The Hobbit shooting in 48p on RED cameras

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Plakiotis

In regards to the 24fps vs 48fps argument:
Form antiquity is known that light flickering (ie camp fire) would induce a hypnotic or trance state to mind making the person more docile*1. Therefore, since film and TV*2 is also a medium where still images alternate at high rate and are seen continuous because of the persistence of vision effect, it may induce the same hypnotic effect and make its content more believable.

*1 such technics along with repetitive sound effects were used extensively during religious initiations or ceremonies.
*2 how many people want to watch TV before bedtime in order to fall asleep.

I'm not sure of the science behind any of that - have you got any solid references? It seems equally likely that flickering light and such as beating drums may have the effect of heightening tension and doing anything but instilling a trance - I'm thinking of a mob stirred up even more by the flickering light of burning buildings! And what about going into battle? The beating of drums was hardly intended to make the troops more docile?

I do know someone who will regularly fall asleep watching TV - but reading a book has exactly the same effect!

I've also been reminded that in the US, 24fps material gets shown via TV with 3:2 pulldown - which is not the case in 50Hz countries, or, indeed in the cinema in the 60Hz world. Their point was that to those not accustomed to it (ie people coming from the 50Hz world) the 3:2 pulldown of 24fps does NOT look desirable - rather more that "something is wrong". To anyone who's grown up with it, it's obviously a different matter. The logic therefore follows that for framerate matters it's far more down to conditioning, not anything hard wired into human consciousness? Does this not mean there are two "24fps looks" in the 60Hz world - one via TV, one via film projection?

As far as the specifics go, then regarding the Hobbit trailer itself, I've only seen it online but it did seem to be shot with quite a high key, high contrast look? I wonder if some people don't like that, and are bundling it all in together with the framerate issue for general impression?

I just look forward to seeing for myself. For the future, I suspect it's for better 3D compatability that 48fps production will rapidly increase - whatever version gets then derived for 2D.

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

The sync'd sequences were shot at 24 fps, as compared to the 16, 18, or 20 fps undercrank that we associate with silent films.

The NOMINAL speed for silent films was 16fps - but it seems it was normal to OVERCRANK by a significant amount (18-22fps typically), and for the projectionist to adjust speed so that movement looked correct. The best explanation I've heard is that payment was by the reel, and a higher framerate meant less effort had to be put in to filming to fill the reel - it lasted less time at 22fps than 16!

We now tend to think of them as being undercranked owing to subsequent showing on fixed speed 24fps projectors - it's not how they were seen at the time.

[Robert Sanders]

IMHO, 2D narrative and animation looks and feels best at 24 (plus all the technical reasons why: easiest path to PAL, 3:2 pulldown). However, 3D narrative and animation looks and feels better at higher frame rates.

I currently turn off "motion flow" on panasonic plasma when I watch 2D material. I turn it on when I watch 3D. The 3D "feels" so much better at higher frame rates to me.

Again. Just my opinion.

[Matt Sturns]

i don't know all the technicalities, but after seeing all of the press on "48gate" i decided to take a look at the trailer. I know the trailer is in 24P (or i've read this), but it definitely looks very "videoy" and too bright. Definitely does not look "filmy" at all (whatever that may mean). Besides the video look, did anyone notice the mattes? They are horrible. I can see all of the edges whenever they are greenscreening and adding a fake or digital matte (they even appear jagged or jaggy at the edges, although maybe this is due to compression?). It looks horrible. You can see the lines in the mattes it looks very fake. It completely looks like oldschool greenscreen where you can tell the actors are obviously not there. I don't know if this has to do with the 48fps or the sheer quality of the "film" but it looks horrible and completely breaks the 4th wall and takes me out of the film. If they cannot make the mattes more realistic and blend them with live action I can say for myself I have absolutely no desire to see this movie. Everything looks fake... really fake and not sci-fi fake. It is hard enough to suspend reality with all of the digital effects and characters, but with the bad matte jobs, it is completely unwatchable to me.

Also on a side note is it me or do the title screens look like 3D circa 1984? Very old school 3D. On an old school Indiana Jones cheesy 3D map? Almost like the crappy Motion templates. I am not saying I could produce anything like this, but for a budget in the hundreds of millions I feel it looks very amateur, very crisp, very high quality, great actors (the real ones) but very amateur. If they can't up the believability of the digital artifacts, they've lost my ticket sale.

[Glen Vandermolen]

I watched the trailer. Looked fine to me. Makes me want to see this movie, and I'm not a big Hobbit fan.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Matt Sturns

I know the trailer is in 24P (or i've read this), but it definitely looks very "videoy" and too bright. Definitely does not look "filmy" at all (whatever that may mean). Besides the video look, did anyone notice the mattes? They are horrible. I can see all of the edges

This is what I meant by ".......regarding the Hobbit trailer itself, I've only seen it online but it did seem to be shot with quite a high key, high contrast look?" Online, I'm sure I'm not seeing it at 48fps, but the flaws I perceive are nothing to do with that - it's the same on a still frame! I'm inclined to think the whole 48fps debate is a bit of a red herring........

Tend to agree with Matt, ignore the video aspects, still frames just look "wrong" - unbelievable - nothing to do with framerate.

[Matt Sturns]

Agreed David. I watched the trailer again and completely agree with you. Very bright. I can't tell you exactly for certain why it does not look like film, but I will say that I feel that the art direction is completely off-whack when you think about the context of this film. I don't know much about these films (sorry not a fan of fantasy especially digital fantasy) but I am guessing and it feels like it takes place in an old mystic land, yet the image is bright and crisp with super-sharp edges? Shouldn't it be more mute, dingy and organic? I just think as far as art direction they have it all wrong and at this point who really cares about the 24 / 48 question. If you want to transport someone to a faraway land the feeling of the visuals should evoke this. Bright, cheerful and crisp makes it too current. Perfect for Love Story 2, but completely the wrong "texture" for a fantasy film taking place in a faraway mystical land. Soooo not impressed. It is the perfect look for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, where the sets are kinda supposed to look fake, cartoony, childish, but is not fitting for this film. Too bright, too crisp, too detailed. Sets, makeup and costumes look very, very fake.

Also I've attached some low-res screenshots of the trailer on YouTube. Is it me or does this look like the worst greenscreen job you have ever seen. He clearly does not look like he is even there, not even close. How am I supposed to suspend my disbelief what the film looks as 2 different elements. There are lines all around his body disconnecting him form the background. And a super fake looking hair-light causing the outer perimeter of his hat to glow that much? What is the light source? A dark cloudy sky? Did they not see this in post? Very cheesy. In fact All of the greenscreen shots look very bad to me. Might be because of YT quality not sure. Again sorry for nit-picking but the overall look of this film is very amateur. May be a great as as a made for TV movie, but with the technologies he has in his arsenal and the astronomical budgets, it feels as though these films are beginning to digress instead of progress.

[Gary Nattrass]

Shame we can't see the actor's face in those shots Matt but I suppose these new fangled camera's don't need any light so you don't need a DOP! ;0)

[Ron Evans]

I agree with Glen, looked fine to me. If the critics have the same comments as some of you guys it will be a great success !!! Remember on a PC it will not be 24p or 48P and may well have been made a little brighter for the internet anyway. If the trailer is intended to be watched on a smart phone or tablet it needs to be brighter than it may be in the cinema and the details you see zooming into a still frame are not of importance.

Ron Evans

[Robert Sanders]

** delete **

[Jim Giberti]

Robert, if you don't agree with other people's opinions, it's really better to make your point without posts filled with insults and dripping with sarcasm.

In this particular case, frame rates directly and exactly create the issue that so many very experienced pros on this forum and in the film world are discussing.

If you don't have the experience to understand why this is the case, there are plenty of well written explanations about the process - none of which will demean or insult you while reading them, I assure you.

[Robert Sanders]

** DELETE **

Never mind. If having a contrarian opinion is insulting and demeaning to you and you somehow took it personally, I apologize.

[David Heath]

It's not what people on this forum feel that's relevant - more so is that there is unease by many significant figures within the industry, which can't be simply dismissed. The debate about the trailer started at a CinemaCon screening in Las Vegas - 'Hobbit' preview divides CinemaCon auds - Entertainment News, Film News, Media - Variety

"Variety" reports :

".....it takes away that warm feeling of film," said one owner of a midsized, Western-states exhib chain. "It looked to me like a behind-the-scenes featurette."

and

The realism gave CG characters a distinct presence, but human actors seemed overlit and amplified in a way that many compared to modern sports broadcasts (as high as 60 fps in HD) and daytime television.

I agree with the basis of much the criticism - but am less inclined to put it down to framerate. I see what is implied by "overlit and amplified" on still frame grabs, and low res ones at that.

I'm assuming that at CinemaCon, the screenings that caused the negative comments were done on equipment that's about as good as it gets? So can't be put down to the for web versions that the rest of us are seeing?

[Murray Christian]

Originally Posted by Matt Sturns

Also I've attached some low-res screenshots of the trailer on YouTube. Is it me or does this look like the worst greenscreen job you have ever seen. He clearly does not look like he is even there, not even close. How am I supposed to suspend my disbelief what the film looks as 2 different elements. There are lines all around his body disconnecting him form the background. And a super fake looking hair-light causing the outer perimeter of his hat to glow that much? What is the light source? A dark cloudy sky? Did they not see this in post? Very cheesy. In fact All of the greenscreen shots look very bad to me. Might be because of YT quality not sure. Again sorry for nit-picking but the overall look of this film is very amateur. May be a great as as a made for TV movie, but with the technologies he has in his arsenal and the astronomical budgets, it feels as though these films are beginning to digress instead of progress.

Definitely not the worst greenscreen job I have ever seen. Not even the worst greenscreen job in the series. Your dark, cloudy sky is bright behind him too, I note. Wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this was shot on a set, knowing Jackson's work.
I've seen the sky throw an edge on someone that looked like they were cut out before. This seems relatively mild and unlikely to do a lot of harm to the viewing experience. The Hobbit is a much more story-book affair than The Lord of the Rings. I suspect that explains certain things about its look (although I do think the apparent clean-ness and the digital presentation might be a bit much all at once)

[Paul Hatcher]

I agree with Robert's sentiment. Peter Jackson clearly states he has not graded the footage to a finished state. He didn't finish the post production and grading of the last movie until 24 hours before it was due to be delivered. A hashed together trailer produced whilst they are still filming shouldn't be judged as a finished product, I see it as the Hobbit v0.5 beta...

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Paul Hatcher

Peter Jackson clearly states he has not graded the footage to a finished state.

He may have clearly stated it - it was not clearly reported. Most of the emphasis by far has been placed on the 24-48fps issue, with many reports mentioning nothing else in terms of a different "look". It is worth looking here - Peter Jackson Responds to 'Hobbit' Footage Critics, Explains 48-Frames Strategy - The Hollywood Reporter - which is more thorough than previous reports I'd seen, and backs up what Paul says.

Jackson also explained the footage presented at Cinemacon would look different once it goes through the post-production process.

Because production is not scheduled to wrap until July, the customary postproduction that affects the overall look of a film has not yet been done, so the clips were unfinished. They were not yet color corrected, nor had the visual effects been completed. (In various scenes the actors were shown performing in front of a greenscreen.)

It's hardly surprising that such as Matt and myself (let alone many at CinemaCon) may find it "bright, cheerful and crisp" - it's because it's not been graded! If it did look perfectly OK it would mean a lot of colourists may as well go home now....... :-)

I'm sure the Hobbit footage will look fine come final release - even if it doesn't now. It's unfortunate that showing ungraded material should have unjustly given the 48fps issue bad publicity.