Peter Jackson's Great 48 FPS Experiement

[neorichieb1971]

Seen it now.

Enjoyed the movie. Thought HFR was okay actually. The first few scenes looked a bit fast. Everything looked more real to me. I can understand why people don't like it. I have the feeling that if every movie was like this it would be accepted eventually.

I liked the 48fps HFR 3D better than standard 3D. It never gave me a headache even after 2hrs and 46 minutes. If the movie came out on blu ray and it had the HFR mode I would always activate it.

[GaijinPunch]

I have the feeling that if every movie was like this it would be accepted eventually.

That generally is the way it works even though that doesn't make it better. Look at polygons in general! Hopefully if it does become the norm, it will look better quicker than polygons did.

[Udderdude]

I think gamers are already used to fast moving cinematic video, so it's not as much of a shock for them.

Everyone else, on the other hand ..

[njiska]

http://movieline.com/2012/12/14/hobbit- ... er-second/

Interesting read.

[neorichieb1971]

I read all that. Whilst I believe some of it, I will go on to say that because there is now "a choice", people will swing one way or the other.

Did it look bad? No. Did it look Wrong? Probably. It certainly is something you need to get used to, but like I said, its something that needs to grow on you. My friend came out of the cinema and then watched the clip on the lobby TV's. He said "I want to watch it like that now".

As for the mrs. I said can you tell the difference (in the show) and she said "if I take the glasses off its blurry, but its still ok".. Bless.

[Mortificator]

The people quoted in that article are full of it. Anyone who thinks humans can't see or react faster than 40 FPS needs to try a video game, and anyone who says humans can't suspend disbelief when something's smoother than 40 FPS needs to go to the theater.

[neorichieb1971]

The people quoted in that article are full of it. Anyone who thinks humans can't see or react faster than 40 FPS needs to try a video game, and anyone who says humans can't suspend disbelief when something's smoother than 40 FPS needs to go to the theater.

Thats a very good point.

This thread is about how people want movies to look. It has very little to do with what people are talking about (disbelieving, too fake looking, bad acting).

There are a handful of people that don't like blu ray on here. Preferring to watch things like Akira on DVD because it has a muddy look compared to the pristine clean blu ray version.

What people are not seeing is the true reason the 48fps experiment is even happening. Money.

Peter Jackson and James Cameron are the type of people that electronics companies want to push technological limits so they can accommodate the standards the movie theaters are promoting. I would not be surprised if both directors have contracts to push technology with big name movies so we can recycle our TV's much earlier than we planned.

[antron]

Just saw this in 3D HFR because it was the only HFR at my closest theater. Now I'm reading that this is because it has not been released anywhere in 2D HFR. Is this true? If so than any comparison of this new rate to classical filmmaking is impossible, because no one could have made such a comparison.

By the way, I suspect this is no accident. All you can do now is say 3D HFR looks too real compared to regular 3D, but nobody will care. 3D is an inherently unnatural trick on your eyes and brain anyway.

[GaijinPunch]

Okay, 3D 24FPS looks better than 3D 48FPS. Does that work?

And yes, there is no 2D HFR version.

[greg]

Well, I'm finally going to go see The Hobbit tonight with a co-worker in Numazu, yay-ah. Fortunately, the 48fps, 3D, scratch-n-sniff version is only in moonspeak. The regular version is subtitled, hallelujah. At the theaters I have seen, the regular English version with Japanese subtitles is in regular 2D. To see the HFR and 3D crap, it's only available dubbed in Japanese, to appeal to the normaltards.

I hate 3D movies. If I ever buy a 3DS, I'll have the 3D shut off. My eyes already see in 3D. Artificial 3D is disorienting. For 3D movies, I have to wear awkward glasses on top of my regular glasses, which darken the movie an F-stop or two, make the film blurry hard to focus on, and make my eyes and head feel weird. When I watch a movie, I want the cinematography to be well done, and I expect a well-filmed movie to take heed to the "rule of thirds" for proper scene framing (The Matrix and The Ring are two good examples, I think). I want scenes to be framed in such a way that the priority is to be aesthetically pleasing, not "Wouldn't it look cool if this were to pop out of that and make you go 'woah' when you see it in 3D?"

I'm sure at least half of everyone has already seen the review on RedLetterMedia.com. Their verdict is see it in 2D. 3D and HFR will just make you cringe and avert your eyes. It makes sense to me.

[BryanM]

Stereovision is not anything close to 3d. When I heard about it being a thing, I was like "wow, we have 3d cameras now?! Where you can move around camera on your own? We sure are living in the future now."

But then it turned out it was stereovision. An illusion that stopped being amusing in the 1800's. Reduced to the occasional gimmick, like in Freddy's Dead - where it belongs.

It's so intellectually insulting, but hell. The norms, those unwashed plebian masses; I can confirm that many of them legitimately enjoyed the likes of the Van Helsing movie.

We deserve everything we get.

[Ed Oscuro]

The people quoted in that article are full of it. Anyone who thinks humans can't see or react faster than 40 FPS needs to try a video game, and anyone who says humans can't suspend disbelief when something's smoother than 40 FPS needs to go to the theater.

It's just one guy, a filmmaker, who is bandying about bits and pieces of things he read to push his view.

He may be right, but I'd like to see somebody else weigh in. I have never heard of the 66 fps / 40 moments a second studies stuff, nor did I see the stuff about the uncanny valley. But those could well be. I don't know how strong his segue (via "gamma synchrony") from frame rates to the Uncanny Valley is. "Uncanny Valley" is the wrong phrase to use anyway - in the case of robotics, you reject something that looks close enough that you start to have some panic about the face-stealing outsiders. That has nothing to do with frame rates. With what he's talking about (and this doesn't invalidate that of course), it seems more appropriate to say that it looks more mundane (at least to me), because if you get close to 48fps then it seems some of the cinematic artifice is stripped away and (contrary to what he says) I think that would end up making it look more like actors on a set, at least in peoples' minds. It's not rejected because it's creepily unrealistic.

Stereovision is not anything close to 3d. When I heard about it being a thing, I was like "wow, we have 3d cameras now?! Where you can move around camera on your own? We sure are living in the future now."

We've had 3D cameras ever since that scene from Blade Runner! "Pan left..."

The norms, those unwashed plebian masses; I can confirm that many of them legitimately enjoyed the likes of the Van Helsing movie.

Wait, Rando, did you steal BryanM's login info?!

I quite enjoyed Van Helsing. I mean, come on, it's going back to a type of movie that ceased being amusing in the '40s.

We deserve everything we get.

It will be interesting to see how much of "be careful what you wish for" turns out to be true.

[greg]

Stereovision is not anything close to 3d. When I heard about it being a thing, I was like "wow, we have 3d cameras now?! Where you can move around camera on your own? We sure are living in the future now."

But then it turned out it was stereovision. An illusion that stopped being amusing in the 1800's. Reduced to the occasional gimmick, like in Freddy's Dead - where it belongs.

It's so intellectually insulting, but hell. The norms, those unwashed plebian masses; I can confirm that many of them legitimately enjoyed the likes of the Van Helsing movie.

We deserve everything we get.

I completely agree with you. And while the new 3DS is a bit closer to being true 3D and the technology is amazing for what it is, its screen still looks like a prize from a box of Cracker Jack.

As for The Hobbit movie itself, I saw it last night with two like-minded guys. One of them is a guy who used to be a minor Hollywood director and producer, and worked on The Matrix and the first Spider-Man movies. He was even working on the Dungeons and Dragons movie in the late '90s until he rage quit because the stupid bigwigs failed to understand the subject matter (they were even insisting on putting in some rapper to appeal to the ghetto demographic---this was before the LOTR movies came out and made it big). Anyhow, the movie is great and I enjoyed every minute of it. People who say it drug on too long were probably watching the uncomfortable 3D, HFR version which makes people uncomfortable.

[PC Engine Fan X!]

Actually, checking the Hobbit's J-webpage, a fraction of the places are showing HFR... I think only 5 cinemas in Tokyo, which isn't a huge surprise. It wasn't until 2005 that Tokyo (greater Tokyo, anyway) had any cinema resembling something even close to the high end the states had. Roppongi Hills broke that mold in 2004 I believe it was.

It's also worth noting, some theaters aren't listed, so who the fuck knows.

Do any Japanese movie theaters show the latest films in DLP format or is that too high-tech?

I recall watching Star Wars:RoTS Episode 5 flick in DLP format back in 2005 (but that was a rare exception during those days as most movie chains were using the traditional 35mm reel system currently in place) -- it certainly did look much better/sharper than in the traditional 35mm print reel version (especially with the lightsaber battles). Of course nowdays, some American movie chains have entirely upgraded their movie projectors to all-digital format with DLP.

Not to mention that an entire first-run movie is distributed on a encrypted HDD with an obligatory USB dongle key just to play it properly on a digital projection system is commonplace nowdays (at least here stateside). Sure helps to have a kick-ass movie theater-grade 5.1 surround system in place with at least 17,000w-18,000w for maximum audio punch to match the visuals on-screen.

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[GaijinPunch]

No clue if they do, but I would assume no for the most part. Japan being in a recession for 20 years has meant there's a nice retro feel to lots of things, and movie theaters (in my findings) are huge sufferers. There are now 3 "nice" theaters within cycling distance of me (in Shibuya, Shinjuku, and Roppongi). However, as late as 2005, there were zero. Tokyo's surrounding and more subruban prefectures, (and most likely Odaiba) were most likely different at those times, but I didn't have much interest in travelling miles to see a movie.

The theater I saw the most movies in was in an old building in Shibuya, which was torn down sometime between 2002 and 2004 when construction on the Fukutoshin line started, and is now where Hikarie resides. The new building has a theater (for productions, not films). That theater was definitely done in the 60's, and never remodeled. I saw the first two Lord of the Rings there, as well as a handful of other movies. They did not feature reserved seating, so you had to first queue up to get your ticket, and then queue on either side of the auditorium and make a made rush to get your seat when the doors opened. I generally got there at least 1 hour before showtime, if not 2 for something like LoTR. Both lines had ashtrays, and were filled with people smoking.

Across the street another one of these "Showa" theaters still exists, and is just above a Bic Camera. I should go and take some pictures sometime as I doubt it will be up much longer, but they're so weird about cameras in theaters now. Apparently they just busted a police sergeant that was recording an anime movie on a camcorder.

[BryanM]

in the case of robotics, you reject something that looks close enough that you start to have some panic about the face-stealing outsiders.

It is annoy, how often it's misused as "bad art", or other random things. The concept is somewhat useful when it comes to saying "creepy AI behavior is creepy", but everyone already knows that creepy dolls sure are creepy.

I quite enjoyed Van Helsing. I mean, come on, it's going back to a type of movie that ceased being amusing in the '40s.

I thought it was just okay for the kind of thing I expected it to be; not close to the worst in the waves of mediocrity.

It drove me nuts how often the hero's name was used, and always in the full form. I don't care how much of an annoying douchey snob he is about it; once it gets to three syllable that's too much. His name is Chris. Deal with it, movie!

[Rosse]

Saw the movie and didn't enjoy the higher frame rate at all. The worst problem is that many scenes look oddly fast forwarded. However, the people I saw the movie with hardly noticed that at all so it seems to be down to individual perception. But I didn't even realise before seeing this thread (I'm stuck on the couch with a cold and bored enough to visit this place ;]) that the issue of the acting seeming too "real" and unpolished was due to the frame rate as well. That mostly bothered me in the first part of the movie though, so I guess one can get used to it. I probably wont see a 48 fps film again if I have the choice though.

The movie is pretty good otherwise. It has Gandalf, need I say more? :]~

[emphatic]

I saw this yesterday and don't like HFR 3D at all. The prologue in the beginning looked OK, it felt like this:



Then it was "present time" and everything just looked cheap. To me, the "film look" of true ~24fps Cinema looks expensive, this looked like Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow, but actually shot on location and in smeared, bleeding edge colour. Sure, it made all the CGI blend in like a good weave, but I was really underwhelmed by it all. When the film got into the full CGI background mode of the mines, it looked almost as interesting as the beginning of the movie again, so I could enjoy the film a bit more in the end. Will watch the other films in 24fps 2D probably.

It's like comparing arcade games on a CRT to a high res port on a modern screen, some people will prefer one of these things, I know which type I am.