HFR Discussion

corcaigh07

all this talk of HFR has only heightened my curiosity for the Hobbit so thought this thread might be a good idea and free up people to talk about the Hobbit as a movie and not just about what format they saw it in.

I'll say this much. Anyone remember watching Public Enemies? Think it was the first all-digital shot movie or at least one of the first. In my eyes, it looked seriously ropey at times and had that digital "judder" effect you used to see in early or badly set up LCD tvs.

Now though, digital is the way to go for cinema. I remember watching Drive and even though I had reservations about the movie, it looked absolutely stunning and a real triumph of Digital, so much so that nowadays, I get initially disappointed if I can noticeably tell if a cinema screen or the movie itself isn't digital. (don't murder me, 35mm lovers!)

My predication? HFR will take a while to kick in but once we start moving into the Ultra-HD age, HFR will take effect in the industry.

What does everyone else think? Is it the future? Will it help 3D succeed? Or is HFR nonsense and die like I think 3D eventually will? Are things like 4k and beyond more important?

And please, let rip if I'm talking nonsense. I'll admit I'm definitely not as well positioned as some of you to comment seeing as I haven't seen The Hobbit yet but still very interested in the whole thing.

Sad Professor

The issue isn't necessarily with the technology but with how it's used. In the case of Public Enemies the problem wasn't the digital cameras (the first all-digital film was Episode II 6 years earlier btw) but how Mann used them. He was so obsessed with how the 360 degree shutter on the new cameras allowed him to "see into the night" that he overlooked how distracting the effect was on the audience. It was an interesting experiment, but the film will age very badly as a result of it.

I haven't seen The Hobbit yet, but I suspect that Jackson's decision to use HFR in a fantasy film was misjudged for much the same reason. Fantasy films and period films rely a lot on suspension of disbelief in order to work. Some directors may think that by shooting these films in a more realistic way they are helping to immerse the audience, but they are also inviting the audience to find flaws in the filmmaking which are much apparent due to the greater clarity offered by the new technology. Jackson may not have been the right person to pioneer HFR.

When zoom lenses were first invented directors didn't know what to do with them either and tended to misuse them. Also, as colour film stocks improved they really showed up the flaws of in-camera visual effects like front projection in a way that older black and white film stock didn't. The point is films have to adapt to this new technology but directors also have to learn how to use it properly. HFR may not be suited to certain kinds of films.

johnny_ultimate

I'm not sure if I full on hated it or whether I should wait and see how it develops. It's incredibly jarring, which has the unfortunate effect of sucking you right out of the film - it doesn't increase the immersion, it instead shatters the suspension of disbelief. There's no doubt in my mind it negatively effected my enjoyment of The Hobbit.

I definitely think the Hobbit was an unwise choice of guinea pig for the tech. It's just too fantastical, too artificial, and HFR - along with the grading choices - only helped draw attention to that. Repeatedly drew attention to that. Personally, I think the film has other visual issues but every flaw was exaggerated or emphasised by the choice of projection. I'd have been curious to see if the 48 FPS would have benefited from the addition of post-production film grain or any other grading choices that could have made it look more traditionally cinematic. The biggest problem with The Hobbit to me was it just didn't look good up there on the big screen with its ultra high-resolution delivery. I love the way films look, warts and all - call me a purist, but I've watched thousands and thousands of films that way and this film just didn't convince me I need to rethink my long forged allegiance to the cinematic aesthetic.

And yet... there was a scene during the prologue (or perhaps the flashback) where one of the dwarves stands atop a mountain while there's an epic helicopter pan around him. It was a straightforward shot, no CGI that I could see (at least very well disguised CG). It looked gorgeous: smooth and detailed. It was possibly the only time in the whole 160 minutes that I said "OK, this shows promise". But I think it will come into its own in documentary filmmaking. I can giddily imagine how good a production like Planet Earth would look with 48 FPS delivery. There, trying to achieve an extra sense of realism is a worthy goal. Perhaps fiction filmmakers will adapt it equally effectively. I don't think the spectacle happy likes of Peter Jackson or James Cameron are the filmmakers to convince me it's a worthy improvement as opposed to a distracting gimmick.

But in its current state its rough and bordering on a mess. The Hobbit suffers because of it. It's too disorientating - perhaps we will grow accustomed to it, and certainly younger generations will find it easier to adapt. But while I'm (very, very) cautiously optimistic someone somewhere will do something interesting with it at the moment... well, if the 24 FPS delivery we've grown accustomed to over generations of filmmaking ain't broke, do we really need to fix it?

Ranicand

I think HFR is one of those things people will love or hate.

I loved it.

flazio

I loved it as well, thought the picture was incredible. To me it made some scenes, particularly in Hobbiton seem like live theatre rather then just a picture on a screen, I'll be honest I've never bothered with HD sky feeds or Blu Ray discs so that may have affected my perception a little but I loved the effect on this film and long may it continue.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But in its current state its rough and bordering on a mess. The Hobbit suffers because of it. It's too disorientating - perhaps we will grow accustomed to it, and certainly younger generations will find it easier to adapt. But while I'm (very, very) cautiously optimistic someone somewhere will do something interesting with it at the moment... well, if the 24 FPS delivery we've grown accustomed to over generations of filmmaking ain't broke, do we really need to fix it?

Nature docs may benefit hugely from it,be interesting to see if the BBC ever adapt it for one of their series, or if another sequel to Baraka/Samsara is made, that might as well. But dammit I like how films look, any time I'm in a tv shop and see those blur-free "trumotion" or whatever they're called effects on a tv it looks horrid, if thats what 48fps is bringing to the table then no thanks.

Son0vagun

Just back from the Hobbit. At first I found the HFR very distracting. It's clarity was too much and it looked exactly as it is, actors on a sound stage. The scenes in Bilbos house looked like they were on a theatre stage and I couldn't enjoy them. However as soon as they left Hobbiton I enjoyed the HFR much better, at times it was stunning. The action scenes looked spectacular and had me glued.

I do want to see the Hobbit again but it will be in 2D, but I will be seeing the other two instalments in HFR.

DirkVoodoo

I didn't know anything about how public enemies was filmed when I went to see it. But most of the gun fights felt incredibly artificial through the filming technique used.

You know when you watch a "behind the scenes making of..." for a movie, and all the set pieces look and sound really awful...that's what public enemies was like for me.

It certainly didn't enhance the movie.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But I think it will come into its own in documentary filmmaking.

Plenty of documentaries have been shot in 50i and 60i for donkeys years.

That's capturing fields rather than frames but it's still high temporal resolution.

Josey Wales

I found it distracting at the beginning but as the film went on I found it less distracting. One thing I will say is that through the whole film the one thing that struck me is how crystal clear the image was. Even during the chaotic action scenes everything just looked so clear. Maybe Michael Bay should look into 48fps for his next Transformers movie.

sink

I think it's absolutely necessary for 3D films. The Hobbit is the first 3D film I've seen where the fast moving action didn't judder to a degree that made it look like a picture flip book rather than a video, the last transformers film and the avengers were particularly galling examples of this effect. On the other had the super HD clarity does make the CGI look less real rather than more, but I can forgive this as it does not break my immersion. Personally speaking HFR is a big improvement.

grimm2005

Went to an IMAX screening on Friday. I didn't even know that the IMAX version was going to be HFR but I could tell straight away that it was when the WB logo came up. I wasn't sure what to expect, I thought the premise sounded strange but had a completely open mind about it. Unfortunately, I didn't like it at all.

I found it very distracting and at no point during the film did I adjust to it. The super clear imagine is nice, for sure, but not at the expense of a cinematic experience. I felt the whole thing looked and felt cheap, like watching a making of documentary feature or such. The plate throwing scene in particular in Bilbo's house looked ridiculous and like everything was sped up for comedic slapstick effect. Also the big battle scenes at the very beginning looked awful I found and I couldn't really enjoy it as it was all moving far far too quickly.

It was so distracting that it really took away from my enjoyment of the film and I didn't feel like I could fairly rate it at the end. As such, I'll be catching it again in 2D for sure.

I for one am not a fan of the format and I really hope it won't become a standard. Fair play to those that enjoyed it and got used to it but I just couldn't get to that point.

Rabies

Is any other director taking the gamble and shooting in HFR?
Doesn't seem to be much in the media about, only people talking about Jackson.

I like the HFR in The Hobbit, but it did take 15-20min to adjust to it. The close up scenes in Bilbo's house didn't seem to flow right, too fast. Other than that, the clarity was amazing and its definitely suited to 3D movies.

coolisin

You know its noticeable when my wife pipes up at the start and says the picture, something is not correct with it. Half way through the movie she was saying how annoying the effects where.

The extra clarity makes the effects look very dated or poor, i thought the start of the movie as the dragon attacks the dwarf city was very annoying, but i did adjust too it.

Still few years down the line and it will work, only the third movie of watched where i was blown away by the 3d.
I wasn't watching this in the sweet seats but i would like to get to see this all dead centre see if it immerses me into it anymore.

spank_inferno

Rabies wrote: »

Is any other director taking the gamble and shooting in HFR?

I could be wrong, but I heard James Cameron might be using 48 FPS for 'Avatar 2'.

OctavarIan

I really enjoyed the 48fps. It felt like watching theater with insane production values. It also added to the cartoon-like visuals of The Hobbit. I know people complain that it doesn't like 'filmic' enough, but this interpretation of The Hobbit is pretty cartoony in fairness. All the small jerky movements added to the effect.

spank_inferno wrote: »

I could be wrong, but I heard James Cameron might be using 48 FPS for 'Avatar 2'.

I really hope so, it was thinking it'd really suit Avatar.

gregers85

I seen the hobbit in the HFR at the weekend - took a few minutes for the eyes to adjust but really taught it was awesome! the clarity was unbelievable! James Cameron was at the Hobbit premier and he said

If there is acceptance of 48, then that will pave the way for Avatar (sequels) to take advantage of it. We charged out ahead on 3D with Avatar, now Peter’s doing it with the Hobbit. It takes that kind of bold move to make change.

so its def on the cards for avatar

source of quote:
http://www.slashfilm.com/james-cameron-will-finally-start-shooting-avatar-2-and-avatar-3-in-2013/

Bullseye1

Finally got to see this in 48fps IMAX 3D. While it certainly has some advantages over 24fps specifically panning sequences and it appears to enhance 3D and in particular depth perception I still prefer the cinematic feel to 24fps. Alot of the imagery felt like a demo for a 4k ultra high definition shot for a documentary. It just did not look right for me. I did think the 3D was fantastic and certainly close to Avatar in its achievement. Interesting experiment but I'll be watching the sequels in traditional 24fps.

TheIrishGrover

I wasn't overly convinced. They certainly solved the excessive motion blur that occurs during pans and fast moving scenes in 3D. There wasn't a sign of it. Some of the New Zealand panning shots looked amazing. And

the chase from the Goblins near the end

looked fantastic. You could see every detail. However I thought less dynamic shots in bright light looked VERY artificial and some of the indoor scenes looked like the were filmed in a 10 X 10 box.

Ironically I think had they inserted a tiny bit of artificial motion blur into quieter/well-lit scenes then it would have been a bit better and a little less disconcerting.

Worth checking out to see what it looks like. Varies wildly between AMAZING and PANTS!!! 7/10

davej

I've seen The Hobbit twice.

First time was in 24 frame 3D and I thought the judder/blurriness when the camera was panning around was pretty terrible. Should have went to the 2D version.

Second visit was Cineworld IMAX 48 frame 3D - vastly superior. The same scenes were so much better compared to the 24 frame speed.

I'll definitely go for 48 frame when the choice is available from now on, especially if the movie is 3D.

davej

snausages

Apparently the hyper-real effect of 48 fps is something that's inherent to the technique. It will always have that uncanny valley effect. We will never 'get used to it'.

krudler

They were talking about it on the slashfilm podcast, general consensus was they hated it bar one. Good for the panning vista shots but makes a movie that cost a fortune look like a cheap tv production. I'm going to check it out at some point over Christmas just out of sheer curiosity.

pixelburp

My main problem with the discussion on HFR is the guinea pig used for this technology in the first place: The Hobbit, with it's obvious unreality & fantasy setting can only suffer from having its inherently fake setting highlighted.

I've yet to see The Hobbit in glorious 2D, but all throughout the 3D-HFR showing I had to consciously ignore the emphasis being placed on the FX (to their detriment); ultimately I saw no artistic merit in the decision at all - if anything it lessened my ability to get sucked into the world presented to me.

Really we need to see this tech being used in an appropriate genre & something that as a baseline doesn't require a lot of suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer. The most obvious example of a good genre would be the Found Footage one, but from the outset sci-fi & fantasy films should avoid 48fps like the plague.
That said, I'd be happy if we never saw 48fps again, because I think this crazed race towards perfect image fidelity is to the detriment of the visual art of cinematography: I actually think there's something lost in the transfer to HD, a sense of mystery & drama in the image itself, but that's another discussion entirely.

bnt

Instead of Public Enemies, look at Michael Mann's previous film, Collateral, which (I thought) benefited hugely from the use of digital cameras. He was able to get decent results from setups that would have been much more difficult to shoot on film, such as the climactic scenes in the office building. He was even able to use unlit shots, such as the coyotes crossing the road.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRTSpjUfcKE

Regarding HFR, I haven't seen The Hobbit yet, might not even do so in the cinema (I hate the overall experience), but I've long been in favour of HFR. I made the point before that HFR does not necessarily mean 48fps. It could be higher and lower in the same film, as long as the projectors support it, and I think that Jackson was playing it a bit safe by sticking to one rate. It's a creative tool that more enterprising film-makers are going to exploit more fully.

siblers

I saw the hobbit in 2d and i found parts of the film incredibly blurry, during the part where they were escaping the goblins it was really hard to make anything out, the CGI looked awful at times as well. Not sure it will offer any improvement over the HFR 3D. What is the 24fps 3d meant to be like?

InvisibleBadger

I found the HFR too jarring. It kept pulling me out of the film. It makes the 3D look amazing but the overall look of the film kept reminding me of videogame cut-scenes and televised plays. I