Agree.
Hugo and Life of Pi are the only 3D films I've seen where 3D was relevant.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
- Thread starter rogypro
- Start date
Agree.
Hugo and Life of Pi are the only 3D films I've seen where 3D was relevant.
Yesterday I finally got around to seeing The Hobbit again but this time 24fps 2D (I originally saw 48fps 3D) and (as is probably obvious...) for the first 20 minutes or so the motion blur distracted me so much! I'm not sure if it was because it was faked or more likely simply because my previous memory of the film was such a smooth experience.
Ah-hah! So it wasn't just my imagination.
Finally got around to seeing a Hobbit in 48 frames! Woo!
My thoughts on 48 frames: absolutely hated it.
Took me about an hour to become accustomed to it, and even then I wouldn't classify it as being used to it.
There's been a lot of talk about why people dislike it, and everything everyone has said holds true. For me, the whole thing felt like an old television show. I was distracted by the film-making of it. I could 'see' the set in many of the scenes. I was distracted by the acting and was keenly aware that they were, indeed, acting.
In the beginning, I watched an actor dressed in robes recite a scene with an actor in a scraggly costume, surrounded by other actors.
I'll write more on it when I see it in 2D, but I imagine when I see it in 2D, I'll actually see Gandalf and Thorin, rather than two actors.
My thoughts on the cinematography of the first one are earlier in this thread somewhere, and most of that holds true here. I certainly felt the camera work was perhaps a little more settled, but it was still a bit hit and miss. There were a lot of glowing, clipped highlights that had me thinking 'why didn't you shoot this on film'.
Oh, and one thing that was much more apparent this time was the incredibly ugly skin tones. I think it might have been the combination of RED Epic, 48fps and 3D that made this happen, but my god.. Again, I'd like to see it in 2D to see how it holds up, but there are times when characters skin looks purple or brown.
Now, LOTR has a similar feel to the colour grade, but The Hobbit seems to have pushed this feel to an extreme. LOTR always had nice skin tones, because, well, it was shot on film and you tend to get nice skin tones on film.
Hobbit just feels so digital and clerical. The skin tones, especially, in 48fps 3D were just... bleugh...
Overall, a lot of the the lighting just felt bleugh as well, nice soft lights that would have looked nice elsewhere just felt.. meh.. again I think due to the 3D/HFR. I've seen the Epic produce nice looking images in 2D, and decent skin tones, so I'm hoping it's simply a byproduct of the HFR 3D (really mostly the 3D), and that in 2D it will still look okay. From what I know of how the Epic performs, the way this was lit and shot should produce some nice images. But who knows, it could also be a by-product of the extreme grade and CGI..
Oh, and there's also a couple of GoPro shots thrown into this one for good measure (see if you can pick them... it really isn't hard
) which just completely ruin the experience IMO.
It started me wondering if they ran out of money for their pickups.
The film itself I thoroughly enjoyed, however, despite the hit and miss technical aspects.
My thoughts on 48 frames: absolutely hated it.
Took me about an hour to become accustomed to it, and even then I wouldn't classify it as being used to it.
There's been a lot of talk about why people dislike it, and everything everyone has said holds true. For me, the whole thing felt like an old television show. I was distracted by the film-making of it. I could 'see' the set in many of the scenes. I was distracted by the acting and was keenly aware that they were, indeed, acting.
In the beginning, I watched an actor dressed in robes recite a scene with an actor in a scraggly costume, surrounded by other actors.
I'll write more on it when I see it in 2D, but I imagine when I see it in 2D, I'll actually see Gandalf and Thorin, rather than two actors.
My thoughts on the cinematography of the first one are earlier in this thread somewhere, and most of that holds true here. I certainly felt the camera work was perhaps a little more settled, but it was still a bit hit and miss. There were a lot of glowing, clipped highlights that had me thinking 'why didn't you shoot this on film'.
Oh, and one thing that was much more apparent this time was the incredibly ugly skin tones. I think it might have been the combination of RED Epic, 48fps and 3D that made this happen, but my god.. Again, I'd like to see it in 2D to see how it holds up, but there are times when characters skin looks purple or brown.
Now, LOTR has a similar feel to the colour grade, but The Hobbit seems to have pushed this feel to an extreme. LOTR always had nice skin tones, because, well, it was shot on film and you tend to get nice skin tones on film.
Hobbit just feels so digital and clerical. The skin tones, especially, in 48fps 3D were just... bleugh...
Overall, a lot of the the lighting just felt bleugh as well, nice soft lights that would have looked nice elsewhere just felt.. meh.. again I think due to the 3D/HFR. I've seen the Epic produce nice looking images in 2D, and decent skin tones, so I'm hoping it's simply a byproduct of the HFR 3D (really mostly the 3D), and that in 2D it will still look okay. From what I know of how the Epic performs, the way this was lit and shot should produce some nice images. But who knows, it could also be a by-product of the extreme grade and CGI..
Oh, and there's also a couple of GoPro shots thrown into this one for good measure (see if you can pick them... it really isn't hard
) which just completely ruin the experience IMO.It started me wondering if they ran out of money for their pickups.
The film itself I thoroughly enjoyed, however, despite the hit and miss technical aspects.
Last edited:
Jax, I know you probably won't change your mind after you've seen it again in 2D. But, the first time I saw the HFR in the first Hobbit I had a similar, though not as strong a reaction to it. I didn't think I cared for it. But then I saw it in 24 fps 2D (can't recall for sure if it was 2D or 3D that time). And I missed it. I realized that now that I'd seen it without the motion blur, well, I no longer cared for or wanted the motion blur.
When I saw Hobbit 2 in HFR 3D, I barely even thought about it. I just enjoyed. And it didn't bother me this time around.
I noticed that too about the sickly skin tones. But is the problem necessarily with the Epic? I mean, you have me sold on the Arri Alexa. Maybe they should have used those? Or they could have shot it with film, hallelujah, minus the 3D. Especially Gandolph's look, it really makes me think the same thing you are --he looks sickly a lot of the time.
But, there was some discussion somewhere on I.T. about how they have to do some wild things with the makeup and other things to make it all look right in HFR. Could that be the culprit? They're kind of pioneering this process, I thought. Maybe they haven't gotten a good handle on what it takes to make people look good with it yet?
Sorry to hear it detracted from your experience so.
When I saw Hobbit 2 in HFR 3D, I barely even thought about it. I just enjoyed. And it didn't bother me this time around.
I noticed that too about the sickly skin tones. But is the problem necessarily with the Epic? I mean, you have me sold on the Arri Alexa. Maybe they should have used those? Or they could have shot it with film, hallelujah, minus the 3D. Especially Gandolph's look, it really makes me think the same thing you are --he looks sickly a lot of the time.
But, there was some discussion somewhere on I.T. about how they have to do some wild things with the makeup and other things to make it all look right in HFR. Could that be the culprit? They're kind of pioneering this process, I thought. Maybe they haven't gotten a good handle on what it takes to make people look good with it yet?
Sorry to hear it detracted from your experience so.
I will be interested to see how I feel about the 2D version - indeed it could go either way, though I think (hope) the grandeur of the piece will return; I know I was swept up in the first one, in a similar but different way to the first trilogy, though with the odd distraction of technical things here and there.
I'm sure one could get used to the higher frame rate, but I wonder of it's indeed for the better. I wonder if Jackson and the rest of the crew have a case of tunnel vision - where they believe it's better simply because it's what they're doing.
I have to wonder how much input Lesnie has into the process - as it is very much Jackson that has the relationship with RED, and likely stereogtaphers that had input into how the footage should be captured.
Indeed, I can't imagine anyone other than a Prodcuer trying to save money advocating the use of a GoPro in such a film.
In terms of the look of the thing, I believe the Epic has much to do with the harsh digital feel of it, and the ugly clipped highlights that just look so video..
In terms of the colour and lighting.. The colour is a combination of everything, I believe. For those who don't know, the maximum bitrate available for the DCP spec is ~250Mbps. For 3D, as you have an image per eye, that means the maximum available bitrate per eye is 125Mbps, instantly halving your effective resolution. Most people don't really notice the reduction.
For 48 frames, as you now have double the data, I can only assume your max available bitrate is again diminished.
As well, 3D suffers from diminished brightness, so the option is to either send out a dark image, or push the image further, risking artifacting (there's only so much you can push an image before it starts to break up).
So there's all of that to consider, just for a 3D image. On top of that, their course format already has a smaller dynamic range, worse skin tones than film or Alexa and they're applying incredibly extreme grades to get the look they want.
I've seen the Epic look much better which is why I can only assume it will look much better in 2d.
Personally, I feel shooting 3D Alexa would have given a much nicer image, but then Jackson has the relationship with RED.
Post converted 35mm would also look good, at least from a cinematography standpoint, but there lies the argument of native 3D vs post conversion..
At least then they may have been able to be a bit more creative with the use of 3D (the only major film I've seen that really warrants the use of 3d to begin with is Gravity).
All the decisions they've made are obviously ones they're confident with, but unfortunately shooting everything at once, you can't take it back if you later realize it may not have been the right decision.
In terms of the make-up, I thought they need to add more red, which should have brought the skin tones somewhat into line.
And maybe it has for the 2D...
I also felt the VFX was a bit hit and miss, it seems like they didn't want to waste time on some short sequences..
Perhaps because things have to take a certain amount of time to render, and you've already got four times as many frames to render (48fps 3D) as a 2D film would have.
I have to wonder if I'd have been paying as much attention to the technical stuff to notice all of this had I watched it in 2D and (perhaps) been caught up in the experience
Last edited:
Same here, Seeing it afterwards in 2D I certainly didn't enjoy seeing the motion blur and I noticed it for a significant part of the film, more so actually than noticing the 48fps
Just watched it in Dolby Atmos 2D 
My suspicions were correct. Watching it in 2D was an entirely different experience to watching it in 3D 48fps. I certainly did not miss the HFR at all. I was caught up in the story, rather than distracted by the staging.
To me, 24fps just felt more grand, and epic.
The VFX, overall, seemed better, or at least felt more integrated - like LoTR was. There were still parts that looked 'video gamey' but so much less so than they looked/felt at 3D 48fps.
The skin tones were normal! I knew the Epic could do it. And Legolas' eyes didn't look quite as... strange. I was just happy to have the skins back to a normal colour, and less breakup of the picture.
The highlights blew out once or twice still, but it didn't seem as bad as it was at 3D HFR, assumedly because they had to push the 3D stuff that much extra to get a bright enough image out of it - or perhaps I just noticed it less.
I felt like I was watching a grand adventure, not a bunch of actors act on sets and in computer-generated worlds (mostly).
There were parts here and there where there was pixellation - assumedly due to what I imagine was a 2K DCP. I'd be interested to see it at 4k - some shots looked like they'd been blown up a tad too much to keep the resolution. Also noticed some noise in a couple of the darker shots here and there - I've said it before but the noise that the RED cameras generate has to be some of the ugliest digital noise in existence.
Other than that though, pretty solid. The sweeping shots felt like they should be there, and weren't a distraction, with the exception of the one shot looking over Dale, where the camera keeps adjusting - it looks like either the operator couldn't quite get the shot right, or that was the best the stabilisation software could do.
A couple of focus issues here and there, particularly at the start of the film, but nothing really unforgivable (certainly not even close to the focus issues Les Miserables suffered from).
The GoPro shots look as bad as ever, and IMO detract from the film immensely.
The Dolby Atmos seemed somewhat understated When I saw Ender's Game in Atmos, they seemed to perhaps over-use it, or at least it was obvious that sound was coming from areas that it could never have come from in the past (even to the point where I couldn't hear dialogue properly at times as there was rain right above my head!).
Though perhaps more understated than Ender's Game, The Hobbit was still a great overall sound experience, which I liked - the Atmos didn't really draw any attention, it just sorta sounded 'right'.
Overall, it was like an entirely different film this time around. I'll definitely be doing the 3rd one in 2D.
My suspicions were correct. Watching it in 2D was an entirely different experience to watching it in 3D 48fps. I certainly did not miss the HFR at all. I was caught up in the story, rather than distracted by the staging.
To me, 24fps just felt more grand, and epic.
The VFX, overall, seemed better, or at least felt more integrated - like LoTR was. There were still parts that looked 'video gamey' but so much less so than they looked/felt at 3D 48fps.
The skin tones were normal! I knew the Epic could do it
. And Legolas' eyes didn't look quite as... strange. I was just happy to have the skins back to a normal colour, and less breakup of the picture.The highlights blew out once or twice still, but it didn't seem as bad as it was at 3D HFR, assumedly because they had to push the 3D stuff that much extra to get a bright enough image out of it - or perhaps I just noticed it less.
I felt like I was watching a grand adventure, not a bunch of actors act on sets and in computer-generated worlds (mostly
).There were parts here and there where there was pixellation - assumedly due to what I imagine was a 2K DCP. I'd be interested to see it at 4k - some shots looked like they'd been blown up a tad too much to keep the resolution. Also noticed some noise in a couple of the darker shots here and there - I've said it before but the noise that the RED cameras generate has to be some of the ugliest digital noise in existence
.Other than that though, pretty solid. The sweeping shots felt like they should be there, and weren't a distraction, with the exception of the one shot looking over Dale, where the camera keeps adjusting - it looks like either the operator couldn't quite get the shot right, or that was the best the stabilisation software could do.
A couple of focus issues here and there, particularly at the start of the film, but nothing really unforgivable (certainly not even close to the focus issues Les Miserables suffered from).
The GoPro shots look as bad as ever, and IMO detract from the film immensely.
The Dolby Atmos seemed somewhat understated When I saw Ender's Game in Atmos, they seemed to perhaps over-use it, or at least it was obvious that sound was coming from areas that it could never have come from in the past (even to the point where I couldn't hear dialogue properly at times as there was rain right above my head!).
Though perhaps more understated than Ender's Game, The Hobbit was still a great overall sound experience, which I liked - the Atmos didn't really draw any attention, it just sorta sounded 'right'.
Overall, it was like an entirely different film this time around. I'll definitely be doing the 3rd one in 2D.
I haven't seen either movie in the HFR but part of me thinks that maybe because we are so used to seeing films projected in 24fps that until we have had many years of watching films in 48fps we will see it as inferior? The other thing is it's still early days yet. How many new developments have happened with filmmaking technology over the years that at first seemed inferior but are now staples of film? The change from B&W to colour. The change from vhs to dvd and now to blu-ray. The improvements CG has achieved over the past decade.
Last edited:
I'm not sure that any of these changes were really seen as 'inferior'. Perhaps the advancement of CGI to a point where it has replaced practical effects - but even then many would still argue it is inferior.
Films have been projected at 24fps for decades - I find it difficult to think that we would suddenly have a switch over to 48fps viewing, and simply told to 'endure it' for a few decades until we're used to it. Especially when the benefit only really comes from 3D shooting - something that hasn't necessarily proved itself to be the way of the future yet.
For many, many years, the cinema experience has been trying to find a point of difference to the home theatre experience, to give people a reason to return to the cinema. Certainly, that's why widescreen came about, and I would imagine, a part of the reason technologies like Surround Sound came about, especially Dolby Atmos. Projecting at a frame rate that's traditionally considered a 'cheap television' frame rate seems to be a step in the opposite direction.
You make some excellent points 
I guess only time will really tell how much of an impact HFR has on other filmmakers and it's effect on audiences in decades to come.
Something to think about too is that in the future as things continue to progress further, especially in the realms of high definition, filmmakers in every department are going to have be on top of their game.
I guess only time will really tell how much of an impact HFR has on other filmmakers and it's effect on audiences in decades to come.
Something to think about too is that in the future as things continue to progress further, especially in the realms of high definition, filmmakers in every department are going to have be on top of their game.
When the 5k capture has you seeing every pore in the actor's skin, you're going to get away with a lot less. Focus is going to be either tack sharp or way out (none of this 'kinda focused' that you could get away with on film), sets and make-up are going to have to be perfect, or at least look perfect..
Definitely. What effect do you think this will have on the generations coming through who will be used to extremely high quality movies in terms of their interest in movies of our current era? Do you think they will dismiss films the same way some have dismissed movies made prior to the 2000s?
All of this 48 fps and 5k talk is ridiculous.
You can't undo 100 years of a cinema standard just because the technology will let you.
480 lines of resolution or 10 million lines of resolution won't matter if you story sucks.
Content is king.
Shoot a good story at 24 fps and 2k and you don't need all this other nonsense.
You can't undo 100 years of a cinema standard just because the technology will let you.
480 lines of resolution or 10 million lines of resolution won't matter if you story sucks.
Content is king.
Shoot a good story at 24 fps and 2k and you don't need all this other nonsense.
I agree that story is the key factor. Sadly there are some people out there who do not care about whether a film has a story as long as it looks good and is pleasing to the eye.
For me I am intrigued to see a film projected in a HFR to see how I feel about it because it's one of those things I can't really critique unless it's from first hand experience.
YES.
But also, this will be the last Tolkien film (unless someone decides to adapt the story of Beren and Luthien...I doubt we'll see the Silmarillion as a whole). There's a sort of impending sadness that tempers the excitement.
On the other hand, there's nothing about this that didn't make me happy!
But also, this will be the last Tolkien film (unless someone decides to adapt the story of Beren and Luthien...I doubt we'll see the Silmarillion as a whole). There's a sort of impending sadness that tempers the excitement.
On the other hand, there's nothing about this that didn't make me happy!
