that actors and filmmakers will adapt to it if the format hangs in there).

Film has been subject to many evolutionary steps, and some have been found not being very good (like odorama and tactile enhancement), but I do believe we are far from seing the end of it, and I welcome filmmakers like Jackson who take the risk involved with testing these technologies and innovations.

Time will tell.

[Not Chilli]

I had a dp ask me if my 744t does 60 frames... I gave him a funny look haha. But seriously people are going to start asking for 48 frames for their films, i have yet to see the hobbit but i like that the technology is being push whether its successful or not, i also like that a big film has taken a chance and a risk to see if it would work out. I am a bit of a traditionalist and i love film at film speed but i am happy to be proven wrong. Thats my 1,2

Cheers,

Piotr Wasilewski!

[Angelo Waldron]

http://www.thestudioexec.com/2012/12/the-hobbits-48-fps-causes-pregnancy.html

[BVS]

I went to a talk about 3D at Weta Digital when they were first shooting The Hobbit and the 3D Supervisor said that something like 7% of the general population can't watch 3D and get the appreciation of its depth and quality...I'm one of those people as I only have full sight in one eye...but the sound is wonderful.

BVS

[Marc Wielage]

Just got back from a screening tonight, and you know, the 48fps didn't kill me. Yes, it looks a lot more "digital" and electronic-y, but I had no problem turning off the "annoyance switch" in my brain and just drinking in the story and the characters. After you get past a very slow first hour, the movie is actually quite entertaining and even has a few moments that are fairly emotional and moving. I understand why some critics are screaming about it, but it's not quite as bad as they're making it out to be (IMHO).

[Jesper Magnusson]

So I saw it last night, with a friend who is also in the film business. The consensus afterwards was similar to what Marc says - it does look a bit "digital" at times, but not as much as either of us had thought from reading about other peoples reactions. Sometimes you thought about it, sometimes not, and the film had several nice scenes where you forgot about everything related to the making of it.

It was also the first film I've seen in 3D, so even though there were several things I could comment on, it's hard to really say what was caused by the 3D, the HFR, or a combination of the two.

[Marc Wielage]

Yeah -- I honestly think I was more annoyed by the 3D than I was with the 48fps. Like a lotta fanboys, I may go back to take in a regular 24fps non-3D screening just to see what that looks like. (There is a theory on the net that this is why the movie is making so much money: fans go back to see it again in different formats!)

[rb1138]

Yeah -- I honestly think I was more annoyed by the 3D than I was with the 48fps. Like a lotta fanboys, I may go back to take in a regular 24fps non-3D screening just to see what that looks like. (There is a theory on the net that this is why the movie is making so much money: fans go back to see it again in different formats!)

Okay I just went and saw the film in IMAX 3D and I make the same assessment. Honestly, I didn't really notice the 48fps. If you think about, you need 48fps to get rid of the "blanking" effect that 24fps does in 3D, which the 48fps did quite well. It pretty much just makes the picture looks "right" than really add anything to it. It really felt like 24fps to me, but without that irritating effect that I saw so much in Avatar. However, if you take the glasses off (yes you get double vision now, but!) you can see the "BBC effect" that everyone's talking about. Are they showing the 48fps 2D version anywhere?

Yes, the 3D is goddamn annoying, especially when there's any action occurring on multiple planes. For example, if I focus on the person who is talking but don't focus on the person who's walking by in the foreground that person will judder or be in double vision when they move. However, if I focus on the object that's moving (crossing/uncrossing my eyes) that object then looks okay. But I have to do this all the time so that this irritating effect doesn't bother me! It might seem like I'm complaining, but I really want to say (with all good intentions and honesty) that it makes a lot of the action seem "not real" because it's not behaving the way objects in the world are supposed to. And there's so much action in this movie occurring in multiple planes that the effect is incredibly jarring. Not to mention distracting since I can't really keep up. Even simple things judder...like a pan from one point of Bilbo's house to another. I just wanted to watch the film in 2D after awhile.

Is there a way to fix this problem? I don't think it's a frame rate issue. I really think they should just put what they want in 3D and leave the rest 2D so it doesn't distract so much from the movie. I didn't notice this too much in Avatar. I suppose since most of that film was computer-generated they were able to choose what they wanted to be in 3D to cut down on the distractions.

Another problem is that many simple elements of the art of cinematography look like crap. Objects and planes that are out of focus look like garbage. I noticed that during the exterior day scenes, when the f-stop is surely higher, less areas of the frame look like garbage. This indicates it's some kind of focus/depth of field issue to me. Another problem is that areas that are overexposed (in the shots during the day (establishing/traveling shots) look like utter crap. The overexposed areas just look awful. Total lack of detail. Is it a RED thing?

I got used to it all after awhile, but these areas that are out of focus do look pretty terrible. Like looking at a cheap TV screen up close. I have heard before that 3D doesn't like the rack focus effects of traditional 2D cinematography. In real life, we have a very wide and focused field of view (our eyes are very small sensors, like 1mm?), but traditional cinematography just seems to look like garbage when it's out of focus. Note the effect in the closeups. Gandalf's eyes, cheeks, and forehead look good, but many parts of his beard look like it was shot on a $50 lens! Maybe this is what people are actually complaining about but don't realize it? The cheap out-of-focus effect. A similar effect happened in Avatar in some of the live-action shots. But I think I might've been a bit farther away and might not have noticed it as much, but I do remember it looking a bit funky in the out-of-focus areas. But I don't remember that movie being as out-of-focus as this one. It's Gandalf's beard, man.... It just looks bad.

Sorry for the rant. I generally hate watching movies in 3D and avoid it. It's always dark and distracting. But in this case, I just wanted to see the 48fps in IMAX. But I was so distracted still....

As for the film, I liked the movie mostly. Had too much continuous action after a certain point though. Exhausting. The problem is really the book; if you guys read it, you'd know what I mean. Also, the whole splitting into three parts thing is another big part of the problem. Not enough content to hold three parts together. The book does have the god-narrator and Bilbo's point-of-view to smooth things out and not make it seem so fast. I guess the film can't do that. Bilbo barely talks after the beginning. Unfortunate. Bilbo's scenes are always the most interesting in the film. You can tell because the audience always reacts more when Martin Freeman is on screen. I guess we relate to the down-and-out guy? The Bilbo character is just so relateable compared to almost everybody else....

Sawrab

[Tony Johnson]

This debate about 48fps has many variations if you like me have read the endless comments about it on the net. Obviously it has divided people and most people describe the same shot or scene and its affect totally differently. With 3D the left and right eye have an apparent speed of 12fps if you shoot at 24fps so something had to be done to improve the format. Any new technology introduced is not helped when critics over react and look for the dramatic effect in their writing style to describe it rather than a straight forward analysis. The thing is it seems the younger generation are warming to HFR and don't seem to make a big deal of it and don't need to waffle on how they miss the feel and flicker of Barry Lindon, maybe they should send their kids to review it because if as they say it looks like a video game then maybe it's that demographic that get the most out of it.

To me it comes down to choice and this movie has more choice of screening formats than anything before it, so if you hate 48fps IMAX then watch it in 2D 24fps. If the theory is true that its making so much money because people are seeing twice to check out 48fps then that is appropriate payback for the filmmakers who stuck their neck out so far.

Tony

[rb1138]

With 3D the left and right eye have an apparent speed of 12fps if you shoot at 24fps so something had to be done to improve the format.

EDIT: Never mind. I just realized what you said doesn't make any sense. Each camera is shooting 48 fps, not just one. Both frames are shown in the cycle period, therefore the audience would see both the left-eye frame 48 times a second and the right-eye frame 48 times a second. The total rate would be 96 times a second, with each frame being shown once instead of being repeated. There's a possibility of "flicker" because of whether 48 is enough for one eye to see continuous motion, but I didn't see any so it doesn't seem like a problem.

The same would happen with a 24fps movie. Each frame would be shown once, for a total of 48 flashes.

Therefore, I still think the reason for all the motion problems has to do with the planes of motion problem.

Have you ever seen 12fps video? It'd be pretty obvious if the video were at 12fps.

I really liked reading the first article, though I feel it was dangerously short and summarized from what must have been very complex and varying data (simply saying that we see in 66fps, how do you even translate a mind activity into an exact amount of a film specification?). I think I'll read up it that some more.

Time will tell.

The Showscan process did research on how frame rates affect the brain.

http://my.nero.com/i...jxSkeukImjylW#2

http://magazine.crea...ilmgoing-future

I can't find the exact article but they found that 72fps had the most effect on the brain, and then there was no more improvement. They settled on 60fps, though. I guess for logistical reasons.

Interesting article, the first one. The first article describes the audience experience at the screening. Adults actually ducked at times because it seemed so real. Kind of reminds you of when films were first created and people thought the train would actually hit them in the Lumiere Brothers' "Arrival of a Train".

Even shorter fractions of a second have been seen by fighter pilots during tests. I forget the exact number, but single moments of sight seem like they can be much shorter than longer duration video content.

Sawrab

[soundslikejustin]

In modern PROJECTION 3D, both frames are shown simultaneously. Both frames (at whatever frame rate) are shot through a beam splitter (the reverse of what the camera is) which polarises the two images differently. The left and right lenses in the glasses are also polarised differently, allowing each eye to see the corresponding image.

In some 3D televisions, it is indeed one frame after another with synced glasses. In others, it is the same polarised lenses.

[Marc Wielage]

In modern projection 3D, both frames are shown simultaneously. Both frames (at whatever frame rate) are shot through a beam splitter (the reverse of what the camera is) which polarises the two images differently.

It depends on the process. XpanD does require alternate frame projection with active-shutter LCD glasses (and a corresponding shutter in the projectors); Dolby 3D uses dichroic filters, and RealD uses polarized lenses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XpanD_3D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_3D

http://en.wikipedia....ki/RealD_Cinema

It's fair to say that all the 3D systems (including Imax, which typically uses either RealD or XpanD glasses) have different pros and cons, and all of them have some major compromises in terms of light loss and depth perception.

[VASI]

http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/what-is-the-21st-century-frame-rate-follies

[rb1138]

Funny story, guys. I didn't go to see the Hobbit in HFR the first time. It was my fault because I naturally assumed that Lincoln Center IMAX (the only true IMAX screen in NYC, besides the museums) would be showing it that way. A long time ago, I heard that IMAX would show their films at 48fps for greater reality (I just thought they would do that here).

So I saw it in HFR for real this time. It's also the first time I think I've ever seen a digital IMAX screen. And this is what I thought..... I thought it looked just terrible. I found the HFR incredibly distracting. Every time the actors moved, it ruined the magic of the film. It made it look like BBC or a play or something. Eventually, I wished the actors would just stay still so I wouldn't have to see the mushy motion blur and be taken out of the story every time.

Plus side (if you think it's a plus) is that the 3D looks much better now. The stroboscopic effect is gone and all the movement in all the planes looks perfect. All the visual problems I complained about regarding the Lincoln Center IMAX screening are gone. No more ugly textures and overexposed spots. Not sure if this is because of the 48fps or because of the digital IMAX (lack of conversion to a film print).

I'm not sure why I believed the blanking effect I describe in my earlier post was gone when I saw The Hobbit at Lincoln Center. When I saw Avatar at Lincoln Center before (and when I've seen other 3D movies) I remember a distinct grey/light-blue blanking effect whenever characters/objects moved. But when I saw The Hobbit, I saw no such effect. Either they've improved the 3D process or are using a different process of interpolating 24fps from 48fps than just cutting out every other one frame.

I'm not sure what the problem is. I could swear when I've seen 60fps on DSLRs, it looked much better to me. But here all motion looks pretty lame. Very ugly motion blur.

I didn't see the "makeup" on the actors, but I could see the costumes and the sets. I believe it could benefit from a naturalistic approach, using real locations or less elaborate costumes. Less dramatic sound (compared to the current state of the film, the sound felt out of place sometimes, at least for a BBC drama). On the other hand, when they did go outside where there would be less lighting work—like those brief shots where the characters run through the forest—it looked extremely fake. When the lighting was more...fairy tale (like in many of the closeups), it looked much better...except for when they moved. However, some "closeups" like the crane/flying-camera stuff on the cliff after the party leaves on their own (in the night) looked so bad that some people in the audience laughed out loud.

The 48fps makes the 3D so seamless that my friends and I stopped noticing it. It became irrelevant, except for the fact that we were wearing those irritating glasses and getting major headaches.

The Digital IMAX screen didn't look bad. I could...live with it. It has great colors. However it's a bit blurry compared to the real IMAX screen & film.

EDIT: Vasileios' link is just perfect. Exactly the same thought I had during the film is expressed in this paragraph from the article "The technology's defenders have a point; HFR isn't a fundamentally bad technology. It is, however, fundamentally different, and thus requires a fundamentally different approach to filmmaking. In The Hobbit, however, its implementation is so careless that, for the most part, all the added frames do is undermine an already wobbly, ungainly film. "

Sawrab

[OmahaAudio]

Are they going to show it in Europe at 50fps?

[Marc Wielage]

Are they going to show it in Europe at 50fps?

No, just as film theaters in Europe have always been 24fps. I believe the DCP files shipped to theaters locks the speed at a given rate, so the theater owners can't speed it up a little.

Eventually, I wished the actors would just stay still so I wouldn't have to see the mushy motion blur and be taken out of the story every time. ...Plus side (if you think it's a plus) is that the 3D looks much better now. The stroboscopic effect is gone and all the movement in all the planes looks perfect.

Yes, I've been saying for some time that I think what Peter Jackson has done is to solve some of the major problems with 3D while introducing new problems. I'm not sure if the tradeoff is worth it, but there are some great visuals and good storytelling in The Hobbit, no matter what your take is on the frame rate. But I think at its core, the movie would be 90% as enjoyable in flat, regular, 24fps.

[rb1138]

No, just as film theaters in Europe have always been 24fps. I believe the DCP files shipped to theaters locks the speed at a given rate, so the theater owners can't speed it up a little.

Strange thing is I've read that they may show films at 25fps in theaters in Europe. Don't know if that's actually true.

Yes, I've been saying for some time that I think what Peter Jackson has done is to solve some of the major problems with 3D while introducing new problems. I'm not sure if the tradeoff is worth it, but there are some great visuals and good storytelling in The Hobbit, no matter what your take is on the frame rate. But I think at its core, the movie would be 90% as enjoyable in flat, regular, 24fps.

The funny thing about that statement is that I would say it's 100% enjoyable in flat, 24fps. Everything else just brings that number down (at least for me).

Back when I was still in film school, I read some cinematography book that said that 30fps was sufficient to cure most of the strobe problems associated with pans at 24fps. Cinematographers I've spoken to have told me that 30fps looks close enough to 24fps not to mess up the mood.

I'm just saying that maybe it's a good idea to break even. 30fps wouldn't be a bad number. HDTVs, LCDs, and CRT monitors run at 60hz, into which 30fps would be a perfect fit. It's true that PAL isn't at 60hz inherently, but I believe their HDTVs, LCDs, and monitors are.

Sawrab

[VASI]

Are they going to show it in Europe at 50fps?

Nope. Also classic 5.1 for sound here. No Dolby Atmos.