The Science of High Frame Rates, Or: Why 'The Hobbit' Looks Bad At 48 FPS
The hero of Jean-Luc Godard's Le Petit Soldat declared “The cinema is truth, 24 times per second,” as The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw noted while pondering frame rates and cinematic standards last year. Peter Jackson insists that it’s closer to 48 frames per second, as demonstrated by the groundbreaking new frame rate he utilized for this weekend’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. But do scientific theories about the way our brains perceive images and reality — truth unfolding onscreen, in front of our eyes — support Jackson’s brave new vision for cinema, or undermine it?
There is a great gulf between the cinematic look of 24 fps, the traditional rate at which film images are presented in succession to simulate moving images on a screen, and 48 fps. The latter packs more visual information into each second of film, for better and worse. Jackson and his fellow HFR enthusiasts (including James Cameron and Douglas Trumbull) argue that 48 fps and even higher frame rates result in greater clarity and a closer approximation to real life. They also contend it reduces motion blur, thus improving the look of 3-D images.
But scientists and researchers in the field of consciousness perception say that the human brain perceives reality at a rate somewhere between 24 fps and 48 fps — 40 conscious moments per second, to be more exact — and exceeding the limit of the brain’s speed of cognition beyond the sweet spot that connotes realism is where Jackson & Co. get into trouble.
Movieline spoke with filmmaker James Kerwin, who lectured on the subject of the science of film perception and consciousness at the University of Arizona’s Center for Consciousness Studies. (His presentation included an analysis of the work of Dr. Stuart Hameroff and British cosmologist/philosopher Roger Penrose, and their quantum theory of consciousness.) According to Kerwin, there really is a simple scientific answer for why The Hobbit’s 48 fps presentation plays so poorly with some viewers — and it's not something we'll get used to over time.
HOW OUR BRAINS PERCEIVE REALITY
James Kerwin: “Studies seem to show that most humans see about 66 frames per second — that’s how we see reality through our eyes, and our brains. So you would think that 48 frames per second is sufficiently below that — that it would look very different from reality. But what people aren’t taking into account is the fact that although we see 66 frames per second, neuroscientists and consciousness researchers are starting to realize that we’re only consciously aware of 40 moments per second.”
“Dr. Hameroff’s theory has to do with the synchrony of the gamma waves in the brain — it’s called gamma synchrony — the brain wave cycle of 40 hertz. There’s a very strong theory that that is why we perceive 40 moments per second, but regardless of the reason, most researchers agree we perceive 40 conscious moments per second. In other words: our eyes see more than that but we’re only aware of 40. So if a frame rate hits or exceeds 40 fps, it looks to us like reality. Whereas if it’s significantly below that, like 24 fps or even 30 fps, there’s a separation, there’s a difference — and we know immediately that what we’re watching is not real.”
HIGH FRAME RATES AND THE UNCANNY VALLEY
“You’ve got guys like Cameron and Jackson saying, let’s make it more real because the more realistic, the better; the higher the definition, the more 3-D, the more this, the more that. They’re not taking into account what’s called The Uncanny Valley in psychology. The Uncanny Valley says that, statistically, if you map out a consumer’s reaction to something they’re seeing, if they’re seeing something artificial and it starts to approach something looking real, they begin to inherently psychologically reject it."
"Not every person perceives the Uncanny Valley, however. There are some people that just do not reject things that look too real, although the vast majority of people do experience that phenomenon. So you’re going to get some individuals who see it and go, This looks great! The problem is anecdotes are not evidence. You have to look at the public as a whole, and I think that’s what Jackson and Cameron are not doing."
FORWARD-MOVING HFR VS. TRADITIONAL FILM CONVENTIONS
“There are all sorts of conventions in film that are not found in reality. People talk to each other in ways that they don’t in reality. Things are lit in ways that they’re not lit in reality. The make-up, the hair, the props, everything is fake. If you stand on a film set and you watch the actors performing, you don’t for a second think that it’s real. There are acting conventions that we have chosen to accept."
“One thing a lot of people are saying about The Hobbit in 48 is that the acting is bad — well, the acting’s not bad, they’re simply acting with cinematic conventions but it’s such a high frame rate that the motion looks too real and you can see through the artifice of the acting.”
THE NECESSARY SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF — WHICH 48 FPS LACKS
“It’s psychological: we need suspension of disbelief, and suspension of disbelief comes from the lower frame rate. The lower frame rate allows our brains to say, Okay — I’m not perceiving 40 conscious moments per second anymore; I’m only perceiving 24, or 30, and therefore this is not real and I can accept the artificial conventions of the acting and the lighting and the props. It’s an inherent part of the way our brain perceives things. Twenty-four or 30 frames per second is an inherent part of the cinematic experience. It’s the way we accept cinema. It’s the way we suspend our disbelief.”
“Those high frame rates are great for reality television, and we accept them because we know these things are real. We’re always going to associate high frame rates with something that’s not acted, and our brains are always going to associate low frame rates with something that is not. It’s not a learned behavior; [Some say] you watch it long enough and you won’t associate it with cheap soap operas anymore. That’s nonsense. The science does not say that. It’s not learned behavior. It’s an inherent part of the way our brains see things.”
James Kerwin is currently in development on an adaptation of R.U.R. Find more about him at his website, and head here to read further on Dr. Stuart Hameroff's consciousness studies.
Follow Jen Yamato on Twitter.
Follow Movieline on Twitter.
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
I have been saying this for months. The 60 fps that cameron is touting is going to be even worse.
For a guy who says other people are "ignoring science blah blah blah," Kerwin sure talks a lot of unsubstantiated shit himself. Everything he says is conjecture. It's more metaphysics, only this time from a different guy. Why aren't there actual studies being done to determine the best framerate for human perception that can improve the way 3D cinema hits our eyes? It's not like the film industry is too broke to finance that kind of thing. Less guys presuming things and more science, please.
You are so right. It was all pure conjecture. Except for the parts where he quoted studies from Dr. Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. Those guys are probably just made up anyway. Hameroff? Sounds like a cousin to Jack Mehoff, amirite?
You would know, too, E. A. Bartholomew. Now that's a name I can trust. Very scientific sounding.
I'm just mad all the TV companies are ignoring "science" and lowering the frame rates on their new TVs back to where they were before. Give me 240hz any day. They never make things look cheap and cheesy. In fact, I'm hoping I can find some 480hz TVs soon.
E. A. Bartholomew is right, actually; yer dude quoting all the other dudes (James Kerwin) has put together a pretty ill-founded argument. "It's not learned. People won't get used to it because... oh, they just won't."
A genuine quote:
"Those high frame rates are great for reality television, and we accept them because we know these things are real. We’re always going to associate high frame rates with something that’s not acted, and our brains are always going to associate low frame rates with something that is not."
Ignoring the obvious literal mistake there, it's still... I beg your pardon? The reality television I've seen could rarely be confused with reality itself; it includes cuts, camera POV, non-diegetic music etc etc etc. And reality television is not acted? What shows is this dude watching? Reality television has some of the worst ham acting around, and that's true on 24fps, on 48fps and at any other speed. It smacks of someone desperately trying to find an exclusion for a successful artform with a high fps, and it doesn't hold up at all.
And the attempt to invoke the Uncanny Valley is odd. I get what he's trying to do, but the Uncanny Valley theories refer specifically to robotics and CGI animation and speak of an innate, gut-level revulsion at the imitation of human life from non-human sources, when they get "too real". Surely if it suddenly applies to all actors at 48fps, but only applies to, y'know, a dancing baby at 24fps, the implication is that the dancing baby is MORE real than the screen actors - the latter were safely fake at 24fps, whereas the dancing baby was a burning flag of near-authenticity. (I can actually think of a few films where that's the case, but it still doesn't help the theory.)
Now, to be fair, that actually could have some truth to it - 48fps, as he says, exposes a bunch of facets of filmmaking that have been safely blurred and coated in film - but the central thrust of the argument continues to make no sense. If the problem is that tech specs and acting conventions are exposed as false by the new technology... isn't that a good thing? Isn't that how evolutions in an art form happen? Why isn't it possible that people might change the way they make films... or will these talking pictures just never catch on?
Thanks for your thoughts, guys -- it's always great to hear another POV on an issue!
Actually, once I read the term "uncanny valley," I couldn't concentrate on the article anymore because an old girlfriend came back to mind.
Oh my.
You're misconstruing the point.
We all know full well there are cameramen loitering around each Survivor and Jeff Probst is likely sun baking 100 yards away. But, the actual visuals we're being fed ARE real.
The commercial presentation is not what's dictates whether something is reality or fiction. Just because a time stamp scrolls across the screen in the Unsolved Mysteries TV program, to an audio cue disconcertingly similar to the menu confirmation sound in the Star Wars Battlefront video games, does not make the murder being broached any less real or the victim(s) any less dead.
So you actually think there's no staging in reality television? Lord bless a believer. But quite apart from that: the article is claiming that 48fps looks "too real" and therefore overrides suspension of disbelief - on a visceral level - and then tries to say that doesn't apply to reality television because "it's real already". The insertion of sound cues, multiple cam edits etc is *totally* relevant to that - they are continuous cues reminding you that what you're seeing is not unfiltered reality but a televisual presentation. Reality shows are artificially lit, mic'd using booms etc, makeup is often involved, it uses most of the same presentation constructs. You think a gut reaction to those things at 48fps is overridden by a conscious "but wait, it is real" reasoning? That's not how gut reactions work - certainly not of the Uncanny Valley type.
And the insistence that "this won't change" is backed up by absolutely NO freakin' evidence whatsoever. It's almost a parody of "those horseless carriages will never catch on"-type articles.
And seriously? Unsolved Mysteries? Yes, the timestamp across the bottom and accompanying sound effect doesn't make the murder shown any less real. What does make it less real is that IT'S A REENACTMENT.
No, we need higher frame rates. People are cable of seeing 250 Hz blinks when the light moves at just 2 miles/hour. Low frame rate is jarring in action movies. Why would you want to stick at 19th century film speeds? Progress has been stalled for too long.
This is complete crap. You are getting visual stimuli constantly, but anything that comes in faster than the retinal cells can process will simply blend in with the next input.
To launch the article with the tag-line “Why “The Hobbit’ Looks bad at 48fps” is so heavily loaded as to nullify it’s point, surely? Presupposing a problem, in fact stating that there is a problem, without admitting it is subjective is foolish - it may look bad to *you*, but it looked *great* to me!! I’ve seen the 3D HFR version of “the Hobbit”, and *loved* the lack of jerkiness I see in many (even most) films, which strobe and flicker every time a camera pans, or blur as action takes place - and I’m not even as sensitive to this as some other people I know!
It was by far and away the best image quality I have ever seen! Now, I’m not suggesting that I’m the bench-mark for what the industry should do in terms of developing the tech. But I *do* posit that, rather than saying there is no justification for a higher frame rate, it should at least be examined scientifically (double blind testing, comparing various images at various rates) to see what is best for the largest number of people; telling me that I derived no benefit from it just isn’t true!
But, it DOES look poor.
Should the rubric have read "Hobbit: The Greatest Film Every Realised ...And Something About That 48fps Thing"? Would that have placated your fantard leanings more?
Quote "But, it DOES look poor."
Your opinion. I saw it in 48 fps and I thought it looked incredible. There are thousands of people who saw it in 48 fps and thought it looked great as well. Do we need to discuss the difference between fact and opinion for you to understand that?
There is no fact in this article. The citations given are only scientific-related citations regarding eye movement. The rest of the information in this article is all speculative - it's all an opinion anyway.
When people look at a computer screen or play video games, they're doing so at 30-60 frames per second.
How is this different?
The very fact you're playing a VIDEO GAME tells you whatever's going on on-screen is fake. There is no 'suspension of disbelief' requirement in gaming as the medium's narratives are aeons away from being captivating enough (for people with IQs over 80, that is) for there to be a chance of one being truly immersed and the risk of have the suspension of disbelief shattered by things seeming 'too real'.
As such, video games can look as uncanny as they like. Gamers really only care about how many polygons are used and how shiny the HD resolution is, nay how well or poorly- written the narrative / script / dialogue may be.
The trolls in the movie were better.
If only film would go back to its roots - a solid script - instead of being overrun by the techie geek side. Ever since the Matrix, films have sucked (IMO). Within the span of a decade (compared to the 90 years of cinema prior), we've gone from film to digital to 24fps digital to HDTV to 3D to 3DHDTV now to 48FPS3DHD - seriously, every two years the technology evolves. Not that evolution's a bad thing, but it's too much too fast. Way too much $ is on films these days - with comic book movies getting budgets between 150 - 300 million dollars, and yet these products are so ridiculously by-the-numbers and ultimately forgettable. Look at the other tech advances this decade - mainstream internet went from 14.4/28.8 modems to high speed broadband to wireless to high-speed wireless and online streaming went from heavily pixelated to HD in no time. I'm not a grinch when it comes to film, but seriously, if we don't get back to basics we'll be jacked into the Matrix in a few years with Neuro-Vision. What are the long term effects of subjecting the mind to this technology? Is it any coincidence that the dacde we've been over-obsessed and pouring trillions of dollars into all of this (expensive) entertainment correlates to why the nation's broke?
"Way too much $ is on films these days"
If the studios didn't make profits, they wouldn't invest in such lavish budgets. Clearly, some films tank. But if they all tanked, they'd stop financing them. This Hobbit movie will earn back huge dividends on the investment.
As far as the 48 FPS technology, Ebert has been championing it for well over a decade, and certainly longer than digital film has been around. It's not that new of a technology.
I get that buggy whips still have their fanciers, but in the real world, real film is expensive. Really expensive. Making multiple dupes of the original negative - it becomes incredibly more expensive (the cost of each copy of an average 90-min. *real film* is about half the cost of a HFR projector -- for the same cost that would be required for a single copy of a 3-hr film the duration of Hobbit, the studio could buy a brand new HFR projector that the cinema could use permanently to project their other movies, ultimately providing a BIG savings for themselves and offering audiences something new and maybe even improved.)
The new technology allows way more bang for the buck and is permitting film-making to become more affordable and more accessible. And besides, Jackson isn't trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater; he's providing OPTIONS. Don't like 48FPS; okay, then see it in 24. Don't like 3D; okay, see it in 2D. Don't like fantasy action adventure movies? Then spend your wages elsewhere. Nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head here.
Vive le difference!!
I can't say EVERY film has sucked since the Matrix. I do agree, however, that films have been on the decline with respect to their substantive qualities since the Wachoskis nailed it in that first film.
The irony is, that despite striving to emulate the LOOK of the Matrix, no one has yet to achieve it and, all the while, they seemed to have forgotten that a compelling narrative is what makes a film good. Shiny visuals and spfx amount to diddly if the viewer is not immersed.
Just look at some recent films - like Prometheus and TDKR - as irrefutable evidence of this 'style over and semblance of substance' mantra and how shallow a schlock it can give birth to.
What about watching a live-action play? Or have you forgotten those exist?
BAM! ARTICLE BROKEN!
Thanks for your question; it's a commonly asked one. The difference is that, when directing a play, I'm not asking the audience to "suspend disbelief" (that's a film term, not theatre). The audience is keenly aware that they are in a room with actors performing; at no point in time are their subconscious minds "fooled" into thinking that what they're watching is real. With film, on the other hand, I'm asking my audience, on some level, to stop disbelieving -- despite the conventions of film -- and I theorize that that's why a lower frame rate is required for such suspension (for some people -- definitely not everyone).
Again, thanks to everyone for their thoughts. I think there is no right or wrong on this one.
Suspension of disbelief is a film term not a theatre term? WTF? Let's check Wikipedia.
'Suspension of disbelief or willing suspension of disbelief is a term coined in 1817 by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who suggested that if a writer could infuse a "human interest and a semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative.'
Thanks for your info! Though I could be wrong, but I've been directing theatre for 15 years and I've never heard the term applied to live theatre.
Normally it's the tech crews job to create the suspension of disbelief. I can see how a director might not take this point of view....
Real life special effects on stage? You better believe it.
Oh, I think there is right or wrong on this one. For instance, it's just plain wrong to call the suspension of disbelief a film term, or to suggest that it has no place in theatre; it's one of the absolute foundations of theatre. The film audience are just as aware that they are watching a film as the theatre audience are aware of their surroundings; suspension of disbelief means that they invest in the characters or action *despite* their knowledge of the presentation's artificiality. That's why it's not called "belief" but "suspension of disbelief". You don't *forget* that you're watching a film and suddenly think you're really in the alley with Batman.
Now, does 48fps make suspension of disbelief harder? At the moment, for lots of people, yes it does; the atypicality of the 48fps presentation draws attention to the medium (rather than the content) all the time. Like a heckler or a sneezer or someone rustling a wrapping paper in the theatre, it takes you "out of the show". I've got no problem with that assertion. But the claim that this is a permanent phenomenon and nothing to do with learned response, or the suggestion that people will never be able to suspend their disbelief because it looks too real (unpick that one at your peril), is just a load of hogwash. If 48fps becomes the new standard, that will be the way in which tales are told. Good tales will transport people; ineffective ones won't. Some of this reaction may well be a reflection on the quality of "The Hobbit" as a film, full-stop.
I read an article a long time ago where a film review (it might have been Ebert) talked about our brains perceiving celluloid cinema at a different wavelength (gamma vs alpha, I think) than digital cinema and they were apprehensive about the shift from celluloid to digital that happened about 5-8 years ago, that we would no longer view movies the same way...sorta of like the difference between cd and phonograph records, which some audiophiles say the latter is better and has a richer sound.
Also, I'm not too sure the Uncanny Valley has as much to do with the 48fps in 3D being a distraction in the Hobbit. I think part of it is that the discrete planes of 3D (the different layers of background) as more defined and therefore more like flat planes of like a diarama that we used to look at in grade school (shoe boxes with mini cut-out scenes that are viewed through a peephole).
And the close moving representation of these 3D planes found in 48fps 3S currently in entertainment are VIDEO GAMES.
Also some of the background in even the Hobbit were not good enough to be projected large 3D theater screens without looking fake.
Wavelength has nothing to do with gamma.
Gamma was an issue but it is totally arbitrary for digital and somewhat arbitrary for film.
These days digital has got way past it's limitations and can and does look like film.
There are issues that affect digital audio and digital cinema such as resolution (sampling rate for audio) and bit depth. Now that audio has gone beyond the 44 kHz / 16-bit CD standard it is much less subject to the sort of complaints audiophiles levelled at it - mostly they were cueing into the lack of noise and responding with prejudice over reality anyway.
The resolution of digital media is no longer limited to the initial 2K. The but depth is no longer 10 bits and the dynamic range of the sensor is now very high.
Digital cinema can and does outperform film.
The thing is I was at a Panavision test screening of 30fps cinema many years ago. This was using film and modified to use 3 perf pulldown instead of 4 - as such it used the same amount of film, a shorter frame height but more frames per second.
I found that at 30 fps some moving parts of the frame strobed disconcertingly.
The issue here is not digital it is frame rate and shutter angle (exposure time).
It is quite likely that the problems with perception are due to having a short exposure time and therefore a strobing effect. A longer shutter time so that more of the movement is recorded per frame may solve the issue.
Roger Ebert has been championing a 48 FPS process called Maxivision48 for the past 15+ years. That is an analog projector, not digital, but one would assume the 48 HFR frame rate still applies. Let's face it - your article PROVES once-and-for-all that Ebert is fullofshit and doesn't know very much about film.
I'd say Rubber Eggbort is full of isotopes. Did you see his glowing Prometheus and TDKR reviews? Have you seen his FACE??
Jabba, That's out of line.
Who ya gonna believe - James Kerwin or your lying eyes?
I thought it looked awesome. Was it perfect? No.
Pray tell, what invention was perfected the first time it was shown to the public? This is a beginning - just like Al Jolson singing "Toot Toot Tootsie" on Vitaphone for *part* of a silent movie in 1927 was just the beginning - it's not the end. There will be developments. Why do you fear these?
It's fairly obvious there are some stubborn people with agendas who want to kill new technology D.O.A.
Again - nobody is holding a gun to your head. You have been provided OPTIONS. It's actually perfectly democratic. I can read a book bound by paper, or on a tablet. That's a choice. Suck on it, fascista.
You show your ignorance when you say "Was it perfect? No." There is nothing to perfect here! 48p is 48p. It has existed for nearly a century and it (or an even higher framerate) has been employed in every slow motion shot of every major film. This is not a new technology, and there is no tech to perfect. You are merely shooting and projecting at 48p instead of 24p. The physics of that are the physics, and there's nothing to change.
Again, THIS IS NOT NEW TECHNOLOGY. It is very old technology.
'The problem is anecdotes are not evidence. You have to look at the public as a whole, and I think that’s what Jackson and Cameron are not doing."
anecdotes are evidence...the best kind...ones not controlled by scientists or their system of control
Anecdotes cannot be generalized to the overall population as their distribution is most likely not representative of the overall population due to tons of biases inherent in how they are collected/received. For example, there is something called response bias in which an extreme positive or negative response is more likely as the person is more motivated to voice their opinion than someone with a more moderate response. That's why anecdotes are not reliable evidence, and other sources should be used which is what this author is arguing. Psychology has been studying exactly these issues for years; it would seem prudent to at least consult these theorists at some point.
I heard an anecdote from my one relative that President Obama is a muslim. Is that evidence?
Furthermore, she also said he would never win the election, and that she thought everyone in her town felt the same. Should I trust her word, and the anecdotal evidence of a handful of relatives? Or should I have looked at the scientific polling which correctly predicted the outcome of the election, even as a few select individuals claimed the polls were "skewed"?
If you are to look at public opinion, you have to look at all of it. The averages. What do the majority say?
Excellent, eye-opening article... literally.
I still believe the action sequences in films (specifically) could benefit from a moderate frame increase. BUT, only for those sequences; after which point the rate should return to 24fps.
Removing the "strobbing" affect inherent in 24fps wrests the viewer out of the fantasy and forces them to make something fantastical compare to reality. Which, of course, cannot be reconciled and in turn the illusion is lost.
I saw a great video on youtube a few months back where they were arguing for just this. Shooting at 48p or 60p, but then converting all the non action down to 24p. And for action sequences, having them at either 48 or 60 (or 30) depending upon the degree of action and of blur. Not a bad idea at all.
I love this article. Thank you.
Having just seen The Hobbit yesterday at 48fps, I can tell you that I thought it looked decidedly odd -- but I saw it in 3D, where EVERYTHING looks decidedly odd. If you hear anyone complain about how it looked in 48fps and they subsequently tell you that it was also in 3D, you should retroactively ignore any qualitative judgement they offered about the frame rate, because there's just no way in hell they're going to be able to separate the effects. 3D just looks too different from one film to another.
IMNSHO, most of this is still just wanking. This article is particularly disappointing, because it purports to elucidate the "science" of high frame rates, yet it does nothing of the sort. When it gets close, it fails to take an obvious leap to consider whether there are beat-frequencies involved (that's why we're irritated by fluorescent light "flicker"). (BTW, that would probably also be nonsense in this case -- but it's also an obvious thing to think of, and the fact that they haven't even thought of it means that they are just not considering this from an at all serious scientific perspective.)
Instead, we just get a lot more conjecture without any actual new science to back it up.
What's missing is a double-blind study that determines whether people can, in fact, see a difference -- and if so, which way it goes. Until you see that, anything anybody tells you is suspect at best. Look up 'Confirmation bias'.
This hits the nail on the head.
I completely agree to this. I felt the same watching this movie. The more real it looks (at 48fps), the more our mind is convinced this is acting and surroundings are artificial. It is definitely not suited for films having a high detail of graphics.
Interesting debate. I saw the HFR version in 3d and it wasn't for me. The landscape shots looked amazing and so did some of the cgi creatures but I always felt aware of the camera. To me it did have the soap opera effect in scenes inside small kinda sets and the defenition was so high that you could see the fakeness of everything. Some bits of the film seemed sped up also. That said though, my mate who watched it with me thought it looked great. I'm gonna watch the 24 fps version now do I can make my mind up.
Having seen The Hobbit in HFR, I can say this article is all pretty bad conjecture. Besides, even if 40fps was the limit of perception this simply means HFR should be 40 fps. It doesn't support a 24 fps presentation. And somehow everyone is ignoring the fact that 3D just isn't 2D. Let me repeat this: 3D is not 2D. Don't bring your 2D in 24fps love to 3D movies, please. 3D needs to be HFR in order to suck less. Thanks.
Also, here is a good text on why 3D movies should be HFR.
I saw the Hobbit yesterday in 48fps and 3D. The 48fps was a great disappointment. I have been looking forward to this day for many years, as I am one of those people who have always been extremely bothered by the jerkiness of long camera pans or fast action in regular 24fps movies (to the point where my head and eyeballs hurt). I thought that 48fps would finally fix this issue. Well it did, sort of. Pans were definitely less jerky and blurry, but some motion blur still remained. However, the "Cinema Look" was completely gone, as has been pointed out in many posts above, and the Hobbit now looked like it was shot on video, albeit at a high resolution. I also soon realized that I could not "get into" the movie because of it. My disbelief would not be suspended! Things looked too real (read fake).
I'm now wondering if the "video look" came from the 48fps alone or if it has something to do with the movie being shot digitally instead of on celluloid film. Without knowing the science behind it, it sure seems like it would be possible to find a way to keep the film look but reduce motion blur. If not, it would be interesting to see at what is the maximum frame rate possible without getting the video or soap opera look.
One reason I have my suspicions that the video look may not come solely from 48fps, is that Roger Ebert said long ago that 48fps would do more for movies that 3D. But if the Hobbit is a good example of 48fps, then that statement is completely insane. Avatar in IMAX 3D at 24fps was an amazing movie experience. Best I've ever had. The Hobbit was not an experience, it was just some stuff projected on a silver screen.
Another odd thing I experienced, was that, every now and then, it looked like the movie jumped forward and skipped a few frames. It was a quick sudden jerk that was very annoying. I don't know if this was actually happening or if the effect was just produced in my brain. I tried to focus on things at the edges of the screen, where things were moving slower, and the jerky action was still there. I know that different people perceive things differently. For example, in the past when we had CRT monitors, if I looked at one set to 60Hz, it looked to me like it was blinking. But most people didn't see that and had no problems working at 60Hz. I had to set my refresh rate to 72Hz or above in order to not go insane at the office. And the same goes for strobing lights. They give me a headache or an epileptic will get a seizure, but most people have no reaction at all. So I wouldn't be surprised if much of the 48fps experience is VERY subjective. We definitely need more research on this subject.
24p is a majority of the cinema look. The majority of drama and comedy shows on television now are shot digitally. And many movies as well: Social Network, Skyfall, Avatar, Avengers, I really could list hundreds. All digital. They all felt like film.
The motion blur IS the film look. It is why the first step digital cinema made in trying to be a serious medium was to go from 60i (sports programs, reality shows, and all old video cameras) to 24p. Before HD, before higher light to shadow (stop) range, before 4k/5k raw, there was the 24p video cameras.
If you ever get your hands on a DSLR, I suggest you play with shooting at 30p and 60p. You will see the "soap opera look" at even 30p. I shot on the RED years ago when it first came out, and so already know what 48p looks like played back at 48. I shot many shots in 48 (which you then slow down to 24 in post for slow motion; a standard that has existed since slow motion was invented). Played back at 48 on set they looked terrible.
You want shots with less jerkiness and strobing? It's simple. STOP SHOOTING SHAKY CAM! Stop panning ultra fast. Do what Deakins did in Skyfall. Back away from your subjects. Steady the camera, and have fast action take place in a more steady, well composed frame. It's that easy. Nobody complained about these things in the 70s or 80s or 90s when DPs actually still knew how to shoot action.
Good points! How would shutters speed and shutter angle affect the look? I read somewhere that Peter Jackson used 1/64 shutter speed but should have used 1/96 instead?
Movie looked gorgeous to me!
Me too GMIL! I have no Idea what these people are talking about
After almost three hours, 48 fps still looked like a soap opera to my eyes. Not to mention, in 48 fps, sets look like sets, props look like props, makeup looks like makeup, CG effects look like a video game, and performances seem to be exaggerated, demolishing suspension of disbelief.
There's nothing new or revolutionary about 48fps - early cinema experimented with over 100fps (it far predates colour) ... So you're not a luddite if you reject it - you're just agreeing with what most filmmakers felt about the issue ...
As a digital filmmaker, we've been stuck with 30, 50 and 60fps cameras for years - and often edited in these formats - and then gone to great lengths to convert *down* to 24p ...
If you go to the cinema to be *impressed*, and watch objects zooming past your face, robots smashing into each other, 3D explosions, etc. then you will probably get a lot out of these higher frame rates ... Same race to the bottom pop music went through - "let's turn everything up to 11"
"As a film maker?" Easy Tarantino..... Did you even see the Hobbit in 48 FPS? Because there is a huge difference in this technology. It is as big of a difference as DVD is to Blu Ray.
You are all nuts! 48 FPS was amazing! I have never seen anything like it and will forever choose that format over others if offered. You should all go watch a VHS tape or something and leave the commenting to people who can appreciate a good movie experience when its happening in front of them.
Hey guys, it's great to read all these comments. One thing I want to clarify: The point I was trying to make is not whether the film looks "good" or "bad." As I said in the interview, there are people who respond positively to HFR, and people who respond negatively. Arguing over whether it looks "good" or not is fruitless; it's like arguing over whether brussels sprouts taste good. Some people are gonna love them; many people are gonna hate them. That's not the point.
Many people do not like the look of HFR -- that's a statistical fact. If you are one of the people who thinks it looks good; then that's great. But I was asked by Movieline to give a hypothesis as to WHY many people respond negatively to it. That's what this is. It isn't an indictment of you if you are one of the people who like it. It's simply an explanation as to why so many people are having difficulty accepting it.
Next »