The Hobbit...

[Marc Wielage]

Wednesday's Daily Variety had some interesting comments from "Tech Bytes" columnist David Cohen:

Ten days before the "Hobbit" footage debuted, James Cameron told me about the high-frame-rate (HFR) look, "I think there will be people that love it. And there will be people that say it looks like video, because video is the only way they can process something that looks too real. But it's really quite magical."

Cohen draws some interesting conclusions about HFR (high-frame rate):

• The 48 fps format of "The Hobbit" will not be widely adopted, because it's a compromise that doesn't deliver the full impact of HFR;

• Eventually, but probably not soon, the default frame rate for most studio movies will be something around 60 fps, with directors choosing higher or lower frame rates for creative effect;

• Bizzers in both TV and movies are going to be making creative and financial decisions about HFR for years -- maybe forever.

Cohen basically says: 48fps is not enough. Only visionaries like Jim Cameron, about to embark on a 60fps project, will really make a big change.

Interestingly, the article manages to forget that Doug Trumbull was shooting 60fps Showscan back in 1981.

If I had to make a prediction, I'd say that the success of The Hobbit will depend on how good the story is, plus the acting, the direction, the editing, and the effects (not necessarily). I don't think audiences will care about the frame-rate or the camera used, though I'm sure a certain percentage of the viewers will notice it on some level.

[Bjørn Vermo]

Wednesday's Daily Variety had some interesting comments from "Tech Bytes" columnist David Cohen:

Ten days before the "Hobbit" footage debuted, James Cameron told me about the high-frame-rate (HFR) look, "I think there will be people that love it. And there will be people that say it looks like video, because video is the only way they can process something that looks too real. But it's really quite magical."

Cohen draws some interesting conclusions about HFR (high-frame rate):

• The 48 fps format of "The Hobbit" will not be widely adopted, because it's a compromise that doesn't deliver the full impact of HFR;

...

I think this controversy is basically about how powerful habituation is for the human brain.
Some years ago I read a history of colour film. It contained an anecdote about one of the very first natural colour films, "Frauen sind ja bessere Diplomaten". One of the people involved in the shooting had taken his maid to a preview. Afterwards, he asked her what she thought about the colours. Her reply was "In the beginning it was a bit confusing, but when I got into the story it did not bother me any more".

72fps is the lowest frame rate where most people do not see objectionable flicker. At lower frame rates the brain has to do prosessing to make us see smooth motion. I believe some people who have seen very much low-framerate film are so habituated that they get some kind of abstinence signal when the brain has to do less or no processing. I would like to know how many of the people who believe 24fps is necessary are able to enjoy a theatre performance. For me, the magic of a live performance has never been approached by any recorded media. I believe it could be approached given a big enough field of view at high enough resolution (> 2x the maximum resolution of the human eye) at a high enough framerate with a sufficient dynamic range.

[KETCH ROSSi]

I think this controversy is basically about how powerful habituation is for the human brain.

We are creatures of habit, so we brake away not so easy from what we have become used to, however we do get used to almost anything in time exactly because we are creatures of habit... ;)

[Evan Starkey]

We are creatures of habit, so we brake away not so easy from what we have become used to, however we do get used to almost anything in time exactly because we are creatures of habit... ;)

Hehe i would like to test that theory Ketch... How about you let me try get used to those Leica s.c primes ;)

EDIT: Dam just remberd i got nothing to put them on lol :(

[Maik Müller Menendez]

Yes it would. But there would be a gap between them. It would be two non-contiguous 96ths instead of one contiguous 48th.

Oooops.... The gaps, ouch. There are gaps, yes of course they're there. Man, how did i miss that. :)
You're right, thanks for clarifying.

So thats a simple rule to keep in mind: if you want the freedom to recreate the 24p/180-look while shooting higher fps then the fps must be a multiple of 24 and the shutter angle has to be 360.

P.S. I need a EPIC. :)

[Wayne Morellini]

Yes Maik, that was going to be my question about this controversy, how long was the shutter, I want to try 360 degree at 50 fps (can drop every second frame and do a minor slow down and audio adjustment for 24fps).


I united something a while ago. I saw the fith element being played on a new high contrast screen years back, and they looked like they were wearing costume on a artifical, painted, set from memory. On film it looked OK, but the increased contrast made it look different. You have to be careful with these items and lighting. Just simply getting it right might also be ruined by somebidies TV expanding the contrast.

I think this controversy is basically about how powerful habituation is for the human brain.
Some years ago I read a history of colour film. It contained an anecdote about one of the very first natural colour films, "Frauen sind ja bessere Diplomaten". One of the people involved in the shooting had taken his maid to a preview. Afterwards, he asked her what she thought about the colours. Her reply was "In the beginning it was a bit confusing, but when I got into the story it did not bother me any more".

72fps is the lowest frame rate where most people do not see objectionable flicker. At lower frame rates the brain has to do prosessing to make us see smooth motion. I believe some people who have seen very much low-framerate film are so habituated that they get some kind of abstinence signal when the brain has to do less or no processing. I would like to know how many of the people who believe 24fps is necessary are able to enjoy a theatre performance. For me, the magic of a live performance has never been approached by any recorded media. I believe it could be approached given a big enough field of view at high enough resolution (> 2x the maximum resolution of the human eye) at a high enough framerate with a sufficient dynamic range.

Funny thing, that directly applies to this, that I have noticed before. I am staying in a place with fluorescent lights. I turned off the light and walked into a very dark room, my eyes however where pulsing a bright image to match the previous light frequency. I don't know if it was to match the bright portion, or the dark portion, but persisted for a brief time.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Hehe i would like to test that theory Ketch... How about you let me try get used to those Leica s.c primes ;)

EDIT: Dam just remberd i got nothing to put them on lol :(

... ;)

[Josh Snyder]

48fps is needed in order to "fix" some problems 3D has. PJ and his pals think "videolike" footage is not as bad as the problems with 24fps that people have been criticizing 3D about. They "fix" one problem and get another. Now they are saying that 48fps is somehow better since it's more realistic. This is clearly BS. These people say 48fps looks better just because they have to use it. All this will be confirmed when PJ makes his next 2D movie and it's 24fps.

[KETCH ROSSi]

48fps is needed in order to "fix" some problems 3D has. PJ and his pals think "videolike" footage is not as bad as the problems with 24fps that people have been criticizing 3D about. They "fix" one problem and get another. Now they are saying that 48fps is somehow better since it's more realistic. This is clearly BS. These people say 48fps looks better just because they have to use it. All this will be confirmed when PJ makes his next 2D movie and it's 24fps.

Josh,

Peter already said that 48fps is not for all movies, 3D in the other end IMO is, even so I am not signing in to make all my movies in 3D, as at times depending on what my story calls for, I would want to use specific lenses and effects redundant in 3D.

[Rudi Herbert]

Why not chill a little and not use terms like BS when referring to the efforts of Peter Jackson and other people that are genuinely trying to produce as good as possible, from their enormously educated perspective, a better cinematic experience?