Personal View site logo
48p and 120hz - sometimes more is less
  • 69 Replies sorted by
  • I made nonrepresentative research on simple inexpirienced people.
    They like 60p and frame interpolation (trumotion).
    Btw lack of motion interpolation is used by manufacturers for few years to show clear difference of their low end models. last year it was also 3D, but now 3D is present in entry lines, and interpolation + smarttv functions are now artifically disabled :-)

  • I just watched the Game of Thrones season finale a few weeks ago at someones house that had motion-interpolation turned on. About 8/10 of us were complaining that it looked like it was shot on an iphone. So in my informal research, for narrative content, I've seen WAY more people that hate it.

    I do agree it looks great for sports and "live" content though.

  • Personally, it reminds me of back in the days when I was playing an unnamed first person shooter game several hours a day, when it was a clear benefit to have more FPS and higher HZ..

    For films that are shot with cinema in mind, it can be really unwatchable.

  • MOST THEATERS NOT LIKELY TO RUN THE HOBBIT IN NEW FORMAT

    Studio Briefing August 9, 2012

    Warner Bros. may be so nervous about the mixed reception that The Hobbit received when it was shown to exhibitors in the 48-frame-per-second format last April that it has decided to screen it in only a limited number of theaters at that frame rate when it is released in December. Daily Variety, which cited a source familiar with Warner’s release plans, is reporting that the movie may not even be shown in that format in all major cities. The studio’s concerns were evident last month when a preview real of the movie was shown at San Diego’s Comic-Con at the normal 24 frames per second. At the time director Peter Jackson said during a panel discussion that the best way to experience the 48 FPS format is by watching the entire movie in it, not just a brief reel of excerpts. Apparently the studio plans to test the format slowly with The Hobbit trilogy — a few theaters for the first movie, a few more for the second, and many more for the third.

    http://www.studiobriefing.net/2012/08/most-theaters-not-likely-to-run-the-hobbit-in-new-format/

  • Film/TV - production don't care - if you're hired, you shoot what they want, and then post moan about it lol - day in day out. Deliverables determine your method - and they're decided by a few old blokes smelling of wee in a room in Staines or wherever not by the learned masses (you lot!) Sad but true. Jackson's giving it a go pushing on good luck to him - if it makes money suddenly it's the norm

  • If I watch 24p material for more than about 15 minutes, I start getting a splitting headache - especially with high contrast scenes in a dark environment. With 3D material, I get a headache in about 1 minute. :-(

  • The plasticky look of 120 plus the shiny monitor plus sports is what sells the TV. After a while, it is tiresome. But different ppl react differently.

  • Aside from the fact that "old" tellys look immensely superior to whatever format you cared to throw at em domestically (one still in me kitchen ;p) 24 25 50 60 matters not, as operators, you have no choice - they really don't care/be arsed (unless it's cheaper!) it's all down from here pals - and no-ones dropping their rates! Sound is really at rock bottom - as in not gone up for 15 years even tho they're trying to get editors to mix ( a la "Only Way Is Essex" in the UK - at Evolutions that my online chum "mixes" but actually does a legal job lol) Offliners may start the audio scoff now but next is PA's cutting their own shit (which the BBC did years ago in radio) the end is shit - possibly not nigh AVID's next push is PT and Media Composer as same prog - with AAX plugs they're pushing for sub quality audio mixed in suite - hey ho !

  • The proof of the 48fps pudding will be in the eating.

    As the article in Studio Briefing says, the film The Hobbit will indeed be screened in 48fps in a limited number of theatres.

    Next, it becomes a bums-on-seats situation as to who else wants to go with it. Never saw a cinema that didn't try to make money.

    It's a calculation: to show 48fps you have to invest in new gear. The first 48fps showings weren't so encouraging.

    Sometimes a film makes still make its money whatever format it's in. Sometimes a new technology's so good everybody wants it. Often, though, we stick with what works like Betamax/VHS. We miss out on one incremental technological advance, only to leapfrog it with the next - as in why change over to 48fps projectors when there's a rumour about 96 fps on the way?

    Starting out small seems to me to be a normal idea.

    "When 2001 - a Space Odyssey came out, it didn't play well. ...Some theatre owner called and said to MGM, 'Hey, before you pull this movie, there's something happening here.'...."

  • As a a mixer who's sat in the "locked" dub of the final print of xyz film and every other position between, trust me until you've made a "film" film you'll never believe the madness until its finally popping onto the Optical (or whatever next weeks format is!) it's really pub inspiring! (but fun) it's mental - but part of the job. One of the things you do learn is your "place" - politics - seen directors of some stature destroyed in the mix by the studio - crazy but hey job - so essentially you and your chosen mate could edit it for 9 months then Arnie fufkin (will!) could turn up and change it entirely - hey and he's boss - it's mad first time around and "of course" 20th lol

    Original 2001 is one of my faves for last minute North was fooked as he essentially listened to not his score - and Zarathustra popped in - must say Anvil studios got fucked by it but still genius

    Anvils tape is still at shAbby Road if you want me to try and blag it lol we could have a 2001 off ;p

    TBH it's like 96k 24 bit audio - acquisition is just that - even 24 bit (music yes makes sense ) is irrelevant in TV with R128 and my fellow mixers 16 bit 48k still - if people are moaning about bit rates - actually spend some money on a location sound man ! Production wont - still after years of expensive post they still won't. Go to meetings pre filming - book a sound.....sound sooo much better ! Sadly I also think this is a byproduct of fast track production/directing - shit sound kills great camerawork - well recorded sound (easy) saves shit camerawork - dialogue dialogue dialogue - learn to buy the cos 11 rubber grommets (soundmans secret0 scratchless radio every day and don't piss the talent off - I'm rambling pissed - should start a course lol ;p soz night! = (Written asva a 5 year pole swinger on film location and mixer - it's easy!)

  • Does anybody know what shutter speed/angle was used on the hobbit?

    I can't stand the motion interpolation on 120hz TV's. If I take my GH2 and record in 24p with 1/25 shutter it will look terrible, like video. 24p at 1/50 looks as it should.

    Record in 60p at 1/60 and it looks like video. But if I record in 60p at 1/125 it looks OK, not the same as 24p but it doesn't look like the old Dr. Who episodes.

    Actually for a while on Dr. Who the interiors looked terrible and the exteriors looked fine. Might have been using a slower shutter speed inside to get enough light on the sensor.

    If The Hobbit was shot at 48p with a 1/96 shutter then they would have required twice the amount of light that a normal 24p shoot would require. Since The Hobbit was shot in 3D I'm guessing they were going for a deeper DOF which means they couldn't just shoot at a lower F-stop.

  • I really wonder how a true first time movie-goer will think of it...just like those who were able to watch Star Wars from Episode One FIRST...it's a whole new experience.

  • I came to Personal-view looking for a 48 fps hack... still searching / looking thru the site.

    In the meantime, as regards this hfr gripe thread, here's 3 views on the matter by Wired, Movieline and one by Ted Schilowitz of RED: • movieline.com/2012/12/11/hobbit-joe-letteri-48-fps-3d/ • wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-movie-review-48-fps/ • 3dfocus.co.uk/3d-news-2/3d-film/be-open-minded-says-schilowitz-from-red-about-hfr-3d/11469

  • My personal take after seeing The Hobbit in 3D HFS (48fps):

    The initial 15 minutes was really jarring (Note that I'm not a fan of 120/240hz TV tech). Movement seems strangely sped up; lighting, sets, costumes and make up tend to look more contrived/fake.... but you get used to the 48fps look after a while-to a certain extent. Ultimately I couldn't fully accept the look as cinematic, but I think there are good things and bad things about 48fps tech.

    Overall, I thought the 3D CGI action sequences were some of the most exciting and mesmerizing images I've ever seen on the big screen. It didn't quite feel cinematic, not quite real, but definitely other-worldly and intriguing. During those action sequences I didn't feel like I was escaping into a fantasy or dream world, but more like I was on a really cool ride at Disneyland (where you're very much aware that what's happening is fake, but your feelings and sensations about it are real).

    Dialogue sequences were a lot more difficult to believe. The whole time I was trying to tell myself to think of it more as live theater than a movie, and accept the new aesthetic of 48p... but in theater you can accept the limitations of an actor on stage, with basic sets and staged lighting, and just get into the story... but with movies, up until now, viewers haven't really been asked to accept these limitations... I don't think I could quite let go the feeling that Gandalf is no longer Gandalf. He's Ian McKellen in costume and fake beard, standing on a set with meticulously beautiful and contrived lighting. Ditto for all the actors and dialogue sequences.

    Will it get better? Is it just me? Will we all adjust? I don't know... but whatever the future brings, I hope there will always be a place for production and viewing in 24p.

  • @jpbturbo "With the Hobbit Jackson shot at 1/64th of a second on a 270 degree shutter to split the difference if you will and get a bit more motion blur (and light.)" - http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/19/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-hfr-fails-and-a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/

  • For what it is worth, the 48fps The Hobbit is the first 3D film I have not received a headache from, and keep in mind it is 3 hours long. I saw The Hobbit in 3D 24fps first, then in 2D 24fps next, and just yesterday I saw it at an official approved HFR theater from The Hobbit's list of theaters. At the first two viewings (both 24fps flavors of the film), I found it to be unforgivably terrible and campy. There were parts of action sequences that turned into indiscernible, blurry mush. The lighting looked contrived, the rocks were clearly styrofoam, and the music was laying on the cheese thick.

    When I saw it at 48fps on a high quality screen yesterday, the experience was drastically different. The styrofoam was still there, and the bad lighting. The story and dialogue were still bad. But the cinematic aesthetic was greatly improved. Formerly indistinguishable mush was now clearly visible. (SPOILER ALERT) the first two times I watched the film, I couldn't even figure out what Azog the goblin had going on around his waist. It looked like bloody bare flesh or a waist of dark scar tissue. When I saw it in HFR 3D, I realized that it was just a leather girdle thingy. This is just one example.

    3D from here on out really ought to be in 48fps (or even higher). It just makes sense, unlike 24fps' obvious stutter. I noticed that 48fps still isn't fast enough for the big screen. It still breaks up into visible frames at certain fast movements, and when this does happen, things appear to be ramped up or "fast-forwarded" because our eyes are accustomed to slower 24fps stutter.

    The only thing that has made me sick is the heinous and unnecessary tampering with the original story.

  • @sam_stickland thanks for the link.