Source
r/TheHobbit•
squigmig

So there have been a lot of negative 48fps reviews recently. Here's some footage to help you decide for yourself.

Of course it's not footage from the Hobbit, if my title seemed to have suggested that to anyone.

Redditor j0z yesterday posted this link to a compressed set of two video files (~195mb) both shot on the same RED cameras as those being used on the set of The Hobbit; one was shot at 24fps and the other at 48fps.

So before making conclusions based on a plethora of negative reviews, see some evidence for yourselves. I quite like it, but I expect you guys will have a range of opinions, so fire away!

Posted Apr 26, 2012, 1:03 PM UTC

4329
aochider•

Going back to the 24 after seeing the 48, the stuttering in that last panning shot is really obvious.

12
chimpwithalimpStep into the light•

I thoroughly recommend every watches both of these. I very much like 48fps.

10
chimpwithalimpStep into the light•

My feeling is that if they just released it at 48fps with no discussion beforehand, the same people now saying how horrible and unsettling it is would be saying how clear and crisp it looked without knowing why

8
Bloodricuted•

was the Hobbit screening fully edited and finalized to look like the finished product? or did it look the way deleted scenes look on dvd extras? anyone know?

5
squigmigOP•

As far as I can tell all the articles quote Jackson as explicitly stating that the post-production is not finished, and that the screening was only for critics to evaluate the difference in projection quality.

Some of the criticism is inevitably due to the final digital editing 'gloss' not having been applied yet, which probably gave the footage that '70s soap opera' look as some described it. So, no, and the reviews are probably overly harsh as a result.

11
cupids_hitman•

From what I've read, the scenes were not finished. There was still green screen in some of the shots.

3
red97•

Yikes. I'm not a fan of the 48fps. It's got that same weird look that is the reason I turned off the artificial motion interpolation on my 120hz tv.

Since The Hobbit is being filmed at 48fps, is it a trivial matter to downsample (for lack of a better word) to offer a 24fps version? Would this theoretically have the same quality as a film originally shot at 24fps?

Call me old-fashioned, but I just hope they release a 2D, 24fps version and I'll be happy.

5
EnemyBiscuits•

Aside from the additional effects and tweaked colour grading that the finished film will probably have, I'm not sure why the footage we've already seen in the trailer wouldn't be indicative of how the film will look at 24fps. Judge from that for now.

2
red97•

That's true. I have watched the trailer several times in 1080p and it looks fine, so nothing to worry about, I guess.

1
zeedevil•

I'm pretty sure peter jackson said in an interview that the trailer is 24fps, and the film will be offered in 6 formats in theaters including 24fps.

2
Mortos3•

It would probably look like the fight scenes in Gladiator or other movies where they use fast-exposure/hi-framerate/slow-motion designed cameras but show it at 24fps. In other words, very little blur. Just a guess, but it would probably end up looking worse than films just shot originally at 24fps- it'll probably look more jarring. That's because it's being designed to be enjoyed at 48fps.

1
DrQuailMan•

Wouldn't the 24 fps one have longer exposures?

1
BobTheSpy•

The only weird part was when he was kicking the ball - I swear it sped up and slowed down. Maybe it's my brain.

5
AlphaQ69•

I think it's because 48fps gives you a more accurate sense of speed.

3
[deleted]•

Same

1
whatwhata•

24 does have that 'filmic' quality.

48 is much more lifelike and detailed. I like it, although we'll see how it looks for two hours with props, sets, and makeup!

Really cool.

5
TheTozman•

Filmic

I believe the word you are looking for is "cinematic?"

1
MartinGlow•

Wow that was really weird to look at. 24fps had that normal movie look, obviously. But the 48fps was really odd. It felt like at times it was moving super fast, then moving kind of slowly. That was really odd. I probably need to watch again or something. That just looked really odd in my opinion.

4
thrillhouse3671•

How come the 24 fps video is 46 seconds but the 48 fps one is 40 seconds? These should be the same length just with twice as many frames, right? If I'm misunderstanding something someone please explain.

3
squigmigOP•

They're different clips, no? I remember thinking the basketball kicking in 48fps was much shorter, he kicks it less. If they were both the same clips I'd be suspicious.

8
thrillhouse3671•

Ahhhh I didn't realize they were actually different clips, thanks.

5
UtmostGrandPoobah•

Color grading/correction will make a HUGE difference by itself in how a film will look.

textures that look blown out with stock footage will reappear with subtle beauty when color correction is applied.

3
faemir•

Watching the 24fps again after the 48fps felt like watching in slow-motion or like when you play video games your pc can't handle. It looked much worse than the first time I watched it.

I totally believe Jackson when he says you'll get used to 48fps.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
squigmigOP•

VLC plays it back fine, if the neogaf forums are anything to go by.

2
Mortos3•

The links no longer work. Any other way to get the videos??

1
squigmigOP•

Here you go: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=471550 Links are at the bottom of the original post.

1
Mortos3•

It's ok, I found still-working links here along with some very good information about high frame rates and shutter speeds and such.

1
McCl3lland•

Well, we're gonna have to see when the movie is finally released I suppose. If those clips are indicative, I'm not going to be a fan of 48fps, because it gives that same odd feel (as mentioned somewhere else in these comments) as 120htz tvs. So I hope whatever they do in post production nullifies that.

0