The Hobbit: An Unexpected Masterclass in Why HFR fails, and a reaffirmation of what makes cinema magical

This is fascinating, thanks!

I’m seeing the HFR 3D version (my first time seeing the film) on Thursday. Even though what you’re saying confirms my fears, the tickets are booked and I really do have to experience it for myself. It’s important as a filmmaker to really see which side of the debate I’m on

So without injecting my personal opinion into this before checking out the film, I’m now setting aside another $11 for a 2D screening of this later as well 🙂

“Persistence of Vision Theory” is a myth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision

The film was shot at 270º (1/64 at 48fps)
http://www.fxguide.com/featured/the-hobbit-weta/

Great reading!
Thank you.

@Vincent Laforet, Only one screen at the Sherman Oaks ArcLight has Atmos. That’s where I saw it. Some neat sound effects, but I’m not sure if its a real Atmos mix or if they just added a few Atmos flourishes to a regular 5.1 mix.

Fantastic analysis Vincent! I think this confirms that “cinema” is largely the gaps we fill in our mind, and is therefore active and engaging, and this new “entertainment” is for the passive, “here we are now entertain us” crowd.

@Vincent Laforet, I’ve pasted a link below too the Atmos page. It’s a 64 channel audio setup for incredibly immersive audio. I saw it with Pixar’s Brave this summer but I’m farther away from a theater now, so I didn’t see the Hobbit on Atmos. I’d highly recommend making the trip to experience it if there is a theater within driving distance, if you can tolerate another HFR 3D viewing, that is.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer/technology/movie/dolby-atmos-details.html

Great analysis. What I am wondering though is where 2D HFR would be placed in your ranking order – if cinemas would show this version.

Well, I have to vehemently disagree. I am continually annoyed and frustrated by the stutter and flicker that is usually visible in movies, particularly in 3D but also in 2D.

This film got rid of that problem. I agree that some of the effects that might work with lower resolution or perhaps slower framerates may need work for HFR, but I don’t think it’s even vaguely valid to say that it’s HFR causing the problem – it’s just that the techniques required to work with it in a convincing manner haven’t been fully developed yet.

3D I could take or leave – there will be some movies for which it is suited, and others which it would ruin. The strain from your eyes hunting as you try to focus on the areas which are not within the focused field will probably always be there (although I noticed it far less as the film progressed, perhaps because of the type of shots used changing through the film? – the “follows” early on were particularly strain-inducing).

But HFR – more please, in 2D as well as 3D.

Dude, I tried, but I couldn’t finish reading this.
I highly recommend getting to the point faster.
I like your views from what I did read however.

Vincent,

I’m glad you enjoyed the film and connected with the actors in 2D. More or less all of the criticism is pointing to the HFR which then leaves people with a negative feeling to the story.

I watched the film in 2D and thoroughly enjoyed every moment, it kept in line with the book and more importantly returned me to middle earth where I spent a lot of my child hood imagining to be. I’ll be seeing it again next Thursday in 2D.

A really great analysis Vincent!

Wow. I’m actually an audio guy and I find it interesting about your statement “5. I can honestly say I had a harder time hearing some of the dialogue in the 3D HFR version than in the 2D…”

There’s an awful lot of subtle psychological effects at play here. Namely the ability for the brain to process each of the faculties and recreate a cohesive memory in the mind. If what you’re saying is true then yes the strain caused on having to put conscious effort into absorbing the visuals can detract from another faculty and thus put even more strain on your brain.

I very HIGHLY agree with you in regards to the art form (in any medium) being about what IS NOT shown. Also coming from a music/audio person, good music writers and composers know what NOT to say or play to create the emotional connection.

I’ve not even really been a fan of “regular” 3d, and I don’t think I’ll see this movie in HFR (or any other for that matter). the few films I have seen, I’ve only really enjoyed the 3d in the last 2 Harry Potter movies. They were tastefully executed and the amount of “depth” was kept to a minimum, for the most part the only times I noticed them were when it still felt subtle enough not to detract from the narrative or story but to invoke a sense or feeling that accompanied what was happening with the story. In Deathly Hallows pt1 the scene where they’re in the beach house or whatever it is, the feeling of it being inside a snowglobe or something to that effect helped sell the emotional coldness of the scene as they were just escaping and losing Dobby in the process.

That being said, there’s a reason 24 fps has been the standard for as long as it has. and like you mentioned, it is that art form: cinema; moving pictures. it gives you just enough for the art to convey what needs to be conveyed and allows you the viewer enough for your mind to process and recreate in your head. It’s not the story on the screen that people take home with them and talk about to all their friends and gain an emotional connection with. It’s the memory recreated in their minds. The illusion of motion in just the right way allows the mind to fill in the rest and transport oneself with enough personal freedom, that apparently HFR3D simply cannot allow.

BTW, videogame industry has been learning from the Film industry; more and more games have been incorporating DOF blur to help with vision assistance (in first person shooters when you use sights or scopes on a weapon DOF blur is used or faked (sometimes just vignetting) to help aid the player in visual acuity.

Other games have used it during narratives to try to achieve the same type of cinematic experience during “cutscenes”

About the ‘looks like a state run tv show’ bit: back in the 80s I noticed american-recorded tv versus dutch-recorded (childrens) tv seemed to have a different color saturation when shown on dutch tv. Up to the point where it was visible within seconds even without sound or subtitles active, with american tv shows seeming more red/orange. This only seems to be truly gone now HDtv is becoming the norm. I guess it was an artefact of american choices combined with NTSC – PAL conversion.

So I can understand that remark. Maybe you saw it the other way around with imported TV being less color-saturated.

@Vincent Laforet, haha I had to reply just so I could – the equivalent of facebook’s: LIKE button.

Excellent post, though I disagree with a lot of it. It is jarring, and I was always aware of it, but for me, it was the first time ever I actually felt like CG characters were in the space, as opposed to being on top of the image. Even the best CG always feels a little like that to me. So, even those it still looked fake, it felt there. Maybe thats just me…

I also felt like I could pick up on micro reactions; more subtly in the performance than I’ve ever seen. The way I’ve been describing it to friends is it seems like I’m watching a play performed just for me. I dunno, I think it really depends on the person, and it didn’t bother me at all.

I do want to see it this way a few more times to see what I think afterwards.

I do wonder though, if you would have seen it in REAL D, if that would have made a difference. I love the Arclight, but they have active shutter 3D glasses, which I despise to no end. They cut way more light than passive glasses, to me.

I also can’t stand 3D in 24…it hurts my eyes most of the time and I end up with a headache. I experienced none of that at 48.

For this, I picked up a pair of the Oakley 3D GASCANS, which even the trailers before the movie, projected @ 24, looked and felt MUCH better than if I use the standard freebies. I wish I had bought them sooner, to be honest.

I completely agree that 24 isn’t going anywhere. I feel like this will just be another tool. I would actually love to see a martial arts action film, perhaps shot like the old shaw bros. films in this format (minus the zooms, of course…don’t think that would work very well.)

A lot of this has to do with our perception. If a person is used to seeing a movie a certain way, it will take a while to get used to something different. Critics are in love with “the classical film look” and aren’t really open minded to new technology. I saw the movie two times in HFR and it was a geat experience. I still don’t understand what the critics saw. It took me about 10 minutes and then I was in the film, never once being taken out by the crispness of it all. The 24fps in my third viewing looked terrible to me and it was much harder to stay involved. I kept thinking, I saw this looking much better. But that is my perception, of course, and the way my brain puts the film together. It will be different for everybody.

New technology has always been a part of movie making. From sound to color to widescreen to multichannel sound and finally to digital acquisition and distribution. There are DoPs/Directors that love film and other already love digital. Some are more into Dogma95 style, while others use 3D and extensive VFX. There is no single “this is the right way of doing it”. Like with all technology, some people will hate it on principle. Some new tech will stay and be used, some will fade away again. 3D or HFR is not for everything, but yet another choice available to the creatives.

I am personally looking forward to more true 48fps movies. A reason to go out to the Movies again and not wait for the BluRay.

P.S. A lot of the “Soap Opera” or “HDTV” look is due to the TV’s digital interpolation of additional frames to a 24fps source. And depending on the settings and the perception of the viewer, this can actually look quite awful. But calculated frames will always look different than shot frames.

The debate will never end, of couse. 🙂

The thing is you didn’t really compare apples with apples as much, if you had seen the 2D HFR vs the 2D LFR then I would have been able to understand. I mostly say this because I still don’t like the false realism of 3D at any time. I am a big supporter of higher frame rates because I have seen what 150Hz can do.

well, the film sucks, either way. it has no story, no plot. zero. nothing. just a bunch of guys walking an hitting other guys. nothing relevant happens.

Excellent post. Best one I’ve read so far from an industry insider.

I got my projection scheduled for the 2nd of jan, imax 3D, but 24fps and I was thinking to find another day for the HFR projection just because I’m as curious to see what it is really about.

I do think to that most of us are used to the 2D cinematic image and find the HFR a completely new experience. Won’t surprise me that if this technology sticks around – especially for animation – nowadays kids will be the ones who’ll come to think that HFR it’s the most natural experience after all, (can’t remember where I read it) the “ideal” framerate for the human eye is around 60fps.

If anything, this kind of new technology will seriously make cinema rethink and reinvent itself, to amend all the shortcomings of the Hobbit.

But then again, I do agree that what makes a film “a film” is the narrative story and whichever visual device makes it great.

I agree about the look of the HFR 3D. I saw it Fri night, and immediately after the movie said that I wanted to see it in 2D because I thought the original LOTR trilogy looked better. The darker scenes (at night, and in the goblin caverns) worked better since the lighting wasn’t as ‘harsh’, but it still detracted from the movie for me.

I saw them in the other direction: 3D RealD-3D (24 fps) and then IMAX HFR-3D.

And honestly, most of what you’ve described can be attributed to seeing the moving the second time, rather than to the change in framerates. I found the first time through (RealD-3D) to be a bit stilted, and I didn’t really immerse myself. The second time through was better.

I’m not denying that you can see things on the 48fps version that you can’t in the 24, or that it can ruin immersion, but you should think carefully about how much of your experience was driven by having seen the films in the *order* you saw them. Knowing approximately how the scenes are set up let you focus on the characters. I noticed a *lot* more about Bilbo and Martin Freeman’s amazing acting the second time through, because I could focus on him, not on the scene as a whole.

@Vincent Laforet,
Treebeard: “You must understand, young Hobbit, it takes a long time to say anything in Old Entish. And we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say.”

I’ve only seen the film in 2D, so I can’t comment on what it’s actually like to watch. What reading this has made me think though, is that this was probably a necessary step to working out what is the right direction for cinema to go in.

As computer games and the like, all push for this next level of realsim, which way will cinema go. I can see films like Transformers, going the HFR route, trying to wow everybody with their fancy graphics and ultra realism but lacking in the story department. I feel maybe the hobbit is a necessary step, in helping film makers work out where to go next.

Yet maybe this is all part of Peter Jacksons plan, as he has effectively gotten thousands of people who aren’t middle earth fanatics to buy at least two tickets for the film (for research purposes).

You may have a point about motion blur adding to immersion.
However, you draw the wrong conclusion from that.

Imagine going to a movie on a new very high resolution screen, and everything, simply everything, was in complete focus, creating a jarring experience. That’s not a failure of the technology, or even saying that technology is useless, just that the creative opportunities of depth of field and defocusing weren’t harnessed in that film. Similarly, this movie missed some of the creative opportunities of adding motion blur where appropriate.

In short, high fps is an immature area creatively, and it provide both benefits and pitfalls. It will take a while before people figure out how to take advantage of it while avoiding potential pitfalls.

@Ralph Barbagallo, it was real Atmos. I saw it at the SO ArcLight too, and we had a Dolby Engineer give the talk in front of the show. Apparently, our theatre had around 60 speakers.

I saw the 3D HFR over the weekend (my detailed thoughts are here: http://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2012/12/16/the-hobbit-an-expected-review/). But some summaries:

1. I suspect over time we will get more used to the effect. I’ve had a 240hz TV for 6 months now and it has gone a long way toward reconditioning me. As a video game creator, amateur photographer, and lifelong technologist, I’m very sensitive to the nuances of displays. Still, I haven’t gotten totally used to the “look” induced by the lack of flicker and motion blur.

2. The Hobbit had the least annoying 3D I’ve yet seen, in that it was bright and possible for me to examine areas of the image very clearly. I have very good eyes (20/10) and I generally hate the slightly dim and murky look of most 3D system.

3. While everything did look amazingly sharp on the image, the net effect is ironically to make it look “more fake” (which is what you’re really talking about). For example, the orcs/globlins looked much “faker” than in LOTR, even though we can assume the costumes/CGI have actually improved. Now we can see all the flaws. Fundamentally, this is probably a bit of “it’s best left to the imagination.” Often the thing left offscreen is the most frightening.

Thanks for the detailed post!

Great article! I totally agree, having come from shooting DV tape in high school at 30-60fps I came to realize the same conclusion you had in the article. These “limitations” are actually benefits, and is probably why where still chasing to have that film look and feel, when back then they thought the difficulty of film was a limitation. Very interesting.

Great commentary but you need a summary somewhere obvious.

You had me with you until the comment about Canadian, British, and Chinese TV, and then you lost me, or should I say lost yourself. I don’t know when the last time you watched a BBC series, but at their worst they run all over the best of the garbagle spun out by the popamerican cultural machine. Chinese I don’t know about, but the Canadians have put out some fine productions, mostly the ones done in Vancouver in the 80s and 90s. As many of the current said American pop gargage is actually made in Canada, using the equipment available there, one wonders exactly where the information about the equpiment being use comes from. I find comments like this conceited and ill-informed.

Good points in the post, but just wanted to point out that The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was actually finished in 4K ( http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/4k-di-on-the-girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo ).

Great article! I find the high frame rate features of newer tvs very annoying, at least for movies….I see no need for a TV to interpolate frames that didn’t exist in the original. I know some people who love it and some who hate it, but I suspect a that a large number of people who see this movie in HFR will not like it but will probably not know why or cite some other reason like the lighting. I can shoot 2 identical videos on my DSLR at different frame rates and the 24FPS version is almost always the one average people like better…though they usually cite the reason as lighting or something else.

First off, I’d like to thank you for writing this great article. It’s probably the most comprehensive take I’ve seen on Hobbit’s 3DHFR, which is shocking since stories about it are everywhere. Kudos to you.

However, the one thing I’d like to mention that you might want to think about — 3DHFR makes the film much more like traditional theater. Making everything so “real” is exactly how theater works, since the costumes/props/people are actually real. For Hobbit, you go into a movie theater, but it feels like you’re basically watching a play through a window. That’s the “lack of movie magic” you speak of.

Anyone that’s written or directed both film and theater knows that it’s much more than the limited space on a stage that makes the difference in how the two mediums are prepared. Both mediums have their pros and cons — but those pros/cons don’t line up. You can’t take a movie script and just change the formatting to make it a play, nor can you just film a play and release it as a feature film.

Hobbit (and 3DHFR in general) is like half-play, half-movie. So it’s a weird hybrid medium that I’m not sure anyone really knows exactly how to tell a story in yet. Mixing the real world intimacy and “see all the flaws” aspects of a play with the over-the-top world building we can do in film has just not been done before.

The closest examples we might see right now are theater peices that add in lots of multimedia elements. They are basically moving into the same “theater/film” hybrid zone from the theater side, while Hobbit is moving into it from the film side.

My thought is that the best way to showcase 3DHFR is to first start by doing movies that are very similiar to plays but also have cinematic elements. I’m not talking about documentaries or found-footage stuff, either. ‘Clerks’ comes to mind. Also ’12 Angry Men’. How about ‘Eyes Wide Shut’?

Now, it won’t always have to be totally grounded in reality, like the examples I give above…but the cinematography in those really help the audiance ease into that “play-movie hybrid” zone that 3DHFR seems to be in.

In time, writers/directors/DPs can learn to account for the differences — but I’m not sure you’ll ever be able to take a film that’s written with 2D/24f in mind and just shoot it in 3D/48f. Much in the same way you can’t just shoot various angles on stage play and edit it together with some SFX to make a great film.

3DHFR is a different (new) medium, and the writer/director/DP collaberation has to pull from both elements, plays and film, throughout the creative process, to develop a storytelling method that works for that medium.

Hi Vincent

How many times have you seen the film in 48fps?

I have seen it twice in HFR. After the first viewing, I would have agreed with almost all of your observations. The experience left wholly unsatisfied, and indeed somewhat dejected. It just wasn’t cinema.

However, my second viewing was a completely different experience! Almost all of the artifacts that bothered and distracted me and detracted from the film went unnoticed. It felt much more like cinema again, rather than like theatre as it often did before. This fundamental shift in my basic perception of the film then allowed me to enjoy, rather than be repulsed by, the additional detail. So much so, in fact, that when I went to see the 2D 24fps version a couple of days later, which I had been so desperate to see after the disappointing first viewing, I actually enjoyed it less than the 2nd HFR viewing (though absolutely more than my first viewing of the HFR version!!). (I saw the midnight opening in HFR and had already committed to a second HFR screening with friend the following Saturday, or I would not have seen it in HFR again before 24fps, if ever!)

There appears to be some really fascinating eye-brain-mind recalibration going on here, and I would honestly urge everyone who only saw the HFR version once to give it another shot. I was never able to lose myself in the film the first time, despite my ardent efforts to ignore the distractions. The moment the film started second time around, however, I sensed immediately that something was different, and as it got rolling I was genuinely astounded (and overjoyed!!) by what I was seeing. Yes, it still looks different, but it felt like cinema – beautiful, crystal clear, verdant and vibrant cinema.

I’ll end on this. When HD first hit TV, it was (at least in my experience) through the documentary series Planet Earth. It was so astoundingly beautiful that we ended up hosting weekly parties just to watch these episodes, which were truly without precedent for TV nature documentaries. Yes, of course the footage itself was astonishing, but there is no denying the impact that HD had on the viewing experience in those early days. Yet when shows like The Colbert Report turned to HD my reaction was the absolute opposite – it looked awful; amateurish; soap operaish. I literally could not believe that people would sign off on something that looked so terrible. After just a few episodes, however, I was utterly oblivious to all the negative elements that at first I literally could not avoid seeing.

Our sensitivity to changes in visual presentation is very high… but seemingly not for very long. And before we know it we have integrated these new visions into our existing mental images. My feeling for film was not reset by HFR. It was overwhelmed by HFR the first time round, but by the next viewing my brain was already integrating (NOT overwriting) this new stimulus into my preexisting conceptions of film.

This is a fascinating experiment to personally participate in, and I expect the results will differ from individual to individual. People who play video games are regularly exposed to higher frame rates. People who do not watch much film or TV are less exposed to traditional frame rates. It all depends what brain we come into this with, and how much time we let it spend receiving this new type of visual stimulus.

I plan to see it in HFR a third time in the coming days to see what else has changed.

@Vincent Laforet,

Thank you thank you thank you! I’ve been saying that ever since I first heard about the HFR. I cannot watch 3D and had read enough on 48fps to decide that it would not be something I’d ever want to see. As it was, as a huge fan of the movies and books, I truly hated that CGI seemed to make up more of the movie than “reality” did – it made what should have been a great story into video game. I had no feeling of wonder when The Hobbit ended that I had with the other 3 movies and I fault the technology.

@Vincent Laforet, the arclight in la jolla had the ATMOS. It’s like 158 seperate channels/ speakers. Really amazing to hera. cant wait for a good Sci Fi to go the ATMOS route. I believe only like 5 movies so far have been released (including Hobbit). By the way…perfect reflection on the movie and technology.

Thank you very much for your in-depth article. It was very interesting and informative to read as I am a young filmmaker myself. I actually agree on the point, that it draws you out of the story. Sometimes I enjoyed the 3D HFR (but I’m not quite sure if that’s thanks to the 3D or the HFR as I’ve only seen it HFR & 3D) and sometimes it drew me out. I found that especially when only little was happening and the scene was about showing enviroments (the eagle flight at the end for example) that you were drawn out because it looked too real. My mind then went like “This looks so real… Oh so I’m still just sitting in a theatre” you know that kind of thing where it’s controversial: The shot feels real while it lasts but as soon as the angle changes, you get pulled out again.

I must also say, I had the problem with the emotional connection too and I certainly will watch the film again in 2D and 24 fps.

One of the best filmmakers, in my opinion, is Christopher Nolan (who made films like Memento, Inception or the Batman films) and he is one who says, he believes in Film (35mm and IMAX) and of course 2D. I think he’s right there because I think that Film is still better than digital format. In film, you really have that movie magic and it feels more real than digital format. That’s because there is a kind of flickering because of the material which gets lost on digital cameras. I understand, why most filmmakers shoot digital of course because it’s cheaper and easier to edit but still. I think the old methods (and ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ unintentionally approves this) are still to be used more in filmmaking. But still: The Hobbit was a great film and I’m really looking forward to the next TWO! 😀

Thank you for your article and best regards
Nicolas from Switzerland

PS: Here’s my second trailer to my recent film project if you’re intersted in supporting a young filmmaker (I’m 17) Thank you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7pXYqdm7rI

I think hyper-real motion (or stills for that matter) has a place in sports, journalism, virtual telepresence and perhaps some documentaries.
But not for theatrical story telling.

I have to say that I had none of the negative feelings you had towards the film after I watched it in HFR 3D. Overall I found it to be a good film if slightly overlong. Reading your article does make wonder if I would have liked it even better in other formats.

I do find that in general I have the opposite experience as you do and find myself more immersed in the experience when watching a 3D film over 2D. It could be that I watch fewer films overall in the theatre, and therefore have much less of a bias? What did you think of Avatar in 2D vs. 3D? 3D was the far superior experience to me.

It does make me want to experiment with seeing this film in multiple formats, as my instinct was I liked the HFR overall and found it to be an improvement over other live action 3D films I have seen.

Although I do like your reference to a stage, as I think you are on to something there. It felt much more like watching theater than a movie.

I mostly enjoyed seeing the movie in 3D HFR, its true that at the beginning i had a hard time trying to adjust to the motion, but it took me like 10 minutes or so, i think for interior scenes or where there is to much dialog it can be rather dull, but action scenes and enviroments i think they looked stunning, and a movie like this benefits from this kind of projection, 3D HFR is a perfect fit for epic, fantasy movies…I still cant get out of my mind the scene with bilbo and the three trolls in the mountain, to me, they looked very real, the most believeable CG i have seen in…well, my whole life.

I wouldn´t necessarily watch a too heavy dramatic movie with this format cause it will be like watching a soap opera the whole time giving the feel that it gives sometimes.

On the other hand i think many people just went to experience this movie with the notion that it would be very bad in HFR, they did not let themselves enjoy the ride somehow, scrutinizing every detail from the start is not a good way to sit in front of the screen and hope to enjoy a movie.

I went with my parents, who are in their 60s. They had not only never seen HFR before, but had never seen a 3D movie since the days of red and blue glasses.

Neither of them noticed the high frame rate. Their attention was far more focused on the 3D, or perhaps they conflated the two. My dad claimed that it was the most realistic film that he had ever seen, and meant it as a compliment.

In contrast, my wife and I were totally weirded out by it… at first. By the time the dwarves had left Bilbo’s house, we were no longer distracted by the HFR. But I will admit, my enjoyment of the film picked up immensely at the point that I managed to no longer notice the frame rate.

I would posit that distaste for HFR correlates not with age, but with experience. Someone like yourself has probably invested more time, energy, and attention into film in the past year than I will in a lifetime. As a result, you’ve bitten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It’s not just that you Know. It’s that you can no longer Not Know.

At the end of the day, any artistic technique, in any medium, is only effective if it can communicate with its audience. This technique failed to communicate to you, but it has clearly done so with others. The fault does not lie with you, nor with the technique, because there is no fault. That means that HFR is not a good thing, or a bad thing. I think it’s just a thing.

@Vincent Laforet, Thanks! I’m glad to see I’m not out in the cold on that opinion.

Again, I think we could have “big-budget” 3DHFR films, but they’ll have to be shot a certain way to feel right.

In the mean time, I do hope someone is willing to put together a more (and I dread using this term here) “indie” style film done in 3DHFR. Shoot a vast majority of t he film at, or just above, eye-level…simulate the “theater view”. Be very mindful of camera movements and their impact to the frame.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I’m reminded of older filmmaking techniques. Before more modern cameras and equipment made more complex movements possible. Back in Citizen Kane’s days, DPs and Directors were forced to spend a lot of time/effort on movement within the frame and blocking. This was because they couldn’t just whip the camera around — there was no such thing as a steadicam, and cranes/dollies were massive endevours.

Imagine those even older flicks, like Metropolis, Citizen Kane, or City Lights. Because those films where done in the middle of the theater-to-film transition…I have a feeling those would actually transfer quite well in 3DHFR, at least better than a modern-day action/fantasy film would.

And since a digital conversion just woudn’t be the same as shooting it, I feel like we’ll have to have a filmmaker really approach a 3DHFR film in the same way those filmmakers did (it was new for them, too) before we’ll see it really shine.

I personally don’t agree with this review at all
I loved every second of it in HFR 3D. I don’t think every film should be like this but I loved it for The Hobbit, it give it a more lighthearted childish tone that mirrors the book. the film itself was also fantastic. I have my nit-picks of course but I could have sat there and watched the next 6 hours easily.
Just my opinion obviously but I though I’d voice it.

Thank you, sir for your in-depth technical review. I’ve worked in the industry for many years and admit my skepticism when I first heard about the HFR exposition. I even got a bit stirred when the opening logo treatments looked a bit disco. But, I was one of the people that was immediately drawn in by the “immersion” meant for the film – and I am in the 30+ demo. Some prefer progress, some prefer legacy. Some focus too much on tech and don’t ALLOW themselves to feel the story – this goes for the filmmakers as well. I am a believer in 24p but am definitely excited about what the future holds for this industry. Again, thank you.

Mr. Laforet, everything you said is exactly what I felt and experienced when viewing the film at 48fps. The film just didn’t feel right…

Two parts of your article stuck out especially:

“I knew I was in trouble the moment I saw the MGM logo move even before the first frame of the film was ever projected.”

I felt the same way. I was (kind of) overcome with fear, thinking “What have I got myself into?” I considered running out, just like you said you did.

“In fact just yesterday afternoon a VFX friend of mine said, verbatim: “Motion blur is extremely important to what I do… that’s how I hide all of my mistakes and make VFX/CGI look more real.”

I completely agree with your friend’s opinion. When I do visual effects, I use motion blur as another tool in my arsenal to create a convincing shot. When I was watching The Hobbit, I wondered why the VFX looked off. The textures and modelling were great, but the motion blur was missing, and the believability of the CGI characters’ motion went out the window.

I completely agree 100%, but I’ve been thinking a lot about the issues with the 3D in HFR lately, and I just wanted to bring up the point that a large increase in 3D artifacts are likely coming from the limitations of the projection system.

In most of the commercial theaters, the 3D projection will be using the triple flash system, where the image for each eye is flashed three times alternately (LRLRLR). Because of the increased frame rate, the current projectors are not only able to flash once per eye (LR). I’m wondering if the brain is having issues knowing if frame N in the left eye is supposed to match frame N or N+1 in the right, and hence maybe it has to do extra work to fuse the images on each frame. Perhaps that’s why it was difficult to look at any one thing for two long? I’d be interested to see the HFR 3D on a dual projector system to see if some of those problems go away.

Cool review. i did not realize it was released in three formats 2d 3d 3dHDR

i think i saw it in 3dHDR. this was at a legit IMAX in dearborn michigan.

it was awful. when you talked about people missing jokes and not having reactions i almost fell out of my chair. i was the only one laughing at some points the theater was so quiet!

of note. it seems kind of ridiculous but those 3d glasses they force you to wear still have the same problem of creating this effect that you are looking through a key hole.

it was breathtakingly massive when i took my glasses off and watched plain picture. 2D HFR at the imax would have been a new gold standard if you ask me.

Preach it, brother!

Waiting for the horror at seeing it in HFR 3D to fade so I might have a chance to appreciate the film in 2D.

Only other thing I want to add is that the experience *I* had was similar to watching the Star Wars Holiday Special, even as a fanatic 10-year old when it premiered. (I’m only discussing the visuals, not the ‘story’). Even to my young, unsophisticated eyes, the Holiday Special, which was shot on video, looked WRONG. Everything about it screamed WRONG. It made something epic look fake and cheap, even though I’m sure they were using the exact same costumes and props as the movies for the most part. As has now become legend, the animated Boba Fett cartoon in the middle of the show was infinitely more engaging and believable than the live-action stuff. Anyway, the contrast from LOTR to Hobbit felt the exact same way. Knowing what this world was supposed to look like in epic film mode made me consciously AND subconsciously know something was dreadfully WRONG.

Looking forward to seeing it again in stone-age viewing mode.

Peter Jackson is a legend

But HFR is appalling. It looks like its shot on a £100 digital camcorder. I walked out after an hour because it was ruining the film.

I’m not going to be able to read all the comments here because I don’t have time, so maybe my opinion has been expressed already. That said, I appreciate your post and I appreciate your level of technical knowledge, but I’m shocked at your utter lack of respect (or apparent understanding) of technological innovation within the medium.

You end your article saying you don’t have any interest in HFR or 3D HFR ever as a medium and that we should stay with 2D 24 fps or at least just 24 fps. You also explain quite clearly why you feel this way. You also assert a strong degree of technical knowledge and experience, and I respect that.

But your comment not only highlights your ignorance of ever major technical innovation in the history of motion pictures but a near histrionic reaction to your very first taste of a new technology.

All new technologies in film making have gone through an evolution. None, I repeat, NONE of the major innovations we take for granted today started out at the nadir of their craft. From sound to color to wide-screen to steadycam to 3D to digital (and every other minor innovation in-between), one bold individual (usually backed by a studio) takes a major step forward. And that individual both opens the door into a new realm and falls on their face, because audiences are both excited by innovation and repulsed by change. And because these new technologies often have many bugs to work out before they are accepted and perfected, the first steps are even more painful.

So I guess I say thank you for your input, but you do everyone a disservice by being so close-minded. 24 fps is what you’ve seen your entire life. Is not by any means perfect (even though you contend it is, it is not), it is simply what you’re used to. Once HFR is perfected (and eventually one way or another it will be), it will address all of your myriad issues. But to simply say that you’re unwilling to even consider it smacks of the most painfully close-minded and boarish opinion I can imagine. And as someone clearly versed in the technology and aware of its limitations as well as its potential, it’s frankly massively disappointing to see such intolerance to change.

Also sir, your examples are painfully ignorant of modern standard. Many video games these days take lighting, frame rate, depth-of-field, and editing quite seriously. Also, for the most part the television on the BBC is some of the best being made right now. Their budgets aren’t as extravagant as their American counterparts, but they show a keen eye for presentation. And I’m not sure what football games you’ve seen, but I typically watch mine on a very large HD plasma screen and they look absolutely gorgeously cinematic.

I very much understand your take on the HFR innovation and at some points, as a filmmaker, agree with what it did and didn’t enhance with the art of story telling and character building. I have a question though that might be worth discussing.
Your critique was based on the fact that nowadays generations, who are accustomed to the normal 24fps movie experience, would find all of the mentioned points very valid. What would it be like for someone who was born already into an HFR movies world and know nothing other than this to base their opinion on.
All I mean is that we can make such arguments because we have a base for comparison and maybe if HFR becomes the standardized norm of movie making and it does really evolve into such technologies all of the mentioned problems won’t be much valid anymore. Think of it as reading a negative critic dated from the 30s and 40s bashing the introduction of sound or color to movies which are now very much invalid.
I’d like to know what you think of that.

Hi Vincent, I’m a huge fan of your work, but I think your love and study of the 24fps aesthetic may play a part in your current rejection of HFR. A massive part of your career for the past few years has been bringing the 24fps, shallow DOF look to DSLRs, and that aesthetic must be burned into your brain at this point. But thank you for the interesting blog post and discussion!

@Vincent Laforet, Wow. So much for being an early adopter. I think I’ll go ahead and check it out in 2D24.

Or…Maybe the 3d48 format will become the new Star Gate (a la Kubrick’s 2001) and chemically altered fans will show up under the influence, just to sit thru the augmented reality.

Totally with you Vince. I’ve seen the full film twice, once as PJ intended: 3D+HFR and once plain vanilla: 2D 24 and vastly preferred the latter. I’m 100% aware that’s there is massive cultural conditioning going on that makes us prefer 24, but even keeping that in mind it just didn’t work for me.

It was much less shocking watching the HFR about 1 hour in, my system adjusted as well as it could and there were times I *almost* forgot about the HFR. That being said, never once did I completely forget in 3d HFR that I was watching a MOVIE. and that’s the ENTIRE point of the entire system that is modern Hollywood continuity editing and production: to make you forget you’re watching a film and become identified with the protagonists on screen.

With the Hobbit, this is more important be size in fantasy the most defining element is that IT’S NOT REAL! Using HFR 3d to make Middle Earth “more immersive and realistic” is the problem in a nutshell.

When I go to a movie, I want to enter that world, not for that work to enter this one. Life is plenty realistic and already ultra hi def 3d.

And as I posted on my blog, I’d be willing to bet (totally in scientifically and based on my gut, I have no research) that in terms of mental process, 24 is in fact a bit magical – just smooth enough, but still using some passive brain power to fill in the gaps. Keeping the brain busy/active at a low level like that ironically allows for the perfect passive viewing experience.

With the HFR on the other hand, there’s literally twice as much data coming into your eye at any moment. My brain didn’t have to do as much work, and I literally found myself “thinking” more in the drama scenes, and just bored and overwhelmed in the action scenes.

And that’s coming from someone that loves and plays video games. In that medium it’s great, they are an active/hot media. Cinema is not. It’s cool and passive. 3D HFR tries to confuse the two and just doesn’t work IMHO.

As Pixar and Disney figured out sometimes more realistic things are harder for us to emotionally attach ourselves to. In the end, I don’t want my middle earth “too” real.

As a fellow kiwi, I’m not yet sure whether to take cover in a nearby Hobbit hole, or feel a swell of pride in Mr Jackson’s achievement. I have not yet seen the movie and suspect I will be paying double now too. What I do know is that light, and motion, and eyes have not changed in a little while.

@Vincent Laforet, The Dolby Atmos surround sound is 128 audio tracks being sent out through 64 different speakers placed around the theatre for an almost 360 feel.

At Masters in Motion I had the opportunity to speak with Erik Aadahl about Dolby Atmos and if he has had any experience in mastering sound for Atmos. His description is about as accurate as can be put, “hemispheric.”

Most notable moment in the movie that really sold Atmos for me was in the cave while the Dwarves were snoring. There was a really loud one that made me want to turn around and punch the fool that was sleeping during the movie only to find that it was from the movie.

I don’t think this is a fair assessment of the technology. You wan’t to know what it detracted from immersion? It’s new technology. You can’t help but judge it. You won’t know what the real benefit is until you no longer pay attention the novelty of the new technology, and just watch the film.

The first 3d movie I ever watched, all I did was analyse the 3D elements. This is very similar.

Thank you for this article. Your experience describes EXACTLY what I was thinking/feeling during the course of the HFR viewing: frustration, anger and disbelief (that it could be so bad, so distracting, so painful to the eyes).

It was the single worst movie experience I’ve had. Thankfully, I’d seen the film the night before and KNEW I’d loved it. But were it not for friends whose opinions I didn’t yet know, I’d have walked out and gotten a refund. Horrible, horrible experiment that I will not be made a subject of again.

Have to wonder if folks making a transition from the nickelodeon to the ‘silver screen’ found it got in the way of their experience.

One thing I have noticed generally, is that with the additional complications that come with new technological innovations, people tend to resist it at first, because they feel it makes their expertise on the subject irrelevant.

I’m not saying this is the case with you, as you are very experienced, but I feel this is where much of the critical hatred for HFR 3D is coming from.

I saw the movie in HFR 3D so that I would be able to form an educated opinion. I went in expecting to hate it as so many film critics did (because I very much like the “film” look of 24 fps, and even had a slight resistance to the digital era), but found that while there were merits to their complaints, it made for an incredible experience.

Much of the show looked like a stage play, and that didn’t bother me. Film always looks fake, this is just a different kind of fake. But when I found myself momentarily questioning who was on set “playing” Azog, I realized how seamlessly the HFR 3D presentation presented the computer generated imagery.

Where I was once distracted by ultra sleek digital lips moving, now that everything looks that slick, it was no longer a distraction.

All films look fake, this is no exception, and it certainly has its problems, and I would suggest that you weren’t concentrating on the story, because you couldn’t help evaluating all of the various problems HFR 3D presented. I was like that for the first five minutes, but my eyes quickly adjusted.

So while I noticed things like Elijah Wood’s five o’clock shadow, certain makeup, and a lot of erraneous detail I would not normally have, I feel it was worth it for the sake of how it blended computer generated imagery.

I do think it is telling though, that my friends who saw it in 2D said the CGI looked terrible, and all my friends who saw it in HFR 3D said the costumes/sets/makeup looked terrible.

The point: I already know that I’m going to a film, and that I will be watching a bunch of actors running around, so I don’t mind the imperfections there as much as I mind feeling like the computer created monsters aren’t there with them.

I’m just so glad Vince that people can see how bad it is i really am. When i i saw it I had a feeling of dread that this was going to be the future of film. I considered leaving early. I think it cheapens the film.

I’m sure I read a while back that James Cameron had developed a technique of filming at 48fps then slowing it down to eliminate blur in 3D but keep the the same visual experience as 24fps? I was a bit confused as to how that would work though.

@Vincent Laforet, And not to be a nitpicker, but I think you meant 1993 for the Amiga. Unless you’re a time traveler…

A very interesting article and a fine read. You are clearly passionate about this issue.

However, I find some parallels between your argument and a quote made by Jack Warner, head of Warner Brothers Studios in 1926: “They fail to take into account the international language of the silent pictures, and the unconscious share of each onlooker in creating the play, the action, the plot, and the imagined dialogue for himself.”

He was criticizing the ‘talkie’ (i.e. a motion picture with sound).

A few decades later in 1946, Daryl Zanuck at 20th Century Fox one upped him with this jewel: “Video won’t be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.”

And there was similar resistance to color movies, home video, IMAX, etc. etc. etc.

I’m not asking you to like HFR. Myself I actually enjoyed the Hobbit in 3D HFR though I did find it a little strange at times. I’m just pointing out that technology moves forward whether we like it or not.

My six year old daughter’s reaction to HFR by the way was “pretty!” To such belongs the future.

Gary McBride

I haven’t seen it yet, so can’t truly judge. But I wonder if it’s a question of what one is used to. We are all raised on 24 frames, and our eye expects it. When I watch films from 40 years ago, I laugh at their ambitious yet primitive special effects. Not that I don’t still love the story, but what one’s was truly life like and convincing is now less so, because future generations have grown up on a different standard. Perhaps this is a medium that works fine, once people come to understand it, they will be less resistant to its difference being ‘wrong’ or a’failure’.

Please, Vincent!

*** USE SPOILER ALERTS PLEASE!!! ***

I haven’t read the book in 20 years and now I’ve had to stop reading your article after several mentions of who lopped what off whom. It wasn’t even necessary to convey what you meant. Minor things but who knows what else you might spoil.

Thanks. :\

Maybe Jackson has really just tricked the whole world into seeing the film three times to compare! That way the ticket sales records can be broken yet again! But seriously, fantastic report Vincent, thank you.

Very interesting article!

I remember a critic saying that the HFR made all of the action looks sped up, like old footage of Babe Ruth playing.

I watched in HFR on opening night and then in 3d 24fps the following Monday.

As soon as I saw Bilbo in HFR, walking around his hobbit-hole, I cringed, thinking the critic to be right… until I watched it on Monday in 24fps and – it was just the way he was walking. And on opening night, once Ian Holm was out of the movie, I stopped thinking about 48fps and enjoyed the story.

I’m a youngish person (33), and watching the second time in 24fps, the movie seemed jumpier; more stuttered. I don’t know – maybe it was just psychological. But I’m looking forward to seeing more in 48fps.

What you describe sounds like going to a Copperfield-Show and he is doing all his magic in slowmo and you easily see how it’s done. Magic gone. I found myself to change the framerate of a video we did to 24 FPS for we hated the Video look especially in the quicker movements. After all it could be it’s only that we are grown up and used to Cinema in 24 FPS. I still prefer the style and colour of older movies, for it is not that realistic. It was larger than life. But we probably (have to) get used to it in future.

@Joseph Cucuzza, But you had already seen it. You knew what it was about and dind’t have to folow too close. I think it’s different if you see the HFR Version first.

I, too, found the HFR image too rich in detail. E.g. the visiblity of every single hair in a head shot kept distracting me from the story.

However…

You wrote: “It also felt like there was far too much depth of field… all “appeared” in focus.”

I often felt the opposite, especially later in the 2nd half: Too shallow depth of field (i.e. aperture too wide open) made scenes look like tilt-shift movies, i.e. it had a “macro” appearance. It felt unnatural to me. Odd that you found the opposite to be the case.

I went to see the non IMAX 3D version and found that there was too much blur my eyes got quite tired so I assume that I saw a 24fps print. I’ll look out for a HFR version. I didn’t realise there were so many variants!

Vincent please get a life!!!your moaning like your an old fart who is 65 and always living in the past!!!HFR is the future of cinema so get used to it!!!peoples perception of 3d was exactly the same when avatar came out,critics like you said avatar would bomb…..then it took a mind boggling 3.4 billion worldwide!!!!
And why do you keep compairing it to the LOTR?its a totally different story,you honestly think jackson would use the same technology he used 11 years ago?LMFAO!!!!
Thats like saying cameron using the same technology he used to film true lies for avatar!!!!
critics really are pathetic how they judge a movie on a directors first trilogy efforts.there is a reason the lord of the rings is the most read book on the planet and not the hobbit!!!
LOTR is a hundred times more epic than the hobbit so can you please explain to me why you keep judging it on the rings when its a completley less dark film?
i think you need to go and watch your hero movies the twilight saga!!!

I saw last week in IMAX 3DHFR. I have to agree, the highlights were blown out/ color saturation was odd especially during the daylight scenes. What bugged me most that some of the dolly shots and heli fly-overs looked speeded up. And seeing the old Bilbo walking faster in the first few minutes. That was odd.
But the action scenes / goblin cave / dark tones worked for me. The mind has to adjust to the higher frame rates that`s for sure. Still lot to learn from these suggestions what Jackson received, but I looking forward how Jim Cameron will come over these issues. And don`t forget Jackson has 1 +1 year to polish the 2 upcoming parts in HFR. Going to see it in 2d anyway again.

I agree entirely with you Vincent about the Hobbit.
However, concerning 48 fps, I believe the answer lires in shooting 48 fps at 1/48th of a second, not 1/96, in order to keep a similar film look, with a tad less motion blur.
Modern cameras, including Alexas dont need a mirror, so 180 degrees is not a MUST.
The cinema house is always showing 48 images in any case, wether its each frame shown twice (for 24fps) or each frame shown once (for 48 fps).
The difference will be in a lot less JPG artifacts. And this gain would be more obvious in the lesser formats (4:2:2 at 100Mbs on a FS700 for example)
Just an opinion I havent tried it yet, mind you!
Merry Christmas
Andre

@Vincent Laforet, Hey, great “essay”! Anyways, I just wanted to say that the Dolby Atmos is a 64 channel surround sound system that was also “pioneered” by the Hobbit (me thinks). Very few theaters actually have it installed. I believe it has speakers on every side besides bellow..

@Katrin Bretscher,
I don’t think 3D will ever become ubiquitous, for the simple reason that there are too many people out there who either can’t see 3D, or for whom it gives a headache/causes other problems. It’s not really analogous to the black/white transition to color, because people who are color blind don’t get a headache upon seeing things in color, or have another adverse reaction-they just don’t see the color accurately, and it’s much like what they experience in day-to-day life.

I myself am one of those people who cannot see 3D-at best it’s like watching a 2D movie with crappy visuals, and at worst I see a double image and get a severe headache/nausea (sometimes even if there’s not a double image, I still get a headache). I have never seen (to my knowledge) a movie with HFR, so I have no idea what my reaction to it would be. I have to wonder if there are people out there who would have similar issues with HFR as I do with 3D. Like what Vincent says in his reply, if movies were made exclusively in 3D, I would never go to the movies again.

Though I agree, that some of the issues may stem from filmmakers not being used to the newer format, and not understanding how to best utilize it.

@borat, it has to flash once per eye. 48*3 = 144 flashes, but that is only for 1 eye. For triple flashes in both eyes at 48 fps, it would require 288 flashes.

The technical discussion is relevant and necessary. Studios and cinemas have to keep finding new reasons to draw audiences rather than people waiting for Blu-ray or digital streaming and Jackson’s absolute hatred that anyone should watch his epic films on an iPad. 3D and HFR are simply the latest attempts. Will they work? Maybe, maybe not, only time will tell.

However, does the spectacle overshadow the narrative? Jackson’s continued insulting of the audience’s intelligence by employing narrative cop outs, mostly in an attempt to move the story along in an already long film, is going to really come to a head.

saw the HFR 3D edition. i’ve read all the reports about how it looks “fake” and destroys your “suspension of disbelief”, or that it looks like a bad 70’s soap opera or that the lighting was bad or you could see the makeup and whatnot.

but you know what? i have NO idea what they’re talking about. i’m actually in the SPFX biz (for 25 years now) and make it a point to see every blockbuster movie. And i gotta say, HFR is SO awesome! NOT jarring, NOT fake looking, just pure, smooth, clear, clean motion. i really just don’t see what the critics are talking about.

granted, i’ve had time to get used to it, because a couple years ago i got an HFR TV, a 65″ that uses motion estimation auto-up-sample the frame rate to 120 fps. i admit that when i first got my TV, *everything* looked fake to me. There i said it, so i really DID concur with the feelings of the critics, *at first*.

But then i got used to it, now i don’t notice it at all, and everything just looks *better*. WAY better. HFR is the future, IMHO.

I saw the MGM logo swipe across the screen. In that moment all my fears about the high framerate experience dominated my attention and were being made manifest on the screen before me. This looks like really bad animation, or something. But I’ve seen some terrible production logos, so let’s just see the movie. Wait, what’s wrong with Bilbo? He looks all sped up and this does look like a soap! The lighting is really not working. He starts reading… oh no, three hours of this? Well alright, that shot flying over the city was kinda cool, maybe I can just get wrapped up in the visuals, after all Jackson really leans towards the visual end of the spectrum. But there’s some really bad effects shots here, especially for weta! That glowing stone looks kinda cool down in the mine, though. But these camera moves are super weird… What is up with Frodo and Bilbo, why am I even watching this? It feels like a made-for-tv movie…

And then it happened, Martin Freeman (Bilbo) lit his pipe and Gandalf showed up, and the movie started. I realized there were actors and props and visual effects and cameras, and by realizing that I realized they were all just props for the cinematic experience and the suspension of disbelief was of my own will. So through that awakening I was able to relax: to simply listen to the storytelling, to see the play. Every once in awhile my brain reminded me that this was ‘different’, but it also reminded me that in calling attention to that ‘differentness’ I was missing the differentness itself, so I was able to let it go with more and more ease. This was ultimately clarified when Gandalf says, “You’ve been sitting and thinking for far too long!”

Somewhere between the dwarves initiatory song and flying on the wings of eagles, I went on an unexpected journey and felt the magic, though it really had less to do with a certain framerate as it did an experience. Like Bilbo, I had decided to leave the comfort of the Shire and go on an adventure. I had a dream once where I was flying: it was the most real thing I’ve ever felt, at least in a dream. And by real I mean something much more vast than our observable universe. So it was that when I saw with the vision of the eagles, something inside me understood the magical realism of Middle Earth.

In Walter Ong’s landmark 1982 book, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, he points out the manner in which writing restructures consciousness. The alphabet is a technology that has led us into the abstract realm of hyper-analysis that exists only in the fact that it is completely removed from physical reality – which essentially disconnects us – and our minds – from it. So, I was reading the Hobbit last night – sometimes fast, sometimes slow. I’d say at times I was reading 24 words per minute, other times 48 or maybe even 120 or 12. Whichever speed the information was entering my brain depended mostly on the action of the narrative and the pace of the author’s writing, as well as my immediately individualized interaction with the unchanging text. Now, literature is no longer the dominant form of mass communication. Don’t get me wrong, I read a lot and love to, but the fact is that hundreds of years of electronic advancements have brought us many different experiences of sight and sound which have become the dominant form of information technology in our culture. We are now moving as a post-literate society, or in other words, experiencing secondary orality. The immediacy and immanence of traditional oral storytelling and the abstract reflectiveness of literature have been undergoing constant synthesization alongside digital media advancements. This is already happening, it’s not just theory. It started when writing hit the scene. Plays do not exist without writing, nor do they exist without traditional storytelling performance. By returning to the roots of the theatrical experience, cinema is approaching something at once very old and yet very much it’s own, new thing. The roots of this all is in traditionally spoken (and sung) storytelling of various times and places. The art and craft of story does (and should not) sit secondary to, but rather informs and develops alongside the technological advances that adjust our experience of it. So what we have now is like television, and it is like a play, and it is like a film – but it is only ever like those things. It uses the film (and television) language combined with theatrical language to make a new, and here’s the key word (don’t miss this) – developing – language. The old languages will still be around, just as greek and latin are still preserved, but there is a new one.

I keep hearing this “It just doesn’t look like what I’m used to looking at and calling ‘cinema'”… Now, when I started getting somewhat serious about video editing in high-school, I started talking (or at least listening, through reading) to folks on the internet. Ever since then I’ve been hearing about what’s called ‘film look’. This is where we take a step back for a timely realization. We’re not shooting on film. That kind of video is nothing more than a wanna-be and will never be anything other than artificial nostalgia. I’m not saying don’t do it if that’s what you’re into, I’m saying recognize it for what it is and act accordingly. The future of digital cinema is not in trying to cover itself up, but in being what it always has been.

But there are some still sticking to their guns, saying that ‘filmmaking’ is just as much about what is not shown as what is. And I think they’re absolutely spot on – think yin and yang. But when we start sliding out of balance into the negative viewpoint, so as to say that it is more important to not see, or occlude, we must be way off. After all, light is the essential element to film or digital movie-making, and it is only because we have light that we can understand the darkness. Without light there is only darkness, which is not anything. Now, looking into the darkness can be interesting, as Rothko’s paintings have taught. Likewise, seeing pure light can be interesting, as James Turrell’s installations have taught. However, I believe that the relationship of light and darkness, on a conceptual, metaphysical, and artistic level is essential to the visual art of storytelling. The italian renaissance artists had this word ‘chiaroscuro’ to describe this. [I encourage you to look into these things yourself more deeply, as they are intensely thought-provoking. I can not in words say what this ‘fully’ means, you have to see it (in the artists original form, mind you).] Chiaroscuro, literally, means light-dark. From these terms we get our words for clear and obscure. So just in the language itself we see this idea of revealing things transparently in light and obscuring or covering things in shadow. This balance has defined the manner in which cinematographers tell stories and is a crucial artistic concept for us to ponder.

It is for these reasons that I do not believe shallow-depth of field (or deep focus) and film grain (or noise) and 24 frames per second (or 48) and 2D/2K (or 3D/4K) are essential elements to the so-called ‘magic’ of visual storytelling. Neither are cameras.

As far as this developing format is concerned, we’re still learning what works and what does not. There is still years of experimentation ahead. Some people will like the medium and others will prefer another – that’s fine. It may be that variable framerate is key, it may be something else. Whatever it is, it will change and adapt as we learn the language as a community. Eventually, certain methods will win out, but it is in the relationship of the two that they are defined (kind of like chiaroscuro). I recommend a balanced approach we do not want to Romanticize the past nor blindly charge into the Future, but simply appreciate and accept the complexities and simplicities of the present moment’s movement.

There are many correlations to be observed in audience response. These are not rules or law, just trends that myself and others have been observing. Those that analyzed the technology throughout the entire film did not have a pleasant experience. Those that do not like digital video and/or 3D tend to not like HFR. Those that are open to the idea tend to have at least appreciated the attempt, and many have had an enjoyable experience of the technology, at least by the end of the movie. All of this points to theories of neuroplasticity, “changes in neural pathways and synapses which are due to changes in behavior, environment and neural processes… replac[ing] the formerly-held position that the brain is a physiologically static organ, and explores how – and in which ways – the brain changes throughout life.” While you can sit in front of HFR content for a year without stop and your brain will rewire itself and you will become used to it, but that doesn’t mean you will like it. I’ve never like broccoli, and I’ve never wanted to. Whether we love it or hate it is ultimately defined by consciously and unconsciously held thoughts and beliefs, which aid in the manner in which our brain is constantly re-calibrating. I’m open to other interpretations and other ideas. That’s just what I think all the evidence points to as the main reason we’re having difficulty here. The only alternative I’ve heard is that 24 is a magical number and ‘I like it, because it looks like everything else’. As if that somehow makes it an objective statement. I am not unbiased, neither am I afraid of my opinion or the necessity of that opinion to one day be absolutely wrong. We are afraid of change. We want to stay in our comfortable little holes and read books. Meanwhile, there is a whole world outside waiting for us to go on an adventure. It’s a dangerous road full of death and failure. Then again, so is the Hobbit-Hole. But at the end of the road is something you’ve never seen or experienced ever before.

“And if you do come back, you will not be the same.” -Gandalf

@Vincent Laforet,

There are counter examples to this, like the study done by Dr Sean Olive at Harman.

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-evidence-that-kids-even-japanese.html

This a lot more serious investigation than a posting on Slashdot

Just watched in IMAX 3D HFR!

It was great. But different.

@Vincent Laforet is right, because It never will be like 24fps cinema.

Bud you are wrong because Its not at ANY WAY like TV.

First Sensation: “Hey! My PS3 is on, where’s my controller?”!

Well, games usually goes at 60fps.

TV is 30fps 1/60
Cinema is 24fps 1/48
HFR is 48fps and 1/64 (as posted by Juan)
Games goes 60fps and 1/60

The good thing is, with digital projectors, the cinematographer chooses the best look for the movie. Some may work well at 24fps. Others at 48fps.

The avengers, for me, world be interesting in 48fps.

I have to point out that the question habit is critical here. You left it out completely in your analysis. Not only the habit of the viewer (we all perceive 50fps material as cheap and TV-show-home-video). But habits of the DP, cameraman, director and editor. You yourself said that camera movements, framing and editing really worked in 2D but failed in HFR. It’s not a difficult conclusion to make – the people who shot this shot 24fps all their life.

@Vincent Laforet,
Aren’t you confusing Dragon Tattoo with The Social Network, which was indeed finished at 2K?
I’ve read plenty of times that The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was released as 4K DCP, including a site of Sony listing 4K releases!

Was the 24 fps version filtered to add motion blur? If not, I find it difficult to believe that a film shot at 48 fps and decimated to 24 fps would look any better than the full rate version; it would likely be more distracting. You mentioned such filtering technology exists, but can you say whether it was applied in this case? If not, your argument that the 24 fps version was better completely falls on its face.

Apologies if you mentioned this and I missed it.

@Vincent Laforet, In cordial disagreement with Mr Avalon, I would have to say thank you for such a detailed analysis, and in a blog no less. Breaking down each of the points has not only helped me in determining which version to see (first), but also in determining how I will approach production of my own film at the beginning of next year.

Yep,

Heard the same arugment when we were all using 12 in monitors. People said in droves “you don’t need anything bigger, it’s too big to read, there are too many dots”, the list of excuses went on.
I suspect this HFR will take off – and in a few years time, it will only be the “flat earthers” that reject it.

@David M. Cotter, I would echo your feelings. I have used PC Media Players that upsample the framecount in real time, and it took 2-3 movies to adjust, and if I spend a few weeks only watching 24 material it takes a short amount of time to adjust again. But once you are used to it, it is harder going back to 24 than it was going up to 48. Once you watch 48 and get into it, 24 just seems jittery and void of information, and it’s harder for me to watch by comparison. To me it seems that 24 and 48 fps material seems to process somewhat differently, when watching 24 fps you almost get the sense that you are watching individual frames (the contrast especially apparent when going from 48 to 24), whilst 48fps seems more like actual “reality” (which is logical).

The software I use also allows 60fps, so if I need to quickly get into it, I’ll just start at 60fps, and after a few minutes go down to 48, which makes 48 seem “slower” by comparison.

It’s all about getting used to it. I am seeing the Hobbit 3D HFR later today, so I am lazily watching segments of Gladiator and Titanic in higher framerates, to adjust my brain to this being the default.

LMFAO!!seriously all this utter bulls,t just coz jackson decided to shoot it at 48fps.
If he had used the same technology he used 11 years ago it would look utter abysmal!!!!
Technology is meant to move forward, all the pathetic critics bashing it saying we want 24fps are over 50 year old morons who are stuck living in the past!!!
When Avatar was released the same old farts moaned that we do not need 3d and it will bomb…………it takes 3.4 billion and the same critics who bashed it are now silent after is amazing success.
Have you ever actually thought that the reason the table scene takes so long is that jackson wanted it to be like this so the viewer could get used to HFR and then when bilbo goes on his adventure your eyes will be used to it and will enjoy it more?
And why do they keep compairing it to the LOTR? everyone on the planet knows the LOTR was a hundred times better book than the hobbit.LOTR had more and better characters to enjoy,the hobbit does not,LOTR had 3 massive battles,the hobbit only has 1 the battle of five armies.golum was in all 3 of the LOTR he is only in an unexpected journey.
so again please explain to me why moron critics expected the hobbit to be better,darker and more enjoyable then LOTR from the above points?
To be fair jackson should have done the hobbit first back in 2001,then the LOTR.

I watched it in only 2D because of how I value the story and wanted to be immersed in the tale rather than the technology and filmscapes. I’ve experienced other films and the tech, although wonderful, pulled me out of the story. So I opted for my first, purest view, to be in 2d. I agree with some of the comments. I think as we callous to the technology. This will impact the audience less. Similar to how a def person getting their hearing all the sudden cannot cope because their brain doesn’t have the filtration of irrelevant noise yet built into a subconscious process. That takes time. I think this movie experience for us is similar.

Excellent article. As someone who can’t handle watching movies with “Tru-Motion” on and by the way you wrote the article, I am in full agreement with everything you said.

I am a total tech-head who loves all new technologies, but when it comes to film, I don’t want to watch a cheap-looking soap opera that I . Like you said, it takes away all the magic from the film and leaves you feeling like you are watching a film being made, and not the actual final cinematic product. Way too distracting and I can’t imagine myself getting used to it any time soon.

I really hope it doesn’t “catch on”, so to speak.

@Heidi, oh thank you 🙂 glad you made it through!

Great piece, thank you for explaining why I switch OFF the 100Hz feature on my HD TV, it makes everything look so “real” that I feel like I’m watching a High School play.

Another triumph of science over sensibilities – just because we can do it, doesn’t mean we should.

Vincent,

I disagreed with your opinion until I read at the end that young people are generally more receptive to HFR. I’m 25 and immensely loved the imagery. But I totally agree that it exposes a little too much of the filmmaking techniques. And I remain optimistic at this point that filmmakers will further push the envelope to hide these exposes as well.

To illustrate, in the beginning smaug sequence, the dragon looked like a paper kite to me, and the fire like confetti. It was very confusing and I was shocked but gradually the clarity pulled me in.

I have a question for since you spoke at length about photography and all that technical stuff that flew above me. What do you think IMAX HFR would be like? Or HFR on a normal screen without 3d? Would that be marginally better. I am a 3d detractor myself with exceptions such as ‘Life of Pi’ or ‘Avatar’.

@Stuart Muller, your comment about videogame-players is interesting. I have always loved the crisp, clear, hyper-realistic feel of videogame animation (like some of Final Fantasy’s better moments), and have wondered why some games look richer than real life or animated cinema. I went to go see the hobbit in the high frame rate(twice) and absolutely adored the rich textures, colours, and depth. I wonder if it has something to do with my high exposure to video games (even if I have not played for over a year due to a hand injury). it would be interesting to poll movie-goers of roughly the same age (say 20-30) and compare reactions of those who played video games regularly with those who do not. my suspicion is that this HFR debate hinges on what people are used to, and it may take more than one or two or even three viewings to become comfortable with the new format. Think of it this way: when you get a new pair of glasses that are properly adjusted for your vision, the first day or two is disorienting. Everything is so sharp it hurts your brain. And then you realize – wait, this is the way I’m supposed to see.

As an addendum: I have found sitting closer to the back makes 3-D viewing far more comfortable, and I think it has a lot to do with how much I notice my 3D glasses. If the screen is so big/close that it encroaches on the frames of the glasses, it can be very distracting.

Epic article Vincent.

Saw 3D HFR and I too felt there was trouble ahead the moment the WB logo popped in moving at 2x warp speed. It didnt help that the introduction felt like it was moving even faster due to the quick pans and flyovers and fast cutting. The scene in the Dwarven market square seemed like a reality show shot on location in Disneyland rather than a fantasy-setting Dwarf village in a motion picture.

The CG battle with the orcs, however, eventhough I agree it felt like a cutscene from Gears of War or World of Warcraft, this worked for me! the combination of CG and live action made the CG more ferocious, more real! (at least to me). This could also be that we’ve gotten accustomed to viewing video games in fast frame rates, and the 48fps worked really well for that imo.

So whenever there was CG+live action, it felt ‘right’ – the same thing with only CG elements in the shot, like the orc boss Azog the Defiler barking orders – I could see the details of the animation, making the intensity of the CG elements have an actual strong emotional impact, something that I almost never got before with CG. However, the moment the scene went back to only live action, it went back to jarring and ‘fake’ – once again NOT fantasy at all… just uncomfortable to watch.

There were a few inserts in the Radagast forest where the editor decided to cut to handheld footage out of the blue (inserts of Bilbo) and THAT just looked horrifically bad, like almost they went from the Epic to behind-the-scenes DSLR footage.

There was also a nervous tension in the audience that you could feel, no laughter and barely a few chuckles, it was like everyone was waiting to somehow get accustomed to the HFR and let the story take us in, but that never happened.

I hear Avatar 2 might be 60fps. If they stick to nothing but CG, this will actually work really well for the movie, imo, without having seen a shred of footage. The moment its just humans in the shot and no CG characters it will look like a VHS era wedding video where someone’s firehosing their camera around on the Avatar set.

Conclusion: HFR is great for heavy CG work. Bad for live action, and bad for fantasy.

If technology is suppose to give us new tools all the time, like digital, HD, 3D and HFR, then I think the time has also come to show us why there’s a need to be freed from a LOCKED frame rate. Why cant we, in the near future, experiment with implementing, all in the same timeline and projection display 24-30fps for pure live action, 60 for CG, and 48 when both elements are on screen?

Wow i’m glad I saw HFR, it was amazing -> no one was laughing in your cinema because they were all in awe. I absolutely DETEST high framerate movies on TV, bluray etc. And I was thinking it might be just like that, the ‘soap box’ effect or whatever is real and it really blows on TV’s…but 48fps 3d cinema..wow, giving your eyes the full 24 each…it’s how 3d was supposed to be..it’s breathtaking….and you owe it to yourself to see it, and it will be embraced. it’s truly an amazing adventure.

You just have to see it enough to get used to it, then you will learn to love it. It is like having blurred vision all your life and now suddenly you can see like an eagle. I felt totally immersed in the film. If I wanted to let my eye wander from the subject there was rich detail to see, just as in real life. You are too quick to judge so harshly. You have to let go of the old and get used to a new way of experiencing film. You are obviously an expert on cinematography but you seem to be using technical rationalization to hold on to the old.

I guess there are different people out there with different perception. Same story, same criticism again. Do you remember the first movie in 3D? Right, same objections, but people adopt and now many like watching 3D movies, some still not and never will.

Personally I enjoyed watching the 48fps movie. I felt like I was there, I noticed immediately the extra frames and extra information. I felt no side effects, maybe because I’m still (relatively) young. Maybe when I grow old I’ll start to complain about 48fps movies, then for 3D, few years later for 2D and at the end, I guess, I’ll start complaining about not seeing well at all 🙂

There is a different point of view – we are not the same, some of as are “visual” type and we are gifted with more visual sense, more power to process visual stuff. Others are better in processing voice information. Many are good in reading – fetching effectively information typed on of plain paper.

For visual type, that extra information doesn’t hold up and you still have resources to analyze the characters and be inside in the movie.

I saw the HFR 3D version of “The Hobbit” today and loved it. Unlike the reaction in the review, I found the clarity breathtaking and the 3D the best of any film I’ve seen. A friend went with me after she had seen the IMAX standard 3D version. She preferred the HFR version and said they were two different movies.

I think you know more about the technical aspects of this subject than I’ll ever know, but seeing one movie in the 3D HFR just gives you one point of reference. Sure, you can compare it to the other formats, but who knows what might be different in each of those … as you pointed out.

It’s funny that the things being said about each new technology are strangely similar. Some say the get more from reading a book. Others like to hear the book read. Radio was once the cat’s meow for story-telling. Some thought “talkies” were just a fad.

I will need the perspective of time to actually know what I really think. I’ll need to see a half dozen or so films in HFR before I can really form an opinion. Was it the HFR or the story-telling style?

I think the story, the writing, is weaker in The Hobbit. For me it’s too action based, not character based and not as strong a plot. I feel that the “good guys” get away more by luck than by wit or pluck.

Gandalf is not as wise, or as patient, which is good because he’s younger. It’s just that he yells, “You fools!” too many times. It seemed like a failure of the writer’s imagination.

I guess I miss Sam. … good old stalwart Sam was my favorite character in the LOR trilogy.

So I was not destracted from the story by the HFR and I’m 64 years old. I would like to see the 2D version in HFR. I don’t find that the 3D adds much improvement in enjoying the story.

I totally agree with your assessment of the HFR 3-D. If it is to continue and become a popular and pervasive format then there is a learning curve that has to happen in every department. Even Ian Holmes acting, so not perfect in the LOTR trilogy looked a little stilted when so much detail was available to be seen.

I did not have the emotional disconnection that you experienced, but that is a totally understandable reaction. Seeing as I thoroughly enjoyed it in 3-D HFR, I can’t wait to see it in 2-D!

Cheers!

I suspect that many, many people had issues with those new-fangled “color” films after decades of seeing movies in B&W. Just as many bemoaned the coming of “talkies” before that.

Heck, we’re only just now getting semi-decent 3D movies, and that technologies been around for decades as well.

@Vincent Laforet, Interesting, I thought I was the only person who wasn’t ‘thrilled’ with the newer hd content, I’m actually a bit concerned about my next display purchase, because the better the screen, the less I seem to be ‘immersed’ in the film lately. I find myself doing exactly what you are saying, not ‘knowing’ where I’m supposed to be focusing my eyes, and see all kinds of flaws or gimmickry that keeps throwing me out of the film. and this is 24 FPS films. Dunno, maybe Filmmakers are going to have to relearn how to shoot films for this framerate.

I haven’t seen the hobbit for exactly this reason, I dislike 3d, and am worried that the hfr is going to ruin it for me. (which has nothing to do with my wonder of how Jackson padded out a 317 page childs story into 3 films.)

I do hope you see another film (maybe the second hobbit?) in the reverse order, to see if familiarity had any effect on you enjoying the film…..

Thanks!

Too bad I can’t see the HFR version anytime soon (I’m in South America), but I think I’ll enjoy it.

The core benefit of 48 HFR 3D is for full animation or composited live actors, combined with effects animation. Animated HUMANOIDS NEVER LOOK REAL ENOUGH at 24 frames! The early scene of the dwarfs in the “tubular hobitt house was just to long, and too greatly flattened with too much sharpness in the b.g. of the close shots. It look like a soap opera, because it was too long in the opening character establishment, for such a large group, & flattened into cinema 3D BAS(pronounced BAR) RELIEF,like in classic wall sculpture. The distributors don’t want to play character scenes with very much ROUNDNESS. This film looked great with the monster animals, and grotesque character in rapid motion.
This is very early in the game for 3D with actual actors, It will
get better over time, just a crude 1928 talkies did. Jackson will
go down in history for this gamble like Warners with the Jazz Singer. Like Jolsen said…”You ain’t seen nothin’ yet”! But
what you saw speeks volumes to those with a grasp of the
new potentialities!

You are so on target. My wife and I went to see the movie in the high frame rate and 3D and couldn’t get into the film. The only parts that allowed us to get into the story were the dark ones where the frame rate worked. We did like the Gollum scene. But otherwise- we regret seeing it this way and will avoid it in the future.

@Katrin Bretscher, I would argue that HFR is not new technology. It’s just breaking the rules. I guess if you watch a lot of ESPN on a high refresh rate(fast motion effect) LED tv, then people might like the HFR look. I personally bought a plasma tv instead of an LCD or LED because of that sped up look. I second Vincent in saying that it would be great for sports and video games.

There was no need for any time to adjust to the HFR for me: I got used to it immediately. Not only do I not agree that HFR fails but I truly believe that this film was visually far superior to any other film I’ve ever seen. Yes, really! I was well and truly gobsmacked. I checked a few times during the film and my jaw had literally dropped (thankfully cinemas are dark, not a pretty sight I’m sure!) I will never forget the flight of the eagles at the finale. Absolutely brilliant film on all levels.

I just saw the film in 3D HFR Atmos, but I read your article before I went. As soon as the MGM logo flashed on the screen in 48 fps I was completely giddy and horrified at the same time. Then as the dwarves battled and as Bilbo rummaged around his house in what looked like jerky 1.5 speed, I almost left the theatre. But honestly, I got used to it and started loving it after about half an hour.

There is A LOT going on in this movie, so it’s hard to pinpoint EXACTLY what people are finding off-putting about it. Sure, the smoother motion and significantly reduced motion blur are wildly apparent, but there’s tons of CG, tons of greenscreen compositing, etc, which to my eye, really did NOT look that great in and of themselves. After I got used to it, though, I thought the high frame rate actually looked quite good in scenes without any visual effects. Sweeping landscapes without any horrible jerkiness or judder… the only reason I can think of why people would like the 24 fps aesthetic is because it’s what we’re used to.

I’ve heard the argument that telling a story is about the removal of most information and the inclusion of pertinent information, and while that argument sounds nice on paper, I don’t agree that it makes sense to use it in terms of frame-rate. Depth of field, set-pieces, lighting, numerous other things sure, but what are we gaining story-wise by watching jerky panning?

All I’m saying is, for a first attempt, this was not terrible (even though I hated the movie overall haha, I’m just NOT a fantasy guy), and I think as more people try it out it will become much more refined. I’m interested in seeing a simple drama with excellent camerawork, lighting and colour in 48fps. I believe the shock of the smoother motion will wear off as more directors and cinematographers test it out.

As for 3D, it didn’t bother me, but I didn’t love it. I find it distracting to lose like 8 stops of light with those glasses (although that’s interesting that they graded it with this in mind), and I also find it distracting to wear them OVER my pre-existing glasses. I’d rather just watch it in 2D I think. The Atmos mix also didn’t jump out at me, but it’s probably good to not have things jump out at you. Seems like an interesting technology for sound designers.

I wonder what Avatar 2 at 60 fps will look like compared to 48 fps. Maybe there won’t even be a noticeable difference. I also wonder how all this negative HFR press is affecting studios’ wills to finance HFR projects.

I’ll be seeing it in 2D at 24fps – if it’s a good film it won’t need 3D and HFR to make it good. 3D is good for a gimmick and a bit of fun but for films with a good storyline and engaging actors it can distract from the on-screen talent.

FYI, I live in the UK and have watched British TV shows in America and they do look TERRIBLE, but they look a lot better in the UK and this is down to the frame rate format conversion across the pond. Some of the better British TV shows are shot in 4K at 50fps, which gives more frames to work with during interpolation and therefore look better. Others – crap.

Not able to focus on stereoscopic images?!
Here’s a trick:
keep your distance to the screen, then you’ll have no trouble coordinating your eyes and focusing on each and every detail of the scene.
The golden rule for sitting-distance is 3 times the diagonal-distance of the screen so you have a good overview over the intersecting sections of the stereoscopic images.
I always prefer sitting in the middle of the last rows. Never had any trouble watching stereoscopic 3D-movies – I even feel it is more comfortable than watching 2D movies as the 3D makes it easier for you to focus on moving objects and determining their relative positions.

3DHFR is the smoothest and clearest picture I’ve ever seen – it definitly enriches the experience and makes the movie more immersive. I’ll most likely end up rewatching The Hobbit over and over again waiting for the Sequel, as there’s currently nothing coming close to the beauty of HFR. No way I’m going back to the flicker and blur of regular movies now!

Nice piece, Vincent. The Verge brought me here.

I think your follow up note is also very interesting when it talks about how popular the debate has become. I’m very proud of how we started to understand better that tech in mass media shapes artistic aspects and has a decisive influence on how the final product impacts. These are the parts I like the most on your article, the ones in which you ponder on how the lack of blur and other aspects of HFR impact on the hobbit as an experience.

Something bugs me, though:

“I knew I was in trouble the moment I saw the MGM logo move even before the first frame of the film was ever projected.”

I think this is a major part of why HFR is not being well received. We’ve created a crazy expectation, we have taken a position even before we sat down to watch it. How can you say you’ve made up your mind even before the movie started? I’ll tell you how: you were just looking for confirmation on what you expected to see and think about HFR.

I’m not a native english speaker, but I think this is readable. Think about it! 🙂

I am curious as to what you would think of the 48FPS 3D film now that you have seen it before. I understand your comment about there being to much detail and making it hard to focus on the film itself. However, because you saw the 48FPS 3D film first, then the 24FPS 3D and then the 2D film, you skewed your opinions.

I would be willing to bet that if you had seen the 2D film, then the 24FPS 3D, and then the 48FPS 3D film you would have enjoyed the 48FPS 3D film much more. You could have concentrated on the detail and not worried about following the plot.

I had exactly the same experience the first time I saw Avatar 3D. The second time seeing it was way more enjoyable.

One of the problems with evaluating the new technology is that we are not used to seeing that much detail. This is very similar to older people’s opinion to shaky cameras when they first came out versus younger people. Same with 48FPS 3D. You were trying to see the detail and that was conflicting with trying to understand the story.

Is there an option to view the film in HFR without the 3D? I personally have never enjoyed 3D and avoid it like the plague.

I’m just wondering what the HFR would be like as an experience without it. Do you think adding the 3D enhances the problems you’ve written about here?

I read your article and was puzzled because I’d seen it in both IMAX and HRF and thought HFR was incredible. I didn’t notice any of the problems that you listed…none. My biggest hindrance to being immersed is that I did want to see all the details of costume, scenery and CGI. I know the story so all I wanted was to see was the magic I knew would be on the screen.

I deliberately went to a 2D showing one day and HFR the next to see the differences and to see if I could spot what you had problems with. (I was going to go anyway, but it’s easier to justify it as research.) I did not and could not find why you had difficulty with HFR in the places you mentioned. I’d seen Thorin pick up the sword since my first showing in IMAX and through, if anything, the HFR made the sword more visible. I did have a problem with the panning being blurry to me in 2D, possibly because I’ve become used to HRF.

I have a Masters in Vision Rehabilitation Therapy and I’m hoping for some serious research to come out with regards to HFR. My professional opinion is that your visual system (brain and eye) can either handle HFR or it can’t. If it can’t then the experience is not a good one, if it can then you love the movie. Mine can handle it and for me it was everything that you said it wasn’t, explanation of cameras, depth of field, lighting, etc not withstanding. I’m sorry you didn’t have the same experience with HFR that I did. I do hope that reports like yours spur more investigation into HFR to find a happy medium so that you and I experience the next film in the same way.

I wonder if the Hobbit is really the right use of HFR. If it brings added realism and clarity then it may well suit films based in the real world as opposed to a fantasy world.

I think it will be really interesting to see HFR car chases and gunfights.

THE HOBBIT was shot in HFR 3D. That’s two cameras shooting in sync at 48fps through a mirror.

The 2D, is as I understand it, is simply every other frame from just one of those cameras.

Therefore, all the observed differences between HFR and standard 24fps that discuss shutter speed, depth of field and such are simply not there. The 24fps 2D was derived from the exact same footage as the 3D and 3D HFR.

The preferred 2D version (which I also prefer) was different only in that it was NOT 3D. The only HFR variation that was viewed was married to 3D, so it is impossible to separate the HFR experience from the 3D experience.

I’ve seen HFR shot on film at 60fps (Showscan) and it was stunning. THE HOBBIT is not an accurate test of HFR potential and remains a plausible alternative to the minimum frame rate of 24fps.

Now how much of this is because of the RED system?
What about if it was shot on an Alexa? I hated the look of the Social Network, btw.

But what would it look like it it was shot on 48fps on FILM????

I agree totally with your assessment of the hfr version of this movie. I came away quite disappointed by the cartoonish feeling of te movie, and was also distracted by the depth of field. I will have to give the 2D version a chance.

The first 24p I saw after this I was looking intently at movement and I suddenly noticed all the artifacts that come with 24. Artefacts that we have learned to translate, shoot around, or exploit over a century of creative engagement with the medium.

I think the problems with HFR are entirely to do with our acclimatization with 24. Sure, it’s a new color on the palette of the filmmaker that’s not appropriate for every scene. I noticed that the weird speed ramping happened when there was enough movement that it would have blurred in 24. That’s an artefact of 24 where our brains are expecting one thing and our senses are relaying another thing, like suddenly stopping after turning around in a circle.

To be really scientific about it you’d need larger sample spaces. More viewings, more audiences to measure the laughter response (I am often impressed at the varying amounts of laughter from audience to audience, even given similar numbers of viewers). More filmmakers trying their hand.

I actually liked the HFR 3D. At first look it seemed a little bit wierd and TV-ish but after a while i got used to it and watched it just like any other movie. But the important part about HFR is that it makes 3D watchable. There is no flickering, you don’t have a headache and you don’t feel sick after the movie. The difference was really visible between the trailers of other 3D movies shot in 24 fps played before the movie and The Hobbit itself.

Thanks for a great great post. I haven’t seen The Hobbit yet, but the problems you raised with the HFR version – and the wider obsession with greater image “realism” – I found in recently watching the 4K restoration of Lawrence Of Arabia. It’s a film I have made a lifetime study of and I know it like the back of my hand. But the 4K restoration was a revelation. I saw details of set, costume, subtleties of performance that I’d never seen before – I felt like I was looking into a window onto the set at times – but one thing that was missing was the emotional connection to the characters. The goal of the restoration seemed to be to make each image as clear and detail rich as possible, but the result was a loss of the image as an indivisible unit – the image itself as the conveyor of information, rather than it just being a field to arrange objects within. We are definitely on the cusp of a whole new way of thinking about images and the screen – the screen as a window into a story, rather than the screen as the place where the story occurs. It’s an entire shift in audience consciousness and it will be interesting to see how it develops.

thanks for this article!

i am also a big fan of 24fps, but i think things will evolve – sooner or later there will be no question if a film is 24p, 48p, 60p or even more.
As with every new technical possibility, it takes some time to work with it creatively.
I think we will see variable frame rates in one movie in the future!
Maybe a projector in the future has 240fps, and many frame rates will be possible (20, 24,30,40, 60, 80, 120, 240)
it will be just a new creative tool.

In all honesty i believe that if we were introduced to HFR 5 years ago, the audience would not have been silent during that presentaation. It really is learning how to watch the new way of telling a story. Everytime we have a new technology in a film the audience spends as much time watching it as the film. When we all get used to the technology and the novelty becomes standard everyone will get on with watching the film. Of course it will be disorientating. Its a different form of watching something – our brains are so trained at seeing specific aesthetics at 24p, so it will be confused when it expects to see the same in 3D 48p. It doesnt mean its a failiure – just new

@Vincent Laforet

I’m curious as to why it is so challenging to shoot in 4k. This might sound ignorant (I’m not an expert), but from all that I’ve heard, HD video has not caught up to the resolution of film, to the extent that even 4k doesn’t even come close to matching the resolution or clarity of 35mm film. So why is it that things that filmmakers have been getting away with since the (at least) the 1920s, on film with a much higher resolution than any existing form of video (and with the added benefit of film grain, which adds a gritty sharpness to everything), would be hard to do while using 4k?

Wow, I can COMPLETELY related to these observations. I saw the 3d HFR version today, not seen the 2D, but I came away really disatisfied.

It felt really artificial, but also SO realistic. Contradictory I know, but I have an explanation for this. The HFR produces an image so detailed and sharp that it looks like a studio video, you are in there with the actors on the stage. Now that you are with the actors you can see and sense all the imperfections, the cgi versus real shots.

I am not saying that bad quality masks reality, but in 2D and normal frames the eye and brain just seem to work well together and you see excellent quality but it’s not the same experience as being a camera operator or actor in the studio.

Put another way, it’s difficult to describe the experience until you’ve seen 3d HFR. To be clear, I did not experience nausea or dizziness unlike some people, I was completely fine, but I missed the storyline, could not connect, was overwhelmed with the reality of being in the studio, in effect I WAS like the Director but had no control.

Ultimately it was unreal as a film despite being too real as an experience.

Nice article though i don’t fully agree with you i can understand your stance on it. I actually really like the higher frame rate and only the lighting seemed artificial because of it. I didn’t find myself distracted like you were, it took 1 minute for me to adjust and if i was looking around the frame it was only because i wanted to look around otherwise i was just focused on the characters. I think this will end up being something that some people like and some people don’t just like 3D is. It did help the CG look more lifelike but then the CG had not weight to it so that just canceled it out anyway. My biggest disappointment was just the pacing and the script of the movies which just needed more tightening and to be disappointing.

Such a great article!!
I couldn’t agree more with you sir.
You put in words within your article, my thoughts and my feelings that I couldn’t express myself! I totally lost the feeling of magic and the anticipation I had for this movie!
I promised myself that it was the last time I watched a 3D movie at cinema and now I am going to watch it as soon as possible in 2D.
I want to feel the magic of this movie, something I lost the first time!

@Vincent Laforet, Is ‘shock’ the official collective noun for multiple bad reviews? If not, it should be 🙂

I recently saw “The Hobbit”. And to my surprise, I enjoyed it a lot more than I did “The Two Towers” or “Return of the King”. And by the way, I never saw it in 3D.

@Adam Juniper, Thank you for making the comment about the rudeness of the “foreign tv” part of the article. I too found this to be an entirely unfair, and not necessarily accurate comment. The quality of British (or any other nationality) of tv making is irrelevant in this debate and despite the repeated protests to the contrary, this felt like a jibe. Is there not US tv of appropriately poor quality that will allow you to keep comparisons at home instead of making this feel like unnecessary xenophobia?

I saw the 2D, 24fps version yesterday (haven’t seen it in any other format/configuration) and I must say, especially in the opening few minutes, I was WISHING it was 48fps because it was clearly shot for 48fps. Perhaps I was biased due to foreknowledge, but I got the distinct visual impression while watching that something was not right – that this was not how it was meant to be watched. Camera movements seen in 24p were too fast and borderline sickening at times. My wife had to turn her face away more than once because of it.
Did I engage with the story in 24p? Yes. Would I have been able to do so in 48p? I don’t know. I think so. I felt disappointed with the 24p version.

I saw the movie today in 3D HFR. I read your article straight after and I agree completely with what you say. For the first 30 minutes I couldn’t concentrate. I actually thought it was horrible to the point of leaving the cinema, but that would be foolish considering the tickets weren’t cheap.

I felt that everything was TV-like, not cinematic at all. At times I felt like I was watching a video game too. I thought that the soundtrack was weak in comparison to that in the LOTR trilogy, but I’m not sure if this was because I was more distracted by the imagery than listening.

I did find that the darker scenes, at night and under the mountain, worked better and those with Gollum I enjoyed, so it either got better as the movie progressed or I simply got used to it.

I think I’ll be buying the standard DVD version when it comes out.

what’s the point of recording at 4k or + if your gonna use old crappy lens? its the same as recording 720 with great primos. dumb.

/rant

I saw the film in regular 24 FPS 3D 2 weeks ago, and in HFR 3D tonight.

In a nutshell, the 48FPS HFR version sucked and I agree with the original article’s comments 100% for said reasons.

Watching the film at 24 FPS (even in 3D), I was able to connect with the characters far more, the scenes felt more “magical”, and the entire experience felt like a cinematic film.

Watching it in HFR 3D tonight robbed the film of its magic. It felt like I was watching a bad teleplay soap opera on TV, I did not care about the characters or their plight, and was not engaged with the film at anywhere near the level of the 24FPS version. In fact I couldn’t wait for it to hurry up and end.

The 48 HFR 3D looked TOO crip, TOO detailed, too fluid that it gave everything an artificial quality, and did not allow my brain to “suspend disbelief” as I did in the 24 FPS 3D version. Scenes that were gripping and heart pounding @ 24FPS produced little to no reaction at 48 FPS, as they looked so fake and “video game” like, that it made the entire film feel like a mockery or comedy.

In 24 FPS, the scenes, props and sets didn’t look fake. In 48 HFR, they did. It did feel like a bad made for TV movie at 48 FPS, which is unfortunate. Granted the HFR 3D was some of the most immersive I’ve ever seen, but the resolution was almost too high and and the depth of field too focused, which prevented my eye from focusing on select areas of the screen, as I did in the 24 FPS version… there was simply too much going on at once, in too much detail and clarity at 48 FPS.

That said I would highly recommend seeing the film at 24 FPS, either in 3D or 2D (I may watch it in 2D as well to see if my experience is further improved).

48fps @ 270º (1/64)
…creates frames that look almost identical to…
24fps @ 180º (1/48)

If you shoot 48fps HFR with a 180º shutter, you will get absolutely sharp images with little-to-no motion blur. If you want to drop every second frame to achieve a 24fps release, the resulting 24fps film will look like the Normandy Beach sequence from Saving Private Ryan, throughout the entire film. This would be disastrous.

If you shoot 48fps HFR with a 270º shutter, you will get frames that feature almost exactly the same amount of motion blur you get when shooting a 24fps film with a 180º shutter. This allows the filmmaker to drop every second frame, and achieve a perfectly normal looking 24fps release format.

The additional motion blur as a result of shooting the 270º shutter angle does not negatively impact the HFR 48fps version of the film, because the whole point of shooting HFR is to achieve a smooth motion characteristic. Motion blur will only serve to accentuate this characteristic.

Thus, whilst it is absolutely vital to shoot a 180º shutter angle when making a movie normally, the rules are very different when it comes to HFR, because the look being achieved is smoother, and because of the need to get a normal looking 24fps release format.

As for the article : VERY well written – I agree wholeheartedly with the conclusions.

@borat, No need to add motion blur in Post when you shoot HFR with a 270º shutter angle.

I’ve had totally the opposite experience. Saw it first in 3D HFR, absolutely no problems, the clearest and brightest 3D I’d ever seen. Note saw it in NZ where we have Real D 3D which uses the polarised glasses (I think) so not sure if your active glasses might make a difference. Anyway, I can’t understand what the complaints are, looks nothing like tv, just clear and bright. Saw it again in same format, same impression. Then saw it in 2D – awful blur and flickering on the panning shots. Watch the shots inside Erebor, in HFR it’s all clear and detailed, in 2D it’s just a juddery blur until the camera stops moving. The only place I think looked better in 2D was Rivendell, where in 3DHFR the backdrop looked like a painting but in 2D it didn’t stand out like that. Will probably have to see it again in 3DHFR to see if it still looks fake.
The other thing with the HFR that was noticeable was in fast action scenes like the battle outside Moira, was that everything was so much easier to take in, in 2D a lot is just a fast blur of motion and images. I preferred the clarity of the HFR, but I guess others don’t.

I saw the HFR 3D version this week, and I can’t wait to re-see it in 24fps 2D. That was always my plan, but now I’m really motivated, because the new format really didn’t work for me. As an amateur film-maker, I was intensely curious, and anxious to see how HFR would look with all the money and experience of Hollywood behind it, rather than just as an inexpensive indy film.

I have to say, I felt almost exactly the way you apparently did. The proof for me was that I asked my wife (who bought the tickets in advance) to book the HFR showing. Then I actually forgot all about that and just went with her to see the film. At some point in the middle of the dinner scene in Bilbo’s home, I found myself saying to my wife, “This looks like a cheap foreign TV show. What’s the deal?!” Only then did I remember that this was HFR. I had, honestly, forgotten, and had just reacted to what I was seeing.

After that, I tried covering one-eye or lifting up my glasses from time to time, and I could see that 2D would help fix some of that, and I suspect 24fps will make a much larger difference.

I left the theater feeling like the lighting looked cheap, the grade looked over-blown, the jokes fell-flat, and the over-all feel was one of bad English television. Then I stumbled on this blog, and was amazed at the uncanny similarity in your experience. And I have to say, like you, I’m not critical of Peter Jackson. I’m glad to have the opportunity to see for myself what this format is really like. I see it as an interesting experiment, but I hope it doesn’t catch on and get used very often, unless it can be improved upon, because it really proves to me that the aesthetic of traditional film is crucial to the experience.

I have watched it in HFR/48fps and loved it!

Very interesting article and thank you.

I watched The Hobbit in HFR 3D before Christmas and I agree with a lot of what you have written. The most disconcerting aspect for me is the studio or ‘soap opera’ effect, which made me question my perception of reality in cinema. I was actually thinking – as I watched the film – this is realistic and therefore what has gone before is unrealistic and therefore wrong. Even though, the newer, realistic experience looked fake – it made the sets, makeup and costumes lack authenticity.

A visual highlight for me was Golum, I thought the rendering was realistic and more believeable than in LOTR trilogy. It felt like a landmark had been reached.

Overall, I still enjoyed the film – by the end of it I had accepted the visuals. My mind had been trained, I suppose. The decision to make three films from one book, well, that’s a different matter altogether.

I think this is a generation gap. I myself really enjoyed HFR and thought it made the 3D a much better experience! I didn’t expect to like it as much as I did, considering I’m a film student and have a soft spot for the old classics and conservative feelings towards film.

What I mean by “generation gap”, can be boiled down to video games and such content that a lot of young people spend a lot of time with, especially first person shooters. Such games, like Call Of duty and Battlefield, are fast paced games that run at 60 frames per second or more, and having spent most of my life playing these games (and having 20/20 vision); my eyes are better trained to see what’s going on in fast paced situations.

I couldn’t see what you meant by the lighting looking bad either, I thought it looked great and I didn’t have any problem with costumes or make-up either.

To stir up this topic even more, I thought a lot of moments in the Hobbit were downright magical due to the high frame rate, especially the landscape shots and a lot of the scenes in the forest. in the first half.

I’ve also seen a lot of arguments for 24p saying that it gives a dreamlike feel and it lends itself to the thought of a film being a retelling of a story. I call bullshit and say that it’s just pretentious thinking about film like that. What happened to film being considered an art form and that it shouldn’t be held back from evolving?
I’m not saying that 3D HFR should be the new standard, I’m just so tired of people being so conservative towards the medium just because it hasn’t evolved that much over the century if you don’t count improvement with film stock, lenses and the cameras themselves.

I should end my rant now, before this becomes an even bigger rumbling mess. Just came home from the screening and had a lot of stuff on my heart about this topic, and I love movies so much that I’m saddened to see so much opposition and negativity (let’s not get started on the really biased and judgmental reviews) when someone is trying to break the mold…

I’m not someone who knows ANYTHING about the technicalities of movie making (barring a few basic things), but might I say Vincent, that your write-up has quite excellently educated me on why I didn’t enjoy the HFR too much in this movie.

Albeit a little technical for me, a fantastic article.

You know, when you can’t even proofread your blog properly I check out at the the first misspelling. I’m sure you make some interesting points, but can they be spelled correctly?

I watched The Hobbit first in HFR 3D, then 24 fps 3D and really noticed the motion blur in the latter version. Also the 3D depth appeared far greater in HFR. A point you haven’t mentioned is the poor exposure latitude of the electronic cameras compaired to the 35mm earlier trilogy. I was stunned at the blown out highlights in several of the real world exteriors. A step backwards. I think this may have influenced your comments on lighting. Also the end sequence with Gollum was spoiled for me by the high level of blue water ‘reflection’ on his CGI face.

You seem to have got lost in your own technophobia. I read about 50% of your article, the start and end.

What I thought was amusing was that the ultra-reality of it made it look like theatre (because it was so real) – the predecessor to cinema – we’ve gone full circle!

I think people could get used to HFR, but the biggest challenge will be for filmmakers to make everything look real. No matter how carefully detailed the Sting scabbard is made, if it isn’t lit correctly it will look fake under the scrutiny of 48 fps.

Vincent, I respect your opinion.

I think HFR is a necessary evil for a lazy Hollywood. I want 3D HFR and I want it to look good.

For that to happen, everything needs to get better – and it’s obvious that you can’t shoot 3D HFR like you shot traditional 2D.

We need this to improve the breed and quality. Hiding imperfections behind a frame rate? The idea makes my stomach turn.

It’s time to move forward and drag the level of production with us.

I left the cinema thinking could I be the only one thinking that HFR is just a step too far
This review just sums up everything I felt about seeing LOTR in HFR 3D – To me the sets felt fake and yet in non HFR they did not
Perfect article and I agree entirely

I have to say that I thought the HFR was absolutely mind blowing, so I had already watched The Hobbit in 2d, no HFR, decided to watch it again as I loved it SO much! The second time round in HFR was so immersive and although it did take about half an hour to get my head around it, once I had, I really did feel, like Jackson was intending, as if I was actually there! This style also worked so well with Jackson’s style of filming, which I consider to have more an essence of TV series’ than movies, lots of quick panning and wobbly cameras, It all made so much sense! I’d love to be able to watch Meet the Feebles in HFR 😀

Vincent,

Thank you for the commentary. I was able to see the 3D HFR version on a museum’s IMAX scree which is quite a bit larger than the ordinary ones at the mall. While I agree at the beginning it took a few minutes to adjust to the speed. I wouldn’t say it effected my viewing negatively and I really enjoyed it in many ways . I think I will try and see the film in 2D now after your commentary.

Great review.
I first saw The Hobbit in 2d and loved it I agree that all was right in the world in the 2d version. Today I went to the Chinese theater to see the HFR 3D I wanted to see the 48 frame version and make up my own mind. I did not read anything on it so I had no opinion going in and I found many of the same problems. I couldn’t understand gollum and I could in 2d. What kept taking my mind out of the film was when an action scene happen it looked to me like live video then the scene would slow down and it would look like film again. Ya just got to have that motion blur.
Maybe because I had seen it first and had watch my screener a few times I didn’t have the problem of not getting into the story and I did not have any problems with 3d convergence I felt very comfortable looking around the screen maybe because the Chinese has the biggest screen or because I didn’t sit too close.
I hope by part two they can fix some of this because I do like the detail but your right that too much depth of field removes focus on what the director wants us to look at.

@Trent, theatre does not work because it is “real”. If theatre gets too real it does not work. A case in point: some years ago my father, a theatrical director, was involved in a show in which a character is shot with a shot gun. A great effect was developed in which the shot character was pulled off his feet with a device made from garage door springs. The effect was apparently great: it looked just liked a guy getting shot . . . and for that reason it was cut from the show. The problem was the test audiences thought the guy had actually gotten shot by accident. It spoiled the play because it was too real.

Drama works to the extent that you can get an audience to willingly suspend their disbelief that what they are seeing isn’t pretend (something everyone knows when they walk into any theatre). That’s the real magic. Mere technique that draws the wrong kind of attention to itself spoils the play.

As Hamlet put it: “Do not saw the air with your hand . . .”

I haven’t seen the movie, but I am reminded of how I feel about music. I grew up in the sixties and thought that the Beatles were the ultimate experience. I go back now and listen to their later music and find that I don’t feel the same way. I think that my lack of musical experience when I was younger made me think that their music was better. I still like their music, but I have found other music that I think is better.

I agree with previous commentors, the 3D is all that. But, if you have 2D looking at great movie, the movie only can take you to place that is almost as good as 3D. Can’t wait to get 3D in this house.
bluray 3d

Thanks, great info! It’d be great to see more on seo rather than social though.

I came from a TV news background which led me to docs and narrative film making. The one thing I took from all of my mentors in the news and film biz was that I was never to let editing, camera moves or lighting (or stupid reporters doing standups) get in the way of the story, ever. Everything comes down to the story, and the 3D version of The Hobbit just took all the attention away from what could have been a great experience.

Hi there, after reading this remarkable article i am also happy to share my experience here with mates.|

I haven’t yet seen the movie but I do have a couple of questions…

1) What will happen for the Blu-ray release? I assume it will be 2D/3D @ 24 fps?

2) UK PAL (on old style CRTs) runs at 25 fps but interlaced… which gives the effect of 50 fps. The result is that it is often clear when you are watching a movie (converted to 25fps by speeding up) vs a TV broadcast (shot as 25fps interlaced). Do you think the effect is more noticeable on The Hobbit simply because of the viewing environment or because of the shutter speed chosen by Peter Jackson?

To be fair, I am a fan of Tolkien’s books. Since it had taken so many years for all the logistics of this film to be worked out, I had high expectations. This is Jackson rewriting Tolkien’s book. This is all about the HFR so I’m going to now focus on that exclusively. The film began in HFR and excitement grew. After about 5 minutes of watching, I grew extremely tired and ended up napping for about 10 minutes of the film. The HFR had my head going haywire. It was so big, that I had trouble focusing on the story and ended up losing track of what was happening. It had too many things to look at in each and every image. The story ended up getting lost in the imagery. To me, it felt like I was looking at a very detailed painting. When I look at a painting I get time to take in all of it. This was moving so fast that I ended up tuning out. Nice try Jackson, but I know I will definitely save my head the trouble and not see the next part in 3D HFR.

The two cameras are recording at 48 FPS, one for each eye. So while the toal frame rate may well be considered to be 96 FPS, each eye is presented with a 48 FPS image.This reduces motuion blur quite a bit and in 3D, which increases the degree of immersiveness as it is, the higher temporal resolution and reduced motuion blur make for a clinical viewing experience, similar to watching a sporting event on TV with small shutter angles (i.e. short exposure times}. Not saying this is good or bad, just very different from 2D or even 3D 24FPS presentation!

Firstly, I hardly think that the second most visual art form requires low frame rates to maintain it’s integrity, so balls to that point. I was going to go through your every point so I could point out how moronic it was but then I realised that your arguments where so stupid, so poorly conceived, I might of been okay with it if they were at least well written, but I couldn’t even stand to go through the whole thing, they were just so fucking terrible in every way. I’m sorry, but what you’ve written here stinks. I’m not going to judge you as a person or even a content creator because you might just have been having a bad day when you put this up (I’m not going to read any of your other stuff unless it pops up to me the same way this did, but I won’t actively avoid it) I don’t know, but this articles just awful. If you’re reading the comments before you’ve read the article for some reason and happy to see this, go on at your own peril, it’s a bit shite, you can do whatever you want, but just know it’ll be a shitty time if you do. Alright, I’m done here, hope you have a nice day whoever you are.

Interesting. but you lost me when admitting (or your VFX friend) to embracing motion blur. If by that you mean camera shake, the bane of modern cinema, that “documentary” / first person view or the fact we have no spaceships in films anymore, just very expensive blurs, then I would say that in itself is the bigger evil. Because it does exactly what your VFX friend says- it hide mistakes. More than that it hides any imagination or talent on the part of the director/ DP. It’s lazy in it its ever present application and shows a lack of confidence in the material and the actors to hold the attention of the audience without “movement within or thru the frame”. Half the time I think the character is not alone, being observed, only to realise it’s another twitchy handheld camera shot. THAT pulls me out of the film- thinking it’s BEING filmed!

The day directors are forced to ditch that conceit will be a great day for cinem

I’m about to buy tickets for the Hobbit 2. When I bought them for Hobbit 1 I was anxious to see how the HFR would turn out, and it confirmed for me that it would look more “television-y” and it took some getting used to. After a while though, I appreciated the clarity. When I asked my girlfriend which version she wanted to see this time, she said, “There are different versions?” She had seen both last time, and didn’t even realize there was a difference.

High frame rate is not going to be needed when HDR video is realized, at least for shooting real world scenes, when this technology finally becomes available. I wonder how this will tie in with global radiosity illumination in the 3D CG scenes, will they work together ??

No way HFR fails. I loved watching the 2 Hobbit movies at high frame rate. It’s up to you to choose whether you like it or not. For me, the sensation of being inside the movie has worked, since obviously the movement illusion are more close to reality.

I just saw part 2 in HFR. And I must say, I tend to agree with you more this time than when I wrote my reply above. I knew what to expect, but for some reason or another, I didn’t really care for the extra smoothness, save during fast pans. But this time, even during those fast zooms/pans, it made the uneven panning very apparent, almost like there was some camera shake during the pan. It sometimes felt like an amateur was holding the camera. I can’t say it ruined the experience for me, but I didn’t enjoy it as much as I thought I would. Given that PJ did many shots that would look horrible to me in 24fps, I don’t think watching it in 24 fps would make much of a difference. Also, the film being at least 30 minutes too long didn’t really help 🙂

Great article. Your number 4 point is where I completely side with you. We are way too concerned with tech these days rather than the story. Nearly every filmography forum online has a huge amount of threads focused on gear and very little about what people plan to shoot with that gear. A great D.o.P I know once told me that if you give him the best camera and a few lights he would shoot me something visually stunning but I wouldn’t watch it if the story wasn’t up to it. The reverse is also true.

I’m am going to purchase a GH4 when it is released but the draw for me is it’s great feature set, not it’s 4K output. I haven’t got the rig to edit that kind of footage yet and it’s not widely used to warrant it at the moment. At least it is future proof in that regard 🙂

Again, great post, thanks!

Now i am just looking for info, enable, ideas, etc.!.

I felt the same when i watched The battle of five armies yesterday in India. It looks like i am watching TV serial. But 3D experience was very great.

Thanks for your insight!!! I had never considered the complexity of filming techniques.
I watched the first two films in 2D and and enjoyed them, but was confounded, having left the cinema after seeing the 3D HFR. I couldn’t name it, but the whole film felt inherently wrong. I will definitely be returning to the cinema to see it again in 2D. Hopefully this will rectify my disappointment in what should have been an enjoyable film.

Those distracted by HFR really need to amp up the current in your brains! Love HFR! 24 frames per second always bothered my eyes, especially during pans. So I disagree with the above. I was not “distracted” by HFR, rather, 24 fps is unrealistic and distracting. Am ambivalent about 3D. My imagination can handle that or not as needed.