

Peter Jackson's 48fps Presentation Of 'The Hobbit' Gets A Mixed Response - adahm
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/peter-jacksons-48fps-presentation-of-the-hobbit-at-cinemacon-gets-a-mixed-response-20120424

======
MrFoof
_"It doesn't look 'cinematic', lacking that filtered or gauzy look we're all
accustomed to"_

 _"Not all will like the change. 48 fps has an immediacy that is almost
jarring."_

 _"...he elaborated his thoughts, and essentially, the crisper looking image
had the odd effect of making everything seem almost too realistic"._

Lighting and set-design issues aside (sets shouldn't feel artificial), these
comments seem ridiculous to me. It would be like a Triumph TR3 or Sunbeam
Tiger owner lamenting over the Mazda MX-5 (Miata), saying that it's not an
authentic British-style roadster unless it regularly hemorrhages its fluids
when stationary in your driveway, occasionally fails to maintain an idle, or
if an artifact of one the builders can't be found hidden in the trunk. Oh,
wait -- people _actually_ made those sorts of complaints.

People dislike change, even when it ultimately is for the better. I'm sure
there were plenty of complaints when the industry moved away from nitrate film
as well. Heck, since this film is digital I'm going to go find the "Death of
the Projectionist" article I'm sure exists.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Film is an artistic medium. Many many many choices are made in the making of
most films that intentionally deviate from reality.

It's completely reasonable to believe that 48fps will not be the right
creative choice for all films.

~~~
MrFoof
I agree. Black and white, sepia-tone, deliberate flicker and visual noise
(including cigarette burns) will all have their place when used appropriately
and to further push well-thought stylistic choices that are brilliantly
executed.

However, those films will certainly be in the minority. To dismiss higher
frame rates on the whole seems goofy.

Additionally, googling "death of the projectionist" yields more articles than
I'd care to mention, including some that honestly lament that nitrate film is
no longer used.

~~~
excuse-me
Higher frame rate doesn't automatically translate as "better"

Our eyes (actually brain) have a natural fusion frequency, images shot with a
relatively long exposure at 24fps - with corresponding motion blur - is
different from shorter exposures at 48fps.

Remember Ray Harryhausen's stop motion monsters? Those are much 'sharper' than
actors, but not necessarily more realistic ( except in the case of Keanu
Reeves)

~~~
jcampbell1
The exposure length could be the same. 360 degrees of shutter at 48fps is the
same exposure as the cinematic standard of 180degrees/24fps.

~~~
excuse-me
IIRC the Red camera has a rolling shutter so is equivalent to a fixed 360deg
shutter

(if I understand cinema shutter terminology correctly ?)

~~~
stephen_g
The two things you posted are completely un-related.

Film cameras generally have a 180 degree shutter, which means that the film is
exposed for half the time each frame is in the gate - which means at 24 frames
per second, the exposure time is 1/48th of a second. A 360 degree shutter
would theoretically therefore be 1/24th of a second at 24 frames per second,
or 1/48th of a second at 48fps (so should exhibit similar motion blur to 24fps
at 180 degree shutter).

The EPIC is perfectly capable of taking any of these exposure times (up to 360
degrees - I'm not sure what the limit is exactly at the low end - probably
something like 1/10000th of a second).

Now, 'rolling shutter' is just the fact that each column of pixels along the
sensor are read sequentially, so there is a slight difference in time from the
first column to the last one being read (called the read-reset time). This can
be really bad on cheap cameras with slow read-reset times, where it can cause
vertical things like light-posts to look skewed when you pan across them
quickly, but the EPIC's read-reset time is fast enough that it's not a problem
(it is similar to the time it takes a film's mechanical shutter to blank).

~~~
excuse-me
You still have an adjustable exposure time between the pixel reset and read,
which you can make pretty small (<1ms)

But the real problem comes from the time taken to read an entire frame. On a
cheap camera this is about the frame time because the electronics is slow, but
on a high end camera it is still often close to the frame time because you
have a lot of pixels and there is a limit to how fast you can read while still
having low noise. Some scientific CMOS cameras get round this by having
massively parallel outputs.

The problem gets worse at 48fps - if it takes close to 1/48s to read the chip
then a moving object will have stretched across the entire frame from top to
bottom. In the worst case a vertical post in a fast pan will be at 45deg. A
24fps camera run at the same pixel clock only has half the effect.

The cameras do have software to try and correct this - basically they look for
vertical edges and de-skew them, but this puts in artifacts that you don't
want in a Hollywood movie. The other secret is to not fast pan at 48fps.

------
jerf
I think it all breaks down into three categories:

    
    
        * People who like it
        * People truly not liking it because they're not used to
          it, but someday they'll look back and think 24fps looks awful
        * People trying to send hipster social signals by being more
          cinema snob than thou
    

Not sure what the exact breakdown is, but I wouldn't underestimate that third
category.

If it seems like I've not left space for people genuinely and indefinitely not
liking it... no, I haven't. It's a proper superset of capabilities. If for
some bizarre reason 24 fps is truly called for, it can be used. I expect that
to happen about as often as we bizarrely have a sudden need for 12fps footage
in the movies of today, which is to say, never. (No, I don't mean slow-mo, I
mean a sudden frame rate drop for its own sake.)

~~~
lhnn
How about the breakdown of people who like it?

    
    
      * People who think it actually looks good
      * People trying to be so hipster they look down on hipsters who wax nostalgic about 24fps
    

Seriously, I have noticed the "too real to be cinematic" phenomenon since Blu-
Ray and Spider-Man 3 came out. It looked like I was watching the people 3 feet
away from me, and I don't feel like I'm watching a movie, I'm watching a
Spanish soap opera.

I like 24 fps for the same reason I like deadtree books: the experience.

~~~
jerf
Sorry, I'm _totally_ more metacontrarian than thou. Don't even try.

Let me reiterate the most important point I had, which is that if 24 fps is so
wonderful, directors will choose to use it (after the initial rush has worn
off). Nothing stops them.

But they won't, because if 48fps has any fundamental problems, it's that it's
still _too slow_.

I'm sure you can Kickstarter up some shutter glasses to blink at 24fps if you
get that desperate.

------
skore
> _Terms like "artificating" and "juttering" are terms still best known among
> hardcore tech heads, not moviegoers, and frankly, that's because when most
> people watch movies, they aren't seeing those "problems."_

I suppose they just have to ask my mother "Hey, what did you think of the
first minutes of Quantum of Solace?"

The argument for 48fps is a simple one to make: With faster cuts and pans,
photographing a scene 24 times a second only gets you so far.

24p was mostly an economical decision - made decades ago. Unlike, for example,
digital audio, which is modeled after the maximum detail that the human ear
can perceive, 24 fps was simply set at that limit because that's when people
stopped noticing the flicker - in movies at that time.

I would say that any change as big as this will take a while for directors to
get used to. I don't think it will get quite as ugly as 3D, though, and I'm
not sure why people are trying to make this connection. A lot of digital
content is already in in frame rates far beyond 24 fps, so we're getting more
and more used to this every day. Finally, this new technology is just another
tool - now it's up to the directors to use it in a way that entertains
audiences.

------
BenoitEssiambre
I have one of those TVs that does a good job at extrapolating frames (Samsung
7000 led) and when you turn that functionality on, it does make everything
look more 'fake'.

It makes movies feel more like theater than cinema. When I first got the TV, I
really noticed the makeup and excessive hairspray on men a lot. Also, the
props in sci-fi movies looked like they were foam or plastic (since that is
what they actually are). Iron Man's costume, for example, looked very
plasticy. I don't know why that is. Our brain must be filling up the missing
frames of 24fps such that everything looks more real.

It only took a week or two to get used to it and now I mostly don't notice it
anymore and actually prefer the crisper looking images. It's especially great
for documentaries such as Planet Earth where everything is more life like.

I know some people have difficulty getting used to it because the guy who sold
me the TV told me he was getting some returns with complains of things looking
fake on the TV.

------
ender7
To everyone raising their noses at these cinema hipsters who doubt the
attraction of 48fps: take care. Human perception is a fickle thing and does
not always follow the logical path one might expect.

Consider the uncanny valley, where adding fidelity to an image actually
reduces the perceived pleasure rather than increasing it.

In my experience, even the jump from 24fps to 30fps is enough to lose the
feeling of 'magic' that people are used to in the movies. There's a reason
that most non-reality, non-sitcom TV shows are filmed in 24fps rather than
30fps (the native framerate of television).

It may be that the movie industry will find a way to make movies that take
advantage of the characteristics of 48fps, but it's not going to be like
sticking a new video card into your rig and receiving an instant experience
improvement. The fundamental way that movies present themselves (photography,
scene design, set design, storytelling) will have to change.

------
chops
As excited I am for The Hobbit, I'm also leery of the 48fps. If you've ever
noticed the difference between watching movies on a 120Hz/240Hz, it's
definitely extremely noticeable and distracting. It makes movies look like
reality TV.

Why this is, I don't fully know. The fact that this is _filmed_ at 48 fps
(rather than simple interpolating the extra frames) might make it better, but
I'll just have to see for myself.

What I do know, is that if watching a film at 48 fps is like watching a
typical bluray at 120Hz, I'm going to find it distracting. It really does mess
with the "feel" of the movie. Whether it's simply cognitive dissonance or not
will take time to determine.

Here's a relevant article from last year that really hits home for me:
[http://prolost.com/blog/2011/3/28/your-new-tv-ruins-
movies.h...](http://prolost.com/blog/2011/3/28/your-new-tv-ruins-movies.html)

~~~
ComputerGuru
Thanks for that read. It's splendidly written and really hits home - and is
the last straw to convince me to get a plasma instead of an LED for my new
apartment :)

~~~
baq
you can disable those extra features on every tv set i've tried, so it really
shouldn't be the deciding factor.

~~~
ComputerGuru
Actually, I'm talking about the true black.

------
tsotha
Reminds me of people who said CDs would be a flop because they reproduced
sound too faithfully, and consumers would be uncomfortable listening to music
that didn't have the distortions and white noise record players produced.

In other words... BS.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Did people say that? I just remember the other side of it, people saying that
CDs were lower fidelity than good vinyl recordings.

Of course, now we listen to MP3s.

~~~
KaeseEs
People still say that, and there is a tremendous market for things like tube
amps based on the idea that the lower-fidelity stuff 'sounds warmer'. And it
does, because you're passing your signal through a filter than adds a small
amount of mostly low-frequency distortion which some folks have grown
accustomed to.

------
gramsey
Perhaps the negative reactions are simply because most people aren't
accustomed to seeing insanely high resolutions and frame rates in the cinema.

When I first got a high-definition plasma TV (which replaced my 20+ year old
CRT), I felt the exact same way: as if all my movies were ruined, because they
looked like documentaries. Now it feels like a degraded experience to watch
poorer quality films. Perhaps the audiences of 2032 will feel the same about
48 fps/5k resolution.

~~~
SeanLuke
I think this isn't a resolution issue at all. The issue largely has to do with
motion blur. Here's how I understand it (and poorly):

When capturing video at X FPS you thus must hold open the shutter of the
camera for some fraction of the time each frame in order to capture the scene.
You can hold it open anywhere from 0 to 1/X seconds. If you hold the shutter
open too long as a fraction of the frame time, you get too much motion blur
and moving objects look blurry. If you open it for too short of a time, you
have the opposite effect: things look jumpy. Your objective is to find just
enough motion blur to trick the eye into seeing things as smoothly moving from
frame to frame. As a rule of thumb, IIRC that amount is usually half the frame
time, that is, 1/2X seconds.

If you are shooting at, say, 48fps rather than 24fps, and you're using 1/2X
shutter speed to get the right motion blur, the total amount of time your
shutter is staying open (during a length of film) is exactly the same, but for
each frame you're staying open only half as long. Thus each frame is only
getting half as much motion blur in 48fps as in 24fps, and this has an effect
on the psychological "look" of the medium. The "feel" of film is largely due
to its low frame rate, resulting in shutter speeds of 1/48 seconds and
corresponding large motion blurs in each frame. Video has a shutter speed of
1/60 and thus smaller motion blurs in each frame, making it feel more "live"
or "realistic". Move to 1/48 FPS or 1/60 FPS and you're talking very small
motion blurs per frame (shutter speeds of 1/96 or 1/120), resulting in an
exaggerated "live" look. It doesn't feel archival any more, it feels like
you're watching through a window at something going on _now_. And this can
really break the fourth wall.

BTW, the faster shutter speeds have another effect: they make it much harder
to shoot dark scenes. You don't have many good options: your aperture is
already dictated by the look you want to achieve, and all you have left is
upping your ISO, and no one wants a grainy video. Given all the other problems
that the RED cameras have given Jackson's team, forcing them to exaggerate set
colors and makeup etc., I'm surprised they'd add this problem to the pot.

~~~
stephen_g
"Given all the other problems that the RED cameras have given Jackson's team,
forcing them to exaggerate set colors and makeup etc."

This was actually a really strange thing - it comes from a comment in one of
the making of clips but (as a RED owner) it really doesn't make any sense to
me...

The uncorrected preview output from a RED cameras can look quite dull on a
monitor, but after grading the RAW footage we've only found it to have better
latitude and colour rendition than most other cameras. I don't know if it's a
problem with their post workflow or what, but it doesn't sit right...

------
erichocean
The argument for 24 frames per second is that:

a) adequate sound sync is maintained when projecting film

b) reducing the frame rate to the _minimum_ humans need to perceive something
as continuous motion leaves the maximum amount of detail "missing". This in
turn produces a dream-like quality, and frees up the mind to spend brain
cycles on non-visual things, like the story, acting, etc.

(a) is now outdated: we can get rock-solid sound playback at any frame rate
today, thanks to digital projection. Personally, I find playback of 24fps
material on a 60fps LCD monitor to be annoying – there's always that judder.

This makes me wonder if we shouldn't drop the frame rate further, to 20 fps.
This would have a nice even multiple for our 60 fps LCD screens, and also
maximize the dream-like quality we associate with films, but with zero judder.

Anyway, food for thought. :)

~~~
excuse-me
Alternatively you could run your TV at 50h so you can simply convert 24/48 fps
film while saving yourself 4% of the time to make a nice cup of tea

------
icarus_drowning
I googled native 48fps footage and found a couple of tests uploaded to viemo
from the Scarlet-X, and didn't notice much, however, I'm wondering if any
experts on HN could weigh in on whether flash video does any frame dropping or
other degradation that would make such examples different than the actual
experience. Are there any examples of sites that have native 48fps footage at
a high resolution?

Like many other commenters here, I was wary of the use of a higher framerate
based on my experience with 240hz TV's, which look so distractingly hyper-real
I can't watch them for any sustained length of time, but I'm not sure of how
much that has to do with frame-doubling or other "tricks" that might be
applied.

------
huhtenberg
It's an established perception issue. Not only people expect blur from the
movies, but they also associate the _lack_ of blur with lower quality
production.

To explain - the same problem exists with never LCD TVs. Many of them has a
logic for resampling 24fps source and interpolating it into higher frame
rates. In theory, this is supposed to remove the blur and make dynamic
pictures more detailed. In practice, it actually does that, but it also makes
movies look like soap operas. A quick google search brings up ton of
complaints of this nature, and the root of the problem is that soap operas are
shot for TV broadcasting and _at higher frame rates_. Hence, the visual
aesthetics one typically associates with them. In other words, you bump up
FPS, you get the soap opera impression... which hardly the vibe Hobbit should
have :)

------
calloc
I for one am looking forward to 48 fps. I have too often that I am watching a
movie and I can see "juttering" as the camera pans across a scene. I find it
extremely annoying. I have also noticed that it is in various other aspects of
life as well.

There is a traffic light near me that has three lights on it, and there is a
noticeable difference between when the first light goes from green to orange
to red and when the second goes through the same progression. My friends
thought I was insane until I took high speed photography of the same traffic
lights and proved them that it was off by the tiniest amount (don't remember
exact figures). The same thing can be said for PWM'ed LED's, such as the ones
in certain cars...

~~~
reneherse
Here's another example you might spot if you're a commuter: Some weird timing
in the brake lights of some Ford Fusion models. (c. 2010 I'm guessing? The
one's with the cheesy shallow-stamped trunk/license plate area.)

The three areas of brake lights come on at different times, creating a subtle
horizontal flow.

I assume it's due to poor wiring harness design, but IANAEE.

~~~
X-Istence
I am not sure what car you are talking about, but if it has three physical
different lights it may be because of differences in the relays that turn them
on and off that cause slight timing differences, unless it is on every Ford
Fusion...

I too have the same issue that I am able to see slight difference in timing
for certain lights. I've learned to ignore it rather than let it get to me,
but I've got a friend who is extremely sensitive to them and has a hard time
behind the wheel of a car because the timing on LED brake lights in some model
cars causes her physical pain and that causes her to lose her concentration on
the road. Her husband drives her most of the time due to this issue.

~~~
reneherse
Wow, that's a truly unfortunate problem your friend is faced with, especially
since we're likely still in the dawn of the general proliferation of LEDs.

I too notice the odd strobing effect of LEDs when they're in motion or I am:
Christmas tree lights, Macbook Pro sleep indicator, some brake and headlights.
I imagine having that be a cause of pain must be fairly similar to hyper-
sensitivity to scented products/VOCs; one has to go out of of one's way to
avoid commonly occuring things in the typical environment.

I've noticed the "Ford Fusion effect" whenever I've looked for it.[1] Got to
do something to pass time in traffic!

[1] This link is for the sport version, but it has the same (hideous)
sheetmetal as the base model. [http://i.autoblog.com/2009/02/16/in-the-
autoblog-garage-2010...](http://i.autoblog.com/2009/02/16/in-the-autoblog-
garage-2010-ford-fusion-sport/)

------
rangibaby
I am cautiously optimistic that this will NOT be as jarring as the "soap opera
effect" on modern (120/240Hz) TVs -- which for the most part is caused by
hilariously crap interpolation and sharpening filters that TV manufacturers
seem to love these days.

------
erichocean
I've wondered about variable framerates. Higher framerates are very nice when
panning, or during fast motion, but as viewers have noticed, are less "dream-
like" during periods of slow motion.

With the technology that we have, it'd be possible to have 24 fps (or even
lower) during the "slow" scenes, with instant speed up when desired. This
would add one more aspect of the filmmaking experience for filmmakers to
exploit.

------
pgrote
No home video formats support 48fps, though TVs do.

"Both blu-ray and ATSC do not support 48 fps at any resolution. Both do,
however, support 60 fps at 720p."

[http://sayspy.blogspot.com/2011/04/framerates-for-movies-
and...](http://sayspy.blogspot.com/2011/04/framerates-for-movies-and-debacle-
that.html)

Does anyone know if there is newer information or standards planned?

~~~
esonderegger
The folks over in Europe watch their 720p at 50fps, which is awfully close,
but would still require pull-down for material shot at 48fps.

I wouldn't expect any new home video standard formats any time soon. I think
for viewers to see The Hobbit in their home theaters at 48fps, it would
require them releasing the movie as a digital file (still a long way off) and
for there to be both a file wrapper and playback software capable of handling
new frame rates.

------
tantalor
> theaters will need to upgrade the software on their 3D projectors to handle
> 48fps, about $10,000

For a planned software upgrade? Is this some kind of obscene vendor lock-in?

Is that figure per projector or per theater?

~~~
trafficlight
As a general rule, if a product in anyway is meant to be used by Hollywood or
any kind of video production, it's super expensive. Just go browse around B&H
Photo's site for a bit to see what I mean.

------
ramblerman
"Oh no. Not a fan of 48fps. Oh no no no"

Don't know the man, but I'm pretty sure I don't really care for his opinion
now.

------
gwright
I wonder if 3D-48fps is a different experience than 2D-48fps? Perhaps the
effects of 3D and 48fps don't work well together?

~~~
lurkinggrue
Less flicker and should also be brighter. The one aspect of the Hobbit I look
forward to.

------
GB_001
Reminds me of this. <http://xkcd.com/732/> (Hover over the picture.).

