Peter Jackson's Great 48 FPS Experiement

[GaijinPunch]

It looks infinitely better than anything that has come out since full on CGI really took off. If you think about it it's really not suprising to see how lazy filmakers are today. The use of computers has become a huge crutch. I'm sure that there's almost nobody left around that could make something like ALIENS again with the same techniques used at the time of it's filming.

Look at The Thing. 5 years earlier and a much lower budget.

[dan76]

Yeah, The Thing, plus American Werewolf in London. Physical effects done infront of a camera by filmmakers, artists and craftsmen. Capturing something that is actually happening. That used to be the amazing thing - how did they do it.

Now it's just "we'll fix it in post" - short hand for leaving everything to a computer with a nerd attached to it. I'm being cynical, but it the film industry.

[neorichieb1971]

The computer generated stuff is still good but honestly its far too Resident evil ish. Things growing at speeds that they start off mouse sized and it end up the size of buildings. If they kept things simple it would be better and more believable.

You would probably be surprised how much of JP was made with robots and cranes. Its only when the feet of the dinos are present that your looking at CGI.

[xbl0x180]

CG is the autotune equivalent in movies and animation

[GaijinPunch]

So, anyone see the 48FPS version. It's marketed here as "high definition version" which is a bit of a misnomer. The theater I'm going to see it at on Friday has both, at drastically different times. Trying to see if it's worth it.

[njiska]

I'm planning to see it once I get back home next week. So far reviews of the HFR version have been highly critical of the look, as I suspected.

[GaijinPunch]

Yeah... I just might go old school.

[MJR]

I'm going to see the 48fps version in few hours, will post comments if you are interested?

[GaijinPunch]

Please!
Although it looks like I'm going to see the 48FPS version regardless.

[BryanM]

How grognards.txt we must be to have a thread about the frames per second some random movie has.

You guys are the best.

[MJR]

Saw it, and it was pretty weird. Action scenes look wonderful, but character scenes looked really odd, like watching stage play. Costumes and everything are great, its just the motion... First I felt I was watching a sped up film. It must have been simply because I was not used to it.

I can recommend seeing it at least once on 48fps, just to experience it, but the framerate will probably distract you and pull you out of the movie, like it did me.

Movie itself was fine, though it is obviously not as epic as LOTR. At points it felt more faithful to book than with LOTR, though there were some changes that were as aggravating as with LOTR.

But that was to be expected.

I will see it again, but next time in 24fps, because I want to enjoy the movie and not be distracted.

Please note that being distracted does not mean that it looks shit. It's just.. distracting.

[neorichieb1971]

Ah, a few films later 48fps will become normal and everything else will look shit.

I absolutely hated 16:9 when the first CRT's came out. Now I think 4:3 TV's just look wrong. And I hate borders on the sides more than I hate borders on the top and bottom.

[njiska]

Ah, a few films later 48fps will become normal and everything else will look shit.

I actually very much doubt that. The problem with the higher FPS is different then the problem with having borders. Higher FPS means less motion blur which means things look more real. Not that middle earth comes to life, but that it's very obvious that your are watching actors on a stage. That does not help you suspend disbelief which is what cinema is all about.

[BryanM]

Back in my day, our D20's were made out of narwhal bones. This plastic crap they make kids roll today is horrible. It draws too much attention to the fact that you're just sitting at a table rolling dice. Plastic does not help you suspend disbelief which is what Dungeons and Dragons is all about. Not like good 'ole natural narwhal bones.

[njiska]

Dude that is not even close to a fair comparison. One has a psychological basis and the other is just being a crotchety old dick.

[blackoak]

Vision is also the essential sensual element of film; this whole discussion is actually the opposite of some spergy abstraction.

I'm seeing it tomorrow... very curious. Being the first 48fps film, I get the feeling from reviews that the methods of dissimulation just haven't been developed yet. And I agree that genre fantasy makes for a weird first experiment. I can think of plenty of dramatic/artistic possibilities along the verite line though.

[antron]

Ah, a few films later 48fps will become normal and everything else will look shit.

I actually very much doubt that. The problem with the higher FPS is different then the problem with having borders. Higher FPS means less motion blur which means things look more real. Not that middle earth comes to life, but that it's very obvious that your are watching actors on a stage. That does not help you suspend disbelief which is what cinema is all about.

but high spatial definition also looks more real, and now many think SD looks like shit.

[GaijinPunch]

Ah, a few films later 48fps will become normal and everything else will look shit.

So I guess all 2D movies look like shit too, then, right?

[BryanM]

All this animation crap is destroying the illusion that I'm not looking at real ponies!

[neorichieb1971]

Ah, a few films later 48fps will become normal and everything else will look shit.

So I guess all 2D movies look like shit too, then, right?

Thats a weird analogy, because I can't stand 3D in its current format. I don't even understand why people flock to see 3D but then again, it gives me headaches after an hour. So I guess its how you physically accept it as well as appreciate it visually.

With 48fps, I can't see why I wouldn't appreciate it for what it is and can't see any negative aspects logically. With 3D there was room for half ass'ed ness (due to cost). Which it is. With 48fps, you can safely assume higher is better. If the 48fps upgrade was a complete secret, I would guess that uneducated people would have that kind of PAL/NTSC thing going on, where something is different but they can't explain it (as one God of war player stated about the PAL version PS2, compared to the PSP version).

If every studio picks up on 48fps, you can safely say they will all do it right. 3D doesn't have that track record (yet).

Someone up the thread stated that 48fps is a distraction. It can't be more of a distraction than 3D. That was distraction beyond all distractions. Well, apart from someone using a phone in front of you.

[neorichieb1971]

Ah, a few films later 48fps will become normal and everything else will look shit.

I actually very much doubt that. The problem with the higher FPS is different then the problem with having borders. Higher FPS means less motion blur which means things look more real. Not that middle earth comes to life, but that it's very obvious that your are watching actors on a stage. That does not help you suspend disbelief which is what cinema is all about.

but high spatial definition also looks more real, and now many think SD looks like shit.

I do. I really think SD looks like shit. Because i've had better, I always want it. I don't do youtube at 240, I go straight to 1080. Who wouldn't?

Film has historically stuck at 24fps because things just balanced out at that speed. Cost vs space, resources, size of equipment. I don't dislike 24fps, I think its done a good job over the years. But to say 24fps is the absolute true balance of film/disbelief is just silly. Film is about expression. Perhaps the Hobbit is the wrong material to showcase 48fps, perhaps Fast and the Furious or Die hard 6 would have been better to demonstrate.

But standards are standards. I welcome new technology and the way it can be explored. I just don't think its right to condemn a practice on its first run. Which quite a lot of people are doing.

[njiska]

I do. I really think SD looks like shit. Because i've had better, I always want it. I don't do youtube at 240, I go straight to 1080. Who wouldn't?

Film has historically stuck at 24fps because things just balanced out at that speed. Cost vs space, resources, size of equipment. I don't dislike 24fps, I think its done a good job over the years. But to say 24fps is the absolute true balance of film/disbelief is just silly. Film is about expression. Perhaps the Hobbit is the wrong material to showcase 48fps, perhaps Fast and the Furious or Die hard 6 would have been better to demonstrate.

But standards are standards. I welcome new technology and the way it can be explored. I just don't think its right to condemn a practice on its first run. Which quite a lot of people are doing.

A: I'm not outright condemning it, but I understand the situation well enough to know that a higher framerate does not traditionally look better for fiction.

B: High frame rates are good for one thing and that's making you feel like you're there. In the case of a documentary or a sporting event, this is exactly what you want, but in fiction it doesn't transport you to the world of middle earth, it transports you to a soundstage, which is exactly the look the cinematographer spent all his time trying to prevent.

C: If you really want to make a fair comparison than stop trying to compare this to the SD/HD debate, because that's just pointless and not even close to the same thing. Film has always been better than HD in terms of resolution so the point is moot. If you want to make a fair comparison then try using the evolution from B/W to colour film. For a long time B/W continued to look better simply because the filmmakers weren't caught up with the technology. It's going to be the same with higher frame rates.

However, I would like to add that just because something can be done, does not mean it should be done. Film is a visual medium and every decision made about the appearance will have an affect on the viewer. I do not feel that 48FPS is a good decision, but as I've said, I'm more than willing to give the film an honest look and find out. I do understand that 3D is a different beast than 2D.

[Udderdude]

Hairy hobbit feet at 48 FPS .. oh noes D:

[GaijinPunch]

Thats a weird analogy, because I can't stand 3D in its current format.

Why? I'm relating two technologies that people are critical of. You say one will become commonplace, making the other obsolete. It is the same argument. There are people that are resistant to both.

With 48fps, you can safely assume higher is better

Obviously you can't. There are concrete examples (written in easy to understand English) of why not, and they're not being made by one or two people.

High frame rates are good for one thing and that's making you feel like you're there. In the case of a documentary or a sporting event, this is exactly what you want,

Not necessarily. BBC's documentaries are arguably the best, and they are 24FPS.

[burgerkingdiamond]

I know this is going to suck because when I got my new TV last year and started watching Blu-Rays I was fucking blown away at how bad it looked because of the motion interpolation feature. It's like watching a fucking soap opera. If this actually turns into a trend that will be just one more reason to not go to the movies anymore.

It looks like shit. Period.

[GaijinPunch]

Not necessarily. Motion Interpolation is basically fake HFR. HFR is native HFR. Google the many threads here from the old days on fake high res.

As per before, I'm sure it's a technology that will get better with time, but I'm with you. I like film to look like film. I choose to record videos of my son at 24 FPS to achieve the "doesn't look like cable access" look. But, it's a personal preference.

WHen it comes to home versions, I'll be happy if there's a choice, just like there's a choice between 240p and 480i on all of our beloved retro games.

[njiska]

High frame rates are good for one thing and that's making you feel like you're there. In the case of a documentary or a sporting event, this is exactly what you want,

Not necessarily. BBC's documentaries are arguably the best, and they are 24FPS.

Actually, the bulk are probably 25 FPS, but that's not the point. Obviously the quality of any production is down to the sum of its parts. BBC docs are great because they're well written, well presented and well shot. This has little to do with the framerate. All I'm saying is that if you want a visual style that creates a great sensation of the reality of what you are recording, then a doc is a good place to apply it. I'm in no way saying that lower framerate documentaries are bad.

Not necessarily. Motion Interpolation is basically fake HFR. HFR is native HFR. Google the many threads here from the old days on fake high res.

As per before, I'm sure it's a technology that will get better with time, but I'm with you. I like film to look like film. I choose to record videos of my son at 24 FPS to achieve the "doesn't look like cable access" look. But, it's a personal preference.

WHen it comes to home versions, I'll be happy if there's a choice, just like there's a choice between 240p and 480i on all of our beloved retro games.

Actually, while motion interpolation is generating fake frames, the overall look is generally quite similar. And this isn't a question of technology getting better. The tech to record at high framerates is just fine and has been around for ages. This is purely an issue of cinematography. Like you said you like to shoot at a lower framerate to avoid the cable access look. That look is exactly what I'm talking about.

[GaijinPunch]

It's too bad I can't find the original Wayne's World SNL Sketch opening sequence on Youtube.

[gct]

The first time I watched a 60fps porn, I thought it was totally weird. Like paradoxically seeming like it was playing in fast-forward, yet the movements occurred at a normal speed. Now I can't get enough of it, it's so smooth!

I drive with a car cam too, always recording at 60fps so I know I'm used to seeing that speed of footage. I'll be interested to see what all the fuss is about with this movie, maybe I'll take my old man to see it soon.

[GaijinPunch]

Wow, how old are you? The first porn I saw was definitely not 24 FPS... clearly hand held cam... and oddly enough, voices dubbed over in English. Was really weird. i'm not totally convinced all the participants were not being held against their will.