Discussion in 'Star Wars: Episode VII and Beyond' started by Garth Maul, Nov 27, 2012.
I need to watch the Hobbit first before deciding whether 48 FPS is a good thing or bad thing.
I think we will get an all digital Imax release in 3d plus a scaled down version for normal projection either at 24 or 48 fps.
Remember many theathers are not equipped yet for 48 fps and that some Imax theaters are not using film imax format and are really lower quality versions of imax.
This whole discussion may prove to be a moot point if many embrace the new format
Well here come the reviews.
The complaints echo what I experienced while watching Superman: The Movie on frame interpolation on a plasma HD set: stagey theatricality, a TV video appearance and a reduction to the illusion of the effects--Reeve looked like some dude in front of a rear-projection screen instead of looking naturally integrated into the background.
I plan to check it out in... wait for it... HFR3D! And give it a fair shake. But I've yet to see a full on rave about the technology.
Yep I work in this field 4k is the future and you can now buy 4k TVs and a great Sony 4k Projector
I'm all for technology but there comes a point . . .
Incidentally I just saw the Hobbit trailer last night and it looked okay to me, however they only show brief snippets which probably wouldn't pick up the "meth head hallucinations."
48 frames per second is the future. I'm sure some people will have to adjust, but in the end it will be for the better. It will probably be the standard in 2015.
48 fps is simply not just a matter of adjustment. It changes the look of a film from having a "dreamlike" quality that allows for suspension of disbelief to an image that is much more realistic... in the worst possible way, particularly for stylised genres such as science fiction and fantasy.
Have you ever seen "behind the scenes" footage where you're watching the set while they shoot a scene? It often looks very stagey and fake in the BTS footage, partly because it's shot on video at a higher frame rate than 24 fps--it lends the footage a documentary-style immediacy. Now imagine a whole movie like that.
From the Wikipedia page:
As long as a sizeable chunk of the audience find the 48 fps format displeasing (and this is an aesthetic criticism, not a position based on fear of the new, so it'll be hard to get people to budge on the matter), HFR3D will basically stall in its adoption.
Having viewed a sample of The Life of Pi in 48fps, I must say I think most people won't notice the difference.
The image is cleaner in RealD 3D for sure, and I assume fast-moving action will look less blurred and messy. But unless you run 24fps & 48fps side-by-side I think the difference will not be easily seen.
Then again I only saw like 5 minutes of uneventful footage, The Hobbit will likely be a better relection of the technology.
While I am not at all acting as a proponent for the technology, because I haven't seen it, I think it's important to differentiate between the effect you're referring to which is now commonplace in modern home displays and 48fps. The biggest difference is that when you were watching Superman on the plasma the TV was "interpolating" frames and basically blending images together. Rarely when a display tries to add or enchance something that's not really present in the image already is it any good. Those "additional frames" you were seeing on the plasma are simply made up and weren't "new" whereas 48 frames per second is actually 48 actual frames of photography being captured every second and projected every second. This technique will undoubtedly result in greater clarity during sequences where there's either camera movement or character movement but because every tiny detail that's captured during either situation will be properly displayed for our eyes to see. It sounds like the experience in 3D is very lifelike... like being on set while filming (minus all the boom microphones and lighting rigs) and many people are put off by that intimacy and realness.
We're not used to that when watching fictional works, and because we've always associated 30 frame per second video with broadcast news, or home videos, or reality programming, we think of the look as "cheap" and the 24 frame look as dreamlike and filmic. When HD first came out directors of Photography filming for TV used to put mesh screens over their lenses in order to soften the edges and try to recreate the film look they (and audiences) were familiar with. Now, there's lenses and settings for that. They're essentially dumbing down the technology to recreate what we already know rather than pushing it further. Film is just one of those things that people don't want to really see "improved" because of their nostalgia with it. An improvement has to be very tangible (B&W to color or mono sound to Stereo and eventually to surround) to take off.
It'll be very hard for the technology to overcome this association we've developed. I think it will end up being reserved for Imax 3D documentaries unfortunately. And the technology has already hurt the Hobbit as early reviews pour in. Some critics simply weren't able to disassociate from it. One critic I read went as far as to suggest avoiding it all costs because he felt it ruined the movie for him.
If only as much focus was put on story, dialogue and acting.
The review are interesting. A lot of it might just be reactionary, I don't know—but it sounds like HFR might reduce the "painterly" aspect of the cinematography, for many people.
I really wonder where this technology will go, as OTOH it sound like there's a place for it... Maybe with further advanced digital filmmaking, future movies won't have just one frame rate, for instance. Or, the frame rate might even differ for different parts of the screen. Impossible to see the future is.
A lot of claims are being made about it just being "projector problems" or "bad screenings." If nothing else, it's definitely not the way you want to roll out the technology.
Birth pangs, in other words... I'm not sure how plausible an excuse that is, but OK. I've read the same about 3D theaters not being properly calibrated, and there I can believe it, because there's a lot of calibration to be done for that—that's my understanding, anyway. But HFR—what needs to be calibrated there?
Ender_and_Bean, I totally get what you're saying and I do understand the difference between 48 fps and motion interpolation. I'm in computer science and I have some familiarity with the algorithms behind multimedia technologies (e.g. video codecs), and I also know their limitations.
But I was struck by how similar the observations regarding 48 fps were in comparison to my own observations regarding motion interpolation. Indeed, the Wikipedia page even says the effects are very similar between the two. What this suggests is that the problem lies with the increased frame rate, not the interpolation per se.
And beyond that, the more lifelike an image becomes, the more constrained you are in terms of styles of performance, art direction, etc. that become acceptable to an audience. Basically, you're forced to resort to naturalism; stylisation appears absurd when it's a living, breathing entity that seems as real as you or I. It's the same reason why animation can tolerate stylised/broad performances much more easily than live-action--increase the frame-rate and the palette in terms of available styles is reduced even further.
I think the inherent contradiction between stylisation in drama (and certainly in fantasy) and hyper-realism in the medium is what will relegate HFR3D to IMAX documentaries. Our brains simply can't resolve that contradiction.
I'll be interested to see how The Hobbit looks in less than two weeks since I am most likely seeing it in 3D.
I guess I haven't seen enough 48 fps samples to make a judgement. By the way, if you're basing your opinion on The Hobbit in 48 fps based on trailers then you're likely off base. YouTube is limited to 30 fps, and to my understanding Blu-Ray can't even do it right (correct me if I'm wrong).
But I do think the prospect sounds interesting and hope the local theatre is showing it in 48 fps. I'm curious to see what it looks like, and whether this criticism is really warranted or if it's just some people being nitpicky. I don't think the barrier to its success is as strong as some people make it out to be. Let's be honest, most casual movie goers don't even know about frame rate or what difference it makes. I doubt theatres will be advertising movies in "48 fps" the way they do 3D and IMAX. So unless the change really is drastic and jarring enough to take the average joe out of the movie, I doubt it will be as big a failure as so many people make it out to be.
Word! The IMAX theatre right down the street is showing it in HFR. I will see it and come back to eat crow if I have to.