Critics slam "Hobbit" 48 FPS feel...

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12 December 2012   #1
Critics slam "Hobbit" 48 FPS feel...

The Independent calls the 48FPS look "kitsch and alienating":

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...on-8397515.html

The Telegraph goes a step further: "The unintended side effect is that the extra visual detail gives the entire film a sickly sheen of fakeness: the props look embarrassingly proppy and the rubber noses look a great deal more rubbery than nosey. I was reminded of the BBC’s 1988 production of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and not in a good way."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...vie-review.html


Ouch! It seems that 48 FPS doesn't really work with critics...
 
Old 12 December 2012   #2
48 fps is for sports and theater plays, not feature film, not full length anyways. Establishing shots and dark shots that take place in stereo can be helped by 48 fps due to more detail delivered. The bulk 90% of the production should be 24 fps.

Side note, 48 fps would be great for documentaries though. Ditto for anything that requires a "live" feel.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #3
Well, I'm going to form my own opinion on 48fps next week. Can't even remember the last time I actually agreed with a "professional" critic.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #4
Maybe itll be dull and look silly, but lets be honest, It wont dent the movie takings in the slightest. Anyone thats enjoyed the LotR movies will be out to see this no matter how badly done. Myself included.
__________________
Matthew O'Neill
www.3dfluff.com
 
Old 12 December 2012   #5
I'm still wondering how a higher frame rate changes the amount of detail. It means less motion blur I guess but outside of that it simply changes the smoothness of the motion, not any changes to visual detail.
__________________
The Z-Axis
 
Old 12 December 2012   #6
Everybody said the same thing months ago at the footage they showed at CinemaCon. It's gonna look weird. But I bet the general public won't even notice the difference.

It is great for some things though, things like full CG animation, live concerts, sports, etc... It's amazing how stroby 24p looks after you work with 48p for awhile.

Last edited by th3ta : 12 December 2012 at 05:42 PM.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #7
Originally Posted by th3ta: Everybody said the same thing months ago at the footage they showed at CinemaCon. It's gonna look weird. But I bet the general public won't even notice the difference.


Yes they will. The difference between 24FPS cinema and 48/50/60 Hz Television has always been rather huge, and obvious.

Almost everybody can tell the difference between the 24 FPS "Cinema look" and 50/60 Hz "Made for TV look".

They may not know what causes the difference, technically speaking.

But they will be able to tell that "something is off" or "cheap/unnatural looking" about the footage they watch.

I personally think that the "Hobbit" may be the first and last 48 FPS test-bed.

Variable framerate may have a future. Entire films shot in 48 FPS? I don't think so...
 
Old 12 December 2012   #8
Quote: I'm still wondering how a higher frame rate changes the amount of detail.


It has nothing to do with detail, but with the fact that we are used to associating the "cheesy" look provided by 48fps to every tv show, documental and soup opera that have been filmed using it for decades, not to cinema.

Quote: Variable framerate may have a future

Indeed there are some labs already investigating on that. Variable in the sense of areas of the same footage using different frame rate each depending of what's going on there.
__________________
www.yafaray.org
Free rays for the masses

Last edited by Samo : 12 December 2012 at 10:01 PM.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #9
Let me rephrase, maybe the younger generation will, I seriously doubt any random moviegoer over the age of 40 will notice. I know a lot of people that can't tell their 120Hz mode is on.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #10
Originally Posted by DePaint: The Independent calls the 48FPS look "kitsch and alienating":

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...on-8397515.html

The Telegraph goes a step further: "The unintended side effect is that the extra visual detail gives the entire film a sickly sheen of fakeness: the props look embarrassingly proppy and the rubber noses look a great deal more rubbery than nosey. I was reminded of the BBC’s 1988 production of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and not in a good way."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...vie-review.html


Ouch! It seems that 48 FPS doesn't really work with critics...


Sooo.... what- will there be a newly manufactured legion of hate for 48fps as there was for 3D?

I can understand some visual differences (like going from analog TV to 1080P 120hz) but already I have seen complaints about being dizzy, headaches... and now this.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #11
Originally Posted by th3ta: I know a lot of people that can't tell their 120Hz mode is on.


Dude, that's in a well lit livingroom on a smallish 32" - 46" LCD TV, and perhaps watching things like news, sports, documentaries, gameshows, where being over 24 FPS is not terribly noticeable or jarring.

We're talking Cinematic work on a huge screen many meters wide and tall here.

There is no way people "won't notice" 48 FPS projection on a screen that big.

It'll be like staring at a 60/120 Hz TV the size of a three story building...

People may not understand the technical reason why "the footage looks/feels weird".

But it will look "weird" or "unnatural" to them nonetheless.

Variable framerate - that may work. But a movie end-to-end in 48 FPS?

I simply can't see that working at all...
 
Old 12 December 2012   #12
Originally Posted by Samo: It has nothing to do with detail


High frame rate actually does increase resolution, even when the camera isn't moving, because it dramatically reduces the amount of grain the eye can perceive (since the grain pattern is changing completely 48 times per second instead of 24). That's fast enough that the noise averages out, and low-contrast details that would've been lost in grain at 24 FPS are suddenly clearly visible.

It's the same principle as frame stacking in astrophotography, but it happens in realtime.
__________________
Brian "balistic" Prince
"tessellaters gonna tessellate"
digital art / hi-tech soul music
 
Old 12 December 2012   #13
There is actual increased detail because you're literally getting more information in the same amount of time, it's what leads the 3D to be better and more solid as well. This can lead to you noticing that some things that may pull back the curtain a bit.

JC is looking at variable frame rate as an option for Avatar, but will see how this all goes. One movie, especially the very first movie in the format, is definitely not going to confirm or condemn this experiment yet, by a long shot.

It's also quite fashionable as others have pointed out, to bash on anything different, or new technology as a statement, whether or not "everyone" really feels that way about it.

This video is NOT at high frame rate but it illustrate's Trumbull's ideas from when he was working on moving his 60fps film technology (which has existed and been in use for decades, not looking like video either) into digital uses. Talks about the ideas of variable frame rate, even rotoscoped sections within the frame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg
 
Old 12 December 2012   #14
Having seen it twice now in a theatre I can say that it's definitely not as bad as the 'critics' are making out. It is definitely different. It is also a tremendous advantage in scenes of fast panning. I have never enjoyed motion interpolation on modern tvs and always switch it off. But this is a little bit different than that. It still looks filmic because of the way its been lit.

I'm still not decided but I definitely dont hate it. I think the main thing we have to consider is that our brains have never experienced this before so you are giving it new information. After the sensory information has been seen lots, I think the discussion will die down. 48 works really well at times in this movie and you forget about it. Sometimes you do notice it but its all down to personal preference. Dont be so easy to jump on the bandwagon. make your own decision. Anyway, it's not being shown in most places in 48, you have to seek out where and actively go see it. Most people will see it in 24fps 3D because most theatres globally will be showing it that way.
__________________
www.danielelliott.co.uk
 
Old 12 December 2012   #15
Originally Posted by DePaint: Dude, that's in a well lit livingroom on a smallish 32" - 46" LCD TV, and perhaps watching things like news, sports, documentaries, gameshows, where being over 24 FPS is not terribly noticeable or jarring.
We're talking Cinematic work on a huge screen many meters wide and tall here.
There is no way people "won't notice" 48 FPS projection on a screen that big.
It'll be like staring at a 60/120 Hz TV the size of a three story building...
People may not understand the technical reason why "the footage looks/feels weird".


Ok Dude. I don't know why you're arguing about an opinion. I still think a large percentage of people, mainly the older demo, won't notice.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.