The Hobbit... Didn't Look So Good
movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html
movies.ign.comPosted Apr 25, 2012, 12:36 PM UTC
5771
movies.ign.comdude, I don't even care. I don't really mind. I just want to be back in middle-earth so bad, it hurts...
22
So, they are saying that the movie looks "too good" so its bad?...
17
No, 48fps does not make a movie look "good". It gives it a different aesthetic that Peter Jackson thought would augment the overall feel of the film, but this writer is saying that it just doesn't fit well.
Personally, I have yet to see anything in 24+fps that I thought looked that good. I have been wary ever since the original announcement.
Edit: grammar
18
[deleted]
13
HDTVs, with that option turned on, interpolate between frames. The Hobbit is going to be filmed at 48fps. Big difference.
5
[deleted]
2
24fps material doesn't need to be interpolated. It's full frame. Only 25i or 30i needs to be interpolated on a flat screen. Television material is blurry on flat screens for that reason.
1
Thank you for clarifying this for me. My in-laws recently got a fancy smart tv around Christmas or so, and I have always found it jarring. Like you said, it looks like I'm watching a soap opera, and its infuriating. Hopefully I will be able to switch it over next time I see them.
2
[deleted]
2
Sounds backwards, but once you see it, you'll know what they mean.
Well, you will assuming you are one of the people who can also tell if an image is stretched, cropped, zoomed. If you are one of the people (like my friends) who cannot tell and just watch shit in whatever way it appears, then you might not. Which I find odd, people pay so much money for the newest and most expensive TV's and monitors, yet a large percentage seems to have no idea how to calibrate them correctly.
10
"So you're watching Seinfeld on your new HDTV, huh?"
"Yeah. On the TV. How do I get these black bars off?"
"That's called pillarboxing. Older shows weren't made for widescreen viewing, so they need those to look correct."
"Can you take them off? I want it to fill the whole screen."
"I could....but the shows not made for widescreen are going to look really bad."
"Well I don't like the black bars."
[changes aspect ratio to 'Stretch to 16:9']
"Thank you! You're the best! It's so big now!"
"Whatever..."
"Hey - Elaine and Jerry look so fat now! Even Kramer looks fat! I don't remember that!"
[shakes head, walks away]
12
This sooooo much. I have a feeling people defending this have no idea what they are in for. They will see it, not like it, but won't say anything.
1
Yup. A lot of people on Reddit that I'm discussing this 48fps thing about don't understand it either. They say they do, but they really don't really.
2
assuming you are one of the people who can also tell if an image is stretched, cropped, zoomed
Yeah for the most part. It just seems silly how everyone (public) is for the 3D push saying it will make things more "real" but cant handle a slight increase in FPS.
7
I'm personally not for either.
1
This would be correct.
2
I've been worried about this. I'm hoping that they still have the option to watch it in 2D at 24fps. I would like to watch it the old-fashioned way first. When I see it a second time, I will go for the 3D 48fps.
16
The trailer was in 24 fps, so I would speculate that there would be this option.
12
All they've got to do is remove every other frame, right?
5
and re-record the movie with some 3d glasses on the camera.
6
Seems like you would still have problems with motion blur (or the lack of motion blur).
1
Man, coming from a gaming background where I usually play at 70+ fps, 48fps is such a relief after putting up with movies in 24fps for so long.
2
I think it's all about expectations and what I'm used to. I expect my games to play smoothly. But I expect my movies to look a certain way, because they all looked that way until now. I just know that when my TV's refresh rate is set too high, I hate the way my movies look. But I've never given myself a chance to "get used" to it.
1
I wasn't sure what to think either, but over on the Neogaf forums a user was kind enough to do some test footage(195mb) using the same RED camera at both 24 and 48fps (sorry for the download, but you can't watch comparisons on Youtube because it downscales it to 30fps). After watching it, my thoughts are that while it does look "weird" I think it is something that people would eventually get used to. It will be very off-putting to start with, but I think in some instances it looks a LOT better (especially panning shots). But download the file and see for yourself before you start screaming about how The Hobbit is ruined.
16
I like it, which is a relief. It's weird, the image looks kind of.. sped up, but everything is so damn crisp. It'll be interesting to see The Hobbit like this, at least.
7
That's what I thought too. The speed does look a little off, but I guess that is because there is no motion blur.
6
He also filmed 6 seconds less of stuff, so that might have something to do with it. The pan at the end was definitely faster.
1
Thanks for posting that. It does indeed look a lot better.
I can't wait for all films to be shot at higher frame rates, as I've always found 24fps panning shots to be an eye aching judder-fest.
Hopefully the Luddites will soon realise that what makes something look cinematic has far more to do with things like depth-of-field, camera operation, lighting, filters, etc. than with the frame rate. Hell, even if they don't, this is the future, and I'm excited for it.
4
Wow. I was reading all this negative stuff and I just thought "eh, I'll wait until I see the movie."
Now, I'm actually pretty excited about it. I love the clarity of the above 48fps video.
3
I'm with you on that. Plus why show this apart from to get feedback?
2
the links aren't working here or on the neogaf forums. Is there another way to get the video? I'd really like to see it myself.
1
Not that I know of, sorry. I used to have the videos, but I think I deleted them only a few days ago...
But, here is another comparison that is pretty good. I liked the original that I linked to better, but this gives you an idea of the difference: www.mediafire.com/?ifmmynzl50m (10mb)
1
It's ok, I found still-working links here along with some very good information about high frame rates and shutter speeds and such.
2
I actually think the 24 looks worse than the 48, although that's probably because I'm so used to playing videogames at 100fps. I never really realized before, but I think that I've been pretty irked by the 24fps of most movies as looking like something was lacking. I think the human eye is able to see at a higher framerate than 24fps, but stuff is done to movies to make it not matter too much. Even still, though, it's pretty noticeable to me, and I'm quite happy that The Hobbit is going to be 48.
1
I'll make all my games run in 48fps to adjust myself, if 48 is indeed the only option.
6
If you're on PC this is an option. Probably not on console though.
5
I think it will be like the swap from 60hz screens to 100hz screens, movement looks wierd.
1
Do you mean with TV or computer monitors? I usually can't tell the difference between 60hz and 100hz. The thing with fancy 120hz TVs is that they don't have 120hz material to display, and it then looks like crap.
3
if you're an enthusiast gamer, those 100+ fps will make this 48fps stuff look like the vintage film the article author was nostalgic about.
2
I don't get it. How would 48 fps make it look like a home video?
6
21
I think I'll show this to all my bonehead friends who come over to watch MY bigass HDTV and then complain about the picture looking too "real." Really gets under my skin!
6
I am well aware of the differences between resolutions and frame rates, but I also think a picture can look 'too real.' TV and movie sets are just that...sets. When the picture is too photo-realistic, so to speak, it just feels like you are there with them on the film set, not in the imaginary world they are trying to create. The degradation of the picture in traditional film creates a beneficial disconnect between the fakeness of making a movie and the product that ends up on the screen.
3
Great post and I totally understand where you're coming from. People still make movies using black and white and 8mm film, afterall. Most of my favorite movies probably would not benefit much from an fps increase. If that is the tone you're trying to create with your film, then go for it. But not all movies should be should be confined to old technology and not all movies necessarily benefit from the degradation of the picture. Especially movies that are filmed on location where, in my opinion, the movie really can showcase some of the landscapes. Those beautiful New Zealand locations from LotR are good examples of that. I loved those wide panoramic scenes where the members of the Fellowship were as small as ants against a huge ominous landscape. I guess it's also possible that as special effects and movie sets become more advanced, and people gradually get used to higher framerates and such, it will become less of an issue.
1
This phenomenon is called the Uncanny Valley, discussed in depth on extra credits.
1
sadly, you'll just have to nod your head in shame when they make the quip about 1080p resolutions
1
True. Though the friends who make these comments are probably not tech-savvy enough to know what 1080p is. I was mostly referring to the alt text part..."people associating good frame rates with home video and cheap sitcoms, saying good fps looks 'fake.'" I swear, that's exactly what my one friend says every time..."looks fake." He sure doesn't complain when we watch football on it!
6
Film has been standardized worldwide at 24 fps for around 80 years. Home video in North America, a bit of South America, Japan and a few other places is 60i, or about 30 fps. Local news news, cheap television shows, and the home videos people have been making since the 70's have a higher framerate than expensive Hollywood movies. The standard is in place because of our power system, but doesn't really matter for this discussion. What matters is that we're conditioned to see video, as cheap and amateur and film as expensive and professional.
There are a lot more differences between film and video than just framerate, and most of the audience won't know why they perceive a framerate higher than 24 fps as cheap, but they probably will see it that way.
16
Well explained!
1
The standard is in place because of our power system
Could you elaborate on that?
1
Television was originally synchronized to standard US household power (120v AC at 60 hz). What you're actually seeing on standard resolution is 60 half frames a second, horizontally interlaced.
Actually, it's not even that simple. You're actually seeing what amounts to 29.97 fps...
You know what? I figured I'd look it up real quick and make sure I knew what I was talking about. It turns out I don't. I'm pretty sure the above paragraphs are correct, but I don't think they're conveying much information and I hesitate to add anymore until I actually know what I'm talking about.
10
Not sure if this is actually true, but it seems to me that more "real" looking visuals of the 48fps might make the CGI stand out more and look awkward.
9
Not just CGI, but makeup.
A lot of films from the 80s and 90s look awful when converted to Blu-ray because the makeup and costumes and creatures/puppets were never intended to be viewed closely at a high level of detail.
12
If you have a TV with the option to "remove motion blur" or something to that effect, go turn it on, and watch something, a movie, tv show, animation, anything. That is basically the same thing.
For a lot of TVs come with it on already when u get it from the factory, mine did, and it looks awful. I remember getting my new TV, putting on Monster's Inc, and then spending the next 30 minutes trying to figure out why everything looked so shitty. I was wondering if I got a bad TV until I found that feature, turned it off, and everything looked normal again.
It really is bad, and really is not something you get acclimated to.
4
Exactly! Even epic battles look like cheap sets.
5
I went over to my friends place to watch the Extended Editions of Lord of the Rings, and his TV was configured like that, and it totally ruined my experience of watching the movie! The movie was still great, but watching it felt really strange and awkward, because I knew something was weird with the TV, but had no idea of what was going on. I couldn't focus on all of the cool extra scenes because the picture looked so strange.
2
I think the journalist was saying that it was so clear that it seemed more like real life than the colour-filtered look of The Lord of the Rings.
3
It's Quicker than 24, obviously. So that combined with the high definition makes more to see, very quickly. Things seem slightly off at that speed.
0
Tragic vintage critic complains about 48 FPS footage, shows what he means by posting old 24 FPS footage.
6
That's been a danger of using 48 fps from the beginning. I'm hoping it's something I'll stop noticing after a few minutes.
1
It won't be unfortunately :(
-6
Oh, you saw the movie? Tell us what you liked most about it.
Seriously people. It's Peter Jackson. And James Cameron's Avatar 2 will be the same. These people know a lot more about movies than some idiot on IGN (lol, IGN).
Try it out first. It's like people thinking HDTV was a fad. Give it a chance. I'm not saying it'll be amazing, but they will probably release a version with lower FPS. Don't knock it yet.
22
No one thought HDTV was a fad, and you don't need a degree (or to have made a giant hollywood movie) to know if something is good or not. By that logic the star wars prequels were amazing.
I am not saying the story or acting or cgi won't be good, how could I know, but I can know if I like 48 fps or not, and I do not.
-1
[deleted]
1
I realise seeing it in 2d 48fps would hurt the in-theater experience, but this could be adjusted for home viewing once it comes out on dvd/bluray, right?
1
Remember the footage was rough and unfinished. There is a whole lot of filters and other things that they do during the editing process. It will probably look more "film" like after that process. Knowing Jackson, it won't get done till the end.
1
Why are there pictures of Gandalf the White in Rohan?
1
I thought it looked cool. I'm definitely going to see it, if nothing else the story will be enjoyable.
1
I've been saying this about HD movies and the like for years. I watched part of "2012" on an 78" HD screen last year, and it absolutely looked as cheap as they are saying The Hobbit looks in 48fps. Granted, 2012 was a terrible film to begin with, but the point still stands that part of the reason fantasy films work is that the medium has to still be hazy enough that we can't make out all the details. 24fps still leaves room for the imagination. Maybe we will get used to it, the same way out parents or grandparents had to get used to color tv.
-4
Color TV and and B+W is WAAAAAY different than 24fps and 48fps. You can go between Color and B+W without a "getting used to it" period. Not the same for 24 and 48.
Nor do I want to. I have seen the two, and I like the 24. The only reason for this change is so that they can charge more for the ticket because its "clearer" even though it takes you out of the movie-going experience.
-5
As I've read in articles about this footage, if you watch The Hobbit at 48fps, it's gonna look like you're watching live actors on a stage and on sets. If you're not a fan of stage plays and whatnot, this is going to wreck your experience.
-4
Looks like someone didnt pay their good IGN review fee!
Like Peter Jackson has too, I'm going to get this shit on Blue ray and I'm gonna have this movie played for my great grandchildren(at least one hundred years in the future), who mind you will be watching movies being shot in 48fps because its been an industry standard since December 2012.
Predictions... lol
Redditor j0z has posted a file below (195mb) of two videos, one shot in 24fps and one in 48fps both on the same RED camera PJ is using. His comment is buried but for all those who are uncertain; give it a look.
Far from 'fake', to me it looks just how PJ described it - like removing the screen and replacing it with a window directly to whatever is on film.