I can only comment about the UK, but only a few screens are showing the hobbit at 48fps. VUE for example have listed only 29 compatible cinemas. So when some people report back that they didn't notice a difference then it may be because they didn't actually see it at 48fps. There seems to be some pretty poor advertising going on.
Does 30fps feel more "cinematic" than 60fps?
- Thread starter blip
- Start date
Or you're just completely unaware of what the difference is. My wife hadn't a clue. I noticed it within seconds, and I only asked her if anything stood out to her. She just noticed that the 3D was pretty flawless this time, compared to the last few movies we'd seen.
Unfortunately something came up and I was unable to go
maybe sometime this week...On the other hand there's a lot of interesting discussion about this on the 3D Pro mailing list, going as far as considering the neurological side of human vision and saccadic eye movements...
If people are watching 3D HFR, that's considering two variables instead of one. Is anyone comparing the 2D HFR version?
Sounds interesting. Anyway, to your earlier question on if people taking part in the discussion having actually seen the movie in HFR, yes I did. I didn't expect our cinema to support it, but it was strikingly obvious within seconds that it did. It's a relatively small cinema, but they got 3D support only last year so I guess that helped.
Just to be sure I'm not a complete idiot, I doublechecked and yes, we did in fact see the (3D) HFR version ...
Hope it becomes a standard soon - if so, I'll definitely go to the cinema again more often, as I really liked it and look forward to seeing it applied more often.
EDIT: @Shifty, only the 3D version currently supports HFR. Jackson basically made the decision that people who wanted to see The Hobbit in 2D instead of 3D also comprise most people who complain the most about HFR being too 'TV' like, while because HFR makes 3D so much better, he definitely wanted to keep it for 3D.
Just to be sure I'm not a complete idiot, I doublechecked and yes, we did in fact see the (3D) HFR version ...
Hope it becomes a standard soon - if so, I'll definitely go to the cinema again more often, as I really liked it and look forward to seeing it applied more often.
EDIT: @Shifty, only the 3D version currently supports HFR. Jackson basically made the decision that people who wanted to see The Hobbit in 2D instead of 3D also comprise most people who complain the most about HFR being too 'TV' like, while because HFR makes 3D so much better, he definitely wanted to keep it for 3D.
I do not think this was Jackson's decision. I think it is because the projectors capable of showing HFR 2D are the same projectors capable of showing HFR 3D, and it is more profitable for the studio and the cinema owners to show it in 3D since they can sell those showings for a higher price. I think it would be harder to justify the higher price of the HFR 2D version to the general public.
So the comparison is 3D 48fps or 2D 24 fps. Not at all a fair comparison, and certainly not appropriate for comparing games to films!
I've also just Googled the shutter speed, and am hearing it's 1/72 of a second, meaning less motion blur than 24 fps cameras with 1/48th second shutters (despite being proportionally more).
I've also just Googled the shutter speed, and am hearing it's 1/72 of a second, meaning less motion blur than 24 fps cameras with 1/48th second shutters (despite being proportionally more).
Yeah, these movies are also shot at 4k aren't they? I actually had the impression there was some scenes that had some work done on them in 1k or 2k or something like that, as one or two times I felt that the native resolution of the scene dropped considerably. But it's also possible that this was intended blur. But it didn't look like that.
There's is a theater here showing it in 3d without hfr. I don't know that 2d with hfr is an available option anywhere.
Seeing it in HFR 3D in about 5 hours. My co-worker saw it yesterday and said it was awesome. He said going back to 24 fps, especially for 3D would be a bummer. I told him Avatar 2 would be 60 FPS and he is very excited for the advance in the theater viewing experience.
So that's one anecdotal answer. He is also older (55) and wears prescription lenses and said it was MUCH easier on his eyes than standard 24 fps 3D.
So that's one anecdotal answer. He is also older (55) and wears prescription lenses and said it was MUCH easier on his eyes than standard 24 fps 3D.
I don't get the complaint about "TV soap" feel, beside don't TV soaps run at a slower FPS anyways (compared to Hobbit)
60i, so technically the temporal resolution should be comparable.
Movies need to go up to 120fps ASAP, to avoid this kind of comparison.
Rendering staggered 240p frames and sending them out as 480i to get an effective 480 lines of resolution viewed on an SD CRT is actually very comparable to 480p60. You get updates just as quickly, you (sort of) have the same vertical resolution, and the fields being temporally spaced closer together means that combing is a lot less noticeable than with 480i.
It's actually a really neat trick.
The thing is, nobody seems to know how soaps are actually produced. Are they shot on 60i video? If so, what video format? Or are they shot on 16 mm film? And how are they edited? Is the finished output still 60i or is it something else?
Nobody who has ever written "soap opera effect" seems to know any of this.
Yeah it's the 2d version I'm most interested in. I'd like to see a 2d 24fps vs 2d 48fps comparison. Right now I do my filming at 60fps 1/125th shutter, basically just going by the old 180 degree shutter rule. But I'm wondering since I don't need to do slow motion maybe I should just switch to 60fps 1/60th shutter speed. I think the hobbit is 48fps 1/64th shutter or somewhere thereabouts, and typical movies are 24fps 1/48th shutter. I guess I should check around here and see if the hobbit it's being shown in 2d 48fps someplace, and see what all the fuss is about.
EDIT: Nevermind, a quick google revealed: "As of now, WB is not releasing The Hobbit in 48 fps 2D"
Hobbit's 1/72 second, a 270 degree shutter. for smooth motion I'd film whatever the longest shutter you can at 60 fps, but ultimately I want to see longer blurs added in post. We poke around with every other parameter in post, so why not temporal aliasing/blurring/antialising?
Because it kills the sharpness of the picture, thus nullifying the value of 4k HFR projecting.
some post motion blur by a sutle agregation of past and next frames would reduce the sharpness a little but wouldn't completely nullify the HFR -if done right...
I agree it could be a nice alternative to introduce HFR projection to people, while retaining a little bit of the old low temporal res feeling people grew acustomed to assossiating with fim.
I agree it could be a nice alternative to introduce HFR projection to people, while retaining a little bit of the old low temporal res feeling people grew acustomed to assossiating with fim.
Similar threads
