The Hobbit 48fps/ HIGH FRAME RATE discussion thread.

[CelticPredator]

This is all about the frame rate. This will help discuss the format, and keep the film thread about the film.

 

[CelticPredator]

I don't get why people hate change so much; especially change like this. It's not like anyone is forcing you to accept it as the primary form of entertainment; all of the other options are still there. When 3D came out, did 2D movies stop being shown? What makes HFR any different? Hell, they're still offering standard 24 FPS showings in both 2D and 3D. Stop being so contrarian and accept that change isn't always a bad thing, Celtic P.

When your movie ceases being a movie, it's not a good thing.

People have been striving for this realism that shouldn't, in any way be in film. Films aren't real. They should never be real. What I'm afraid of, is more movies decide to film in this format, not just for 3D, but for 2D, or worse, 3D becomes the norm. And there aren't any more 2D. Or 60fps becomes the norm, or whatever. It's distracting. It's terrible. It's jarring.

A film is a film. It should always be a film. If you take away everything that makes it a film, you ruined the illusion of film.

QT said it, partially best. I disagree with his view on Digital, as it is a useful format, but I don't disagree about the magic of what film is.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BON9Ksn1PqI[/ame]

 

[Wor-Gar]

High frame rates give some people headaches when watched for prolonged periods.

Does a high frame rate make a slow movie better?

 

[jye4ever]

TDKR 15/70 best looking and most immersive movie I have ever seen.

More so than even a native 3D movie.

Everything else needs to go away for blockbusters, 15/70 24fps native wins hands down.

Ok, maybe a native 15/70 24fps in 3D might be interesting.

 

[CelticPredator]

It does Jye. It really does. IMAX really is the best way to watch a film. Because you feel like you're in the world, but you're not IN the world.

It's magical.

And Wor, I don't know. I personally get annoyed when the shutter speed is off. I hated the way Public Enemies looked. I thought that was the worst looking movie i've seen. But then The Hobbit took it's place. Hah.

I don't think it helped with the 3D at all.

 

[batfan08]

When your movie ceases being a movie, it's not a good thing.

People have been striving for this realism that shouldn't, in any way be in film. Films aren't real. They should never be real. What I'm afraid of, is more movies decide to film in this format, not just for 3D, but for 2D, or worse, 3D becomes the norm. And there aren't any more 2D. Or 60fps becomes the norm, or whatever. It's distracting. It's terrible. It's jarring.

A film is a film. It should always be a film. If you take away everything that makes it a film, you ruined the illusion of film.

QT said it, partially best. I disagree with his view on Digital, as it is a useful format, but I don't disagree about the magic of what film is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BON9Ksn1PqI

For me, film is all about escapism. It transports me to another world for two or more hours, and I feel like that escapism is only improved with added realism. If it looks real, and it feels real, then it makes that idea of escapism all the more powerful. If these people look like they're standing right in front of me, I'm immersed, and it improves the overall experience. As for Tarantino, I agree (to an extent). I even said that, while I'd like to see this tech catch on, it shouldn't be used for everything:

My showing just let out. Absolutely stunning; I hope and pray that the HFR catches on. Granted, it's not for every movie, but it was such a refreshing experience; it was like the first time I watched something in HD.

I don't think that film should stop being used. While, for certain things, I do like HDR, I don't think that I could handle having to accept it for every future film. I like options. I like films shot in 35mm, I like films shot in IMAX, I like films shot digitally, and I like films shot in HFR. I don't want film to die, I like film, but, if a director feels that his vision is better accented by one of those technologies listed above, how is that a bad thing? Rest assured, Celtic, film isn't going anywhere for a very long time.

 

[EnShinNoi]

I think HFR will work best for entirely computer generated movies (Pixar etc.) because the creators are in control of every single aspect.

 

[CelticPredator]

Film is already dying, but that's not the point. I think more of these 48fps movies can be a bad thing. Because they have to convert to the format it should've been because not everyone can see it, and or want to see it, and I find that to be rather silly.

If filmmakers catch this bug, we'll see more films with higher frame rates, which will then make films look no better then shooting it with a handycam from Best Buy.

Films should always be distinctive from anything else just so you know what you're paying for.

If I saw something like Dr. Who on screen, i'd feel jipped, because it does not look like something with a high production value. It might be smoother, or clearer, but it looks...too real.

I don't think film really needs to evolve outside of digital systems. I think that's as far as we should evolve IMO.

 

[karamazov80]

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

 

[Reinhardt]

Documentaries may work with HFR.

 

[CelticPredator]

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

Or this. What a great article.

 

[Matt S]

HFR has no chance in hell of catching on with mass audiences....personally, I think maybe they need to compromise it at 34 fps

 

[Reinhardt]

I'm very curious to see some older Doctor Who episodes at a lower frame rate now.

 

[intothevoid]

My review of the HFR in The Hobbit


I can't say enough about how silly and unnatural the HFR makes certain scenes look. Any shots of Bilbo walking about in the Shire at his home looked absolutely hilariously bad I have to say. Looked super sped up. So too did a LOT of the aerial panning shots, looked like the crane/helicopter was in a bit of a hurry most of the time.

In non-motion heavy scenes the HFR no doubt gives a really great sense of reality and that looking out the window kind of effect, so that's what it's got going for it on the + side. But when things start moving it really is bad. Looks worse than cheap TV films.

 

[intothevoid]

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

Excellent article

 

[The Ween]

I said this in the other thread. Maybe there will be comments here. I had wondered since theaters can vary in what film looks like, can this happen with 48fps as well? Maybe it might look great in one theater, but in another look like crap?

 

[intothevoid]

I think those that don't think it looks good wont like it regardless of the theatre

There is an inherent unnatural quality to movement which is the issue

 

[Sachiel]

If you take away everything that makes it a film, you ruined the illusion of film.

 

[intothevoid]

I think more fundamentally though - this makes stuff look more 'real' than it looks in reality

In real life you DO experience motion blur - so why shouldn't you see motion blur on film? Seems to me the whole idea behind the technology is fundamentally flawed

 

[The Ween]

I think those that don't think it looks good wont like it regardless of the theatre

There is an inherent unnatural quality to movement which is the issue

But you have people who think it's really horrible and some that think it's great. There doesn't seem to be anyone inbetween. You either love it, or hate it.

I would like to see it simply because it's new and I'm curious. Not a chance of that though.