[Huffington] The Hobbit 48 FPS Footage Divides Audience - Page 10

 

You're lucky...My mom has had a cell phone for five years and still doesn't know how to use it. 

 

I have a Phillips 42" 120 hz HDTV that is also my monitor. I have the Lord of the Rings Extended Editions on Blu-ray. I put Fellowship on with my PS3 and I just put the TV's 120 hz on too (option called Digital Natural Motion).

 

I don't think it looks any better or worse.Very very smooth, not jerky or slow and I noticed that was kind of nice. It does feel like a soap opera a little...but I am warm and welcome to change. If Peter Jackson feels it's time for this, I will respect that and judge it myself.

As with someone said earlier, once movies start putting more money into their sets and whatnot so it doesn't give that "too real" look it will be better. I don't think were ready for 48 fps yet, I don't get that immersed feeling when I've watched those movies.

I really don't give a crap what fps this film is in, I WANT TO SEE IT NAOW!!!!!

On the one hand, I seem to have gotten used to the 120hz "soap opera" thing. At first I couldn't stand the new TV, but I don't even think about it now. Seems fine to my eyes.

On the other hand, upon seeing the Hobbit trailer, I thought something looked...off. Perhaps it's that departure from the iconic "LoTR look," which I suppose depended somewhat on the 24 fps blurring.

This is what happens when you interpolate 24fps onto a 60fps screen. The Hobbit is shot in 48fps and shown at 48fps, which just means that the end result has less motion blur and is more realistic.

And yes, if directors want motion blur, they can just add it digitally. We've been editing digitally for some time now...

All in all, I can't believe that there are people that want to keep film 24fps. Our eyes already have limitations, why induce mandatory technical limitations on them when we have superior technology? Especially when it takes a short run through post to make it look like 24fps if you want. Hell, you can easily blur it like 12fps if that's the look you want!

The thing is though, at 24 fps you have less pictures and alot more motion blur. Both of these can hide imperfections and mistakes on set. Someone mentioned here that high framerates are great for sports and documentaries. Both of which are filmed real time on real locations which is why it looks great because of how much detail is in the real world. In games we don't have as much detail but since everything is consistent we can still be easily immersed and enjoy higher fps. But in a movie set however we have compromises in the backdrops and props that would contrast heavily half of the locations are real and the other half aren't. That means at higher fps and less blur there are more frames at which we can see this contrast, and it becomes easier to see the difference between the set and reality. Vanilla Skyrim is a good example of this. Where we have the studio sets as the "low resolution" textures, and the real world as the "high res" textures.

It's not that higher detail is bad. It's that higher detail clashing with the lower realism of movie sets. Either film it in 24 fps or backdrop designers better step up if they wan't 48 fps to look good.
Edited by bobuy00 - 7/12/12 at 9:45pm

No, we can't add proper directional motion blur in post processing, that can only be done in camera. The reason for this is that the movement of individual subjects on screen are infinitely variable, there's no easy way for a computer to define individual objects, their movement, and how those factors effect the scene around them. Simple directional motion blur can be added to pan and tilt shots, but individual subject movement cannot be feasibly blurred in post.

Also I think it's hilarious that people keep on coming up with this goofy argument about moving to new technologies. Frame rate has nothing to do with technological advancement. Since the birth of motion pictures 48fps was possible, it just wasn't done. There were no technological limitations stopping higher framerates from being used. Projectors are relatively simple mechanisms, if you want higher framerates, you simply speed up the motor. Showscan has been doing 60fps 70mm since the late '70s. IMAX has had 48fps rolling loop projectors since '92.

The fact is that as much as the big bloated hollywood blockbusters try to convince you otherwise, film is an art form, and art is not subject to technological advancement, it can take advantage of technology if it is beneficial to expressing the director's vision, but it is not a mandate. I don't hate 48fps fundamentally, because when used well it could be a very nice feature, but I just fear that the producers and studios will start forcing it on directors who didn't ask for it nor want it, like they have with 3D.
Edited by XPC - 7/12/12 at 9:35pm

Very well said, XPC.

The hyper real issue is all too real. I've had to change my TV settings so blu rays don't have the soap opera effect. Watching a film and watching the filming of the film should look very different...

I think it's funny how people have argued that they see no dif in 120 vs 60, but then we get this thread. Some people like it, others don't. Yes, Transformers was a movie I saw in 120, and yes, I thought it was awesome. And finally YES, Soap Opera was my first thought.... but in a very good way to MY eyes.... You can argue reasoning all you want, but argue an opinion of what some prefer?... now that's something I want to see in 0 FPS.