Andrej H Posted December 15, 2013 Report Share Posted December 15, 2013 I went to see Hobbit in 3d HFR yesterday and had a big wtf? moment... it looks like some tv production in acute clarity, but lacks any "cinematic" magic... while the realism of some outdoors is interesting in "being there" realism, interiers looked like some staged opera where you could count each hair in actor's eyebrows, but the picture looked cold and plain, but oh so clear... is it possible that it was some projection fault that it looked like that or does hfr really look like shit... but very clear one... it half ruined the magical experience for me... I felt like watching some 90s british tv drama, just much sharper, but similar lighting and plain picture which totally doesn't suit this epic fairy tale... I hope the movies of the near future won't all look like that... no magic in it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted December 15, 2013 Report Share Posted December 15, 2013 Still I can't enjoy a movie in 3D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej H Posted December 15, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2013 Well, I started appreciating and enjoying 3D with "Avatar", the first time 3D really looked good to me and it felt to my senses like being immersed in a dreamlike or trip-like state... which also suited the aesthetics of that movie. 3D can be kitchy and painfull to watch, but with current technology and for certain kinds of movies - like all those commercial fairy tale kind of flicks - it is appropriate and adds to the experience. But this HFR actually takes away from the experience, it takes away the magic and makes it hard to connect to the story and the staged parts (which are the majority of that movie, apart from some rare pure outdoor footage) look awful, because you clearly see that it is just an artificial set... I can see some proper use of it in some of Werner Herzog's future "documentaries" - but even there I don't know if I would like it... To me - top cinematic photography is "Samsara" - 70mm is still king I guess... Pretty please to any DP reading -. stay away from HFR - even the lighting looks amateurish in even the biggest productions... I was shocked to see a multi-million dollar film look so... well... cheap... yet sharp... I thought I was crazy or there was something wrong with the projection, but I searched the web today and saw exactly the same opinion as mine more elaborately expressed here: http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/19/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-hfr-fails-and-a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/ I agree with that guy 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej H Posted December 15, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2013 Ah, sorry, I just saw that is was already debated here and beaten to death with the first Hobbit movie that I luckily didn't see in that horrid format... late to the party I guess... I was just so shocked how bad it looked that I had to vent it somewhere... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macrecorder Posted December 15, 2013 Report Share Posted December 15, 2013 Except that Peter Jackson took the criticism on board of the first one, and has apparently tried to keep the advantages of HFR (for 3D) and combine it with a film look: http://www.hitfix.com/news/peter-jackson-says-hobbit-48fps-has-been-improved-for-the-desolation-of-smaug Although it should be noted they chose the show the critics the 24fps version. James Cameron was one of the people pushing for higher frame rates for 3D. I suppose it depends on whether you value 3D or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Sjostrom Posted December 15, 2013 Report Share Posted December 15, 2013 I really don't get the argument that movies need to be even more immersive. I get it for games because you're in control over the action and then it can really offer a unique experience that's still unreal. A movie can sometimes feel too real, because there's real humans in them. The exception of course is animated films. Avatar and is somewhere in between I guess. Hobbit strives to be realistic, and wants the audience to be immersed in the story. If you can't achieve immersion in a script already, 3D and HFR and WTF won't help. The only true immersive moments I've ever experienced was reading a great book, listening to an amazing album or, one time, watching a great movie on my crappy computer in a crappy chair listening through the computer speakers. Hell, even The Wire on my phone immerses me more than The Hobbit in a cinema. Ymmv, but a good script is the key. Techno is just techno. Life of Pi had me, though. Not HFR but 3D. I'm happy if everyone leaves HFR out of the equation. I'm hesitant to buying a flat screen TV (still have a 'fat screen') because to my eyes, they move weird. I know you can turn I that function off, but I'm sorry, I'm already turned off. :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Hirtenstein Posted December 15, 2013 Report Share Posted December 15, 2013 the 24fps version of the first hobbit had some of the worst motion blur i've ever seen. by-product of shooting HFR and cutting in half? i don't know but i skipped the 3d version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeheel Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 Interesting that you liked the 3D in Life of Pi, Olle. It's one of the only 3d films I've really enjoyed as well. And I think there's a simple reason. It was shot with a depth of field that really mimic'd the way our eyes and brains work, with a central in focus image and the rest of the screen falling off into a hazier depth of field. I found the first Hobbit to be incredibly hard to watch with things going on everywhere, and most of them sharply in focus. The second one is better, but still has a lot going on. You have to work hard to keep track of everything that's happening on the screen. Life of Pi was a much more natural experience, with the images on screen corresponding more accurately to the way we might see them in real life... not so much to do with the technology, but in how the DP and /or Director artistically chose to use the technology. Cheers, Brent Calkin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 Life of Pi was a much more natural experience, with the images on screen corresponding more accurately to the way we might see them in real life... not so much to do with the technology, but in how the DP and /or Director artistically chose to use the technology. I also really liked the 3D in Gravity, so that's another movie shot on Alexa that did extremely well. I haven't yet seen the new Hobbit movie, but I'll reserve judgement until I see it. I hope it's good -- Andrew Lesnie does great work, and I'm glad that Peter Jackson at least has commented that they were aware of the motion complaints on the HFR release last year and have worked to improve it. I noticed that WB has quietly said that they're pushing the HFR in a wide release but are keeping quiet about the 48fps showings, just to gauge audience response: http://www.thewrap.com/hobbit-sequel-steers-clear-high-frame-rate-controversy/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej H Posted December 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 Except that Peter Jackson took the criticism on board of the first one, and has apparently tried to keep the advantages of HFR (for 3D) and combine it with a film look: http://www.hitfix.com/news/peter-jackson-says-hobbit-48fps-has-been-improved-for-the-desolation-of-smaug Although it should be noted they chose the show the critics the 24fps version. James Cameron was one of the people pushing for higher frame rates for 3D. I suppose it depends on whether you value 3D or not. He maybe tried, but it still looks more like a "soap opera" as they mention in the article... Why is he pushing it at all... At least 3D has some eye candy to offer, some "woah" effect when some bee flies directly at you, etc. but this HFR thingie just looks sharp and lame - no commercial appeal in my opinion... it's not that we have to adapt to new way of looking at movies - it simply just doesn't look good... When I heard the first CDs they sounded good to me, not the very first "DDD" classical recordings that sounded somewhat sharp and thin, but I never had a problem with proper digital sound, I also disliked flat LCD TVs, the picture seemed cheap and like bad 80s VHS to me - but that improved and learning the right distance and angle - it works now for me... but at first it also looked really bad and I was walking around shops annoying the sellers with questions - "do you have any of those new expensive TVs that don't have this really bad and shitty picture?" I liked the practical aspect of less physical imprint of a much smaller object in a room, that you could even put on the wall, but the picture was just dreadful... btw - Life of Pi was a real eye candy - that plankton scene and whale, etc. - pure eye candy magic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 He maybe tried, but it still looks more like a "soap opera" as they mention in the article... Why is he pushing it at all... At least 3D has some eye candy to offer, some "woah" effect when some bee flies directly at you, etc. but this HFR thingie just looks sharp and lame - no commercial appeal in my opinion... My opinion is that Mr. Jackson saw a lot of motion-related flaws with 3D, and felt if he shot at 48fps, this would solve them. I think he solved those problems but created new ones, particularly for people who are sensitive to the "soap opera effect." When I saw the first Hobbit last year, the 48fps look bothered me for the first 10 minutes or so and I then I just mentally tuned it out and enjoyed most of the movie. I noticed it, but it didn't kill me. The movie is out there in 24fps for those who prefer that (even in non-3D). Me, I generally hate 3D in general because the picture is so damned dark. I would much prefer they find a way to make a 3D image exactly as bright as normal 24fps theatrical film (14fL) than worry about the frame rate. No luck with that so far, at least until laser projectors are perfected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej H Posted December 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 Jep, I must be one of those people that is VERY sensitive to that "soap opera effect". I can stomach all the "problems" of 3D or any other technical errors or poor choices of DPs, but this kills it for me. And since I obviously lived in a bubble and didn't previously research what HFR really means in praxis (I thought it would look something like "Samsara" or something - I just ignorantly equalled higher frame rate with more eye candy ) and didn't knew all the controversy about it, I was totally unprepared to be presented with THAT kind of picture... It was an honest shock... when I have to mentally adjust and force myself not to be distracted by something to actually (at least partially) enjoy the move, I know it's not good (for me). I will strictly avoid any HFR projections from now on. At least the price to learn that was not too great... 8EUR for a ticket. I just hope it won't be a future "standard". And don't get me wrong - I can live with that kind of picture when there is actual intellectual content in the drama or a top notch british Tv comedy - and Stephen Fry seemed very familiar in that kind of picture - but this was not "Jeeves and Wooster" or "Black Adder"... I want my fairy tales in magical fairy tale picture quality... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 Freeheel: " It was shot with a depth of field that really mimic'd the way our eyes and brains work, with a central in focus image and the rest of the screen falling off into a hazier depth of field. " thus the accolades for cinematography... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pindrop Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 Of course there's Ultra HD TV 4K and 8K...! on it's way to a retail store near you......soon? Never mind the confusion and nausea ..... http://www.ultrahdtv.net/what-is-ultra-hdtv/ http://www.techradar.com/news/television/tv/11-reasons-why-your-next-tv-has-to-be-an-ultra-hd-4k-tv-1194486 Several manufacturers announce Ultra HD televisions, including: LG, Sony, Sharp, and Samsung http://www.ultrahdtv.net/ultra-hdtv-health-concerns/ The Japanese public broadcaster, NHK, has mentioned that Ultra HDTV may not be ideal for consumer use (What is Ultra HDTV?). At close range, the fast moving pictures of an Ultra HD signal on a minimum 60? screen may cause nausea for it’s viewers. Recall that Ultra HDTV requires 60 FPS to display images at high-speed. Humans may not be able to process movement at this speed, causing confusion and nausea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej H Posted December 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 I would have nothing against added clarity, but why does it have to have this strange lighting, not "magical" or say blurry like 24fps movies and not smooth and amazing as real life, but just weird and "TV drama like" and why do the people move strangly awkward and nervous - not continuous and smooth as in real life and not graceful and cool like in the 24fps cinema? It is just not right... I don't mind high resolution - but it should also look cool... My last few "annoyed consumer POW" cents... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej H Posted December 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 The best article about this thing I found till now: http://www.tested.com/art/movies/452387-48-fps-and-beyond-how-high-frame-rates-affect-perception/ Until they finish their experiments and figure out how to have clarity and cool cinematic look I shall pass... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 I saw the "8K" from NHK at IBC. The funny story was; when I sat little far away from screen, the "guy" from NHK told me: Go much closer to the screen to see more details. It is impressive technology step, but I have exactly the same opinion about technology in sound: I don't want more channels. I want quality channels. A little paraphrase: I don't want more pixels. I want quality pixels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.