High Frame Rate (48/60fps)... What do you think?

[Toruk Makto]

Now that the first Hobbit film in HFR is out, what do you think of this new technology?  Not a critique of the content of the film, but the experience of the high frame rate itself?

Here is my opinion:
I saw the film at the midnight first showing at my local AMC theater, projected by an IMB/firmware upgraded Christie Solaria CP2230 projector. My first reaction is that this technology is going to take some getting used to...

The extreme reduction in strobing and motion blurring artifacts indeed makes the experience hyper-real as many reviews have stated. Motion picture cinema has been around long enough to have created its own unique perceptual and experiential reference. HFR is now sufficiently outside that reference that the result is you feel less like you are watching a movie and more like you are watching scenery pass by through the windshield of a car. Physically there is less eye strain and less image processing effort in the brain, but the interpretive experience is different. Some people have been comparing the HFR/3D of the Hobbit to the look of a TV soap opera, but I think that may be more of how The Hobbit was shot rather than anything with the frame rate.

Bottom line, I think this technology is going to be a hit, but with a measured adoption rate. Hopefully by 2015, it will be familiar enough to viewers and filmmakers that most of the bugs and "newness" will be worked out.

Markì

[Tìtstewan]

Kaltxì

That is a very interesting technology. I would run in a cinema to watch a movie in this frame rate. But I ask me, how would reach this technology at the home users? How it would be possible to compress a three hours blu-ray movie with 48fps at a 50GB disc? May here is a new storage option necessary. Every actual TV or monitor can display/use 60fps material.
However, this technology would be great in cinemas (and hopefully for home use).

[Blue Elf]

I haven't seen it in action yet, but I plan to see Hobbit during Christmas; then I'll be able to say more. Until now I only read, that this frame rate causes nausea to some people. I hope I will not be among them...

[Kamean]

I'll watch the Hobbit on Wednesday. Judging from the HFR samples that should be cool. IMHO hyperrealism - that's cool.

[Prrton]

Until now I only read, that this frame rate causes nausea to some people. I hope I will not be among them...

I didn't feel nausea at all, but I sat as far away from the screen as possible.

[Niri Te]

Sorry guys,  I just DON'T. GET IT. Ymu drive your car down the street with no flicker,  and don't get nauseous, why should the image on a screen have that effect? It makes no sense to me. I want it as hyper real as it can be made.

[Ricardo]

But I ask me, how would reach this technology at the home users? How it would be possible to compress a three hours blu-ray movie with 48fps at a 50GB disc? May here is a new storage option necessary. Every actual TV or monitor can display/use 60fps material.

Right. The hardware is given in many/most living rooms. Don't worry too much about Blu Ray. It's a temporary storage medium, just like VHS, DVD, CD and others. If they won't publish The Hobbit with 48 fps next year, they'll do it some years later. Look how much movies of the 80s and 90s are available in HD.

[Blue Elf]

I've just seen Hobbit, unfortunately it wasn't in HFR. Although our local cinema is able to show movies in HFR, here in Czech republic only two cinemas in Prague were given HFR version of Hobbit. It can be available later in 2013; seems that situation is the same also for other surrounding countries. Problem is on the side of distribution companies.
So, I'm still haven't seen it in this quality.

[MaTe]

Liked HFR quality alot. I have seen blur in Avatar and Hobbit was crispy all the time - definitely a tech to use if you want 3D.

['Itan Atxur]

Being a long time hardcore PC gamer I simply cannot fathom why anybody would prefer lower frame rates. Being an elitest PC gamer the goal has ALWAYS been more frames and higher definition. 25-30 FPS is MORE than acceptable but if 50-60 is possible then go for it.

['Itan Atxur]

Sorry guys,  I just DON'T. GET IT. Ymu drive your car down the street with no flicker,  and don't get nauseous, why should the image on a screen have that effect? It makes no sense to me. I want it as hyper real as it can be made.

I don't know for sure but I believe it has to do with peripheral vision and your inner ear. Your body KNOWS it's not moving your eyes are sending a mixed message what with the center of your vision showing movement and the sides staying still.

[CyanRachel]

Now that the first Hobbit film in HFR is out, what do you think of this new technology?  Not a critique of the content of the film, but the experience of the high frame rate itself?

Here is my opinion:
I saw the film at the midnight first showing at my local AMC theater, projected by an IMB/firmware upgraded Christie Solaria CP2230 projector. My first reaction is that this technology is going to take some getting used to...

The extreme reduction in strobing and motion blurring artifacts indeed makes the experience hyper-real as many reviews have stated. Motion picture cinema has been around long enough to have created its own unique perceptual and experiential reference. HFR is now sufficiently outside that reference that the result is you feel less like you are watching a movie and more like you are watching scenery pass by through the windshield of a car. Physically there is less eye strain and less image processing effort in the brain, but the interpretive experience is different. Some people have been comparing the HFR/3D of the Hobbit to the look of a TV soap opera, but I think that may be more of how The Hobbit was shot rather than anything with the frame rate.

Bottom line, I think this technology is going to be a hit, but with a measured adoption rate. Hopefully by 2015, it will be familiar enough to viewers and filmmakers that most of the bugs and "newness" will be worked out.

Markì

Totally agree with all you said above, Marki!
I've seen "The Hobbit" 3 times now -- twice in the HFR 3D and once in regular 24fps 3D...and overall I actually prefer the HFR 3D. Yes, the HFR technology can be improved upon (probably by Peter Jackson/WETA and James Cameron), and it does take a bit of getting used to, but by the 2nd time of seeing the film in the HFR 3D, I was already more used to it.  
I would recommend my fellow Avatar fans to see "The Hobbit" (it's a darn good movie regardless of the format it's shown in!) in the HFR 3D if possible...and even to see it twice in that format if possible. That way, you can start getting used to it in preparation for the Avatar sequel films, which just might be filmed in the HFR 3D (JC might go higher than the 48fps of "The Hobbit"). I think it would be VERY interesting to see what the Na'vi would look like in the HFR 3D (though I can't even imagine what a *higher* frame rate than 48fps would look like).  

['Itan Atxur]

48 and 60 FPS basically look the same. The only way you'd ever notice the difference is if the camera jerked REALLY fast in one direction. And good directors make sure camera movement is smooth so the additional 12 frames really don't help too much.

[Toruk Makto]

Sorry guys,  I just DON'T. GET IT. Ymu drive your car down the street with no flicker,  and don't get nauseous, why should the image on a screen have that effect? It makes no sense to me. I want it as hyper real as it can be made.

I don't know for sure but I believe it has to do with peripheral vision and your inner ear. Your body KNOWS it's not moving your eyes are sending a mixed message what with the center of your vision showing movement and the sides staying still.

It also has a lot to do with the eye's reflex of trying to focus to a point beyond the displayed depth of field in the projected image. Even though the observed focal point is an artifact of the image on the screen, the eye continues to try to focus on the blurry part expecting it to resolve, although it never will. This can cause fatigue and mild disorientation. It varies from person to person.

Markì

[Ngawng]

Hello!

When I saw The Hobbit in 3D and 48fps I must admit I did find the frame rate quite disorientating. To be honest I'd rather have watched it in standard frame rate because I would have been able to concentrate better :s Did anyone else get a kind of fast-forwardy perception of the motion sometimes? I did and I felt like my brain just couldn't keep up some of the time....didn't get nauseous though.

But then again this could have has something to do with the setup, I saw it at an independent cinema that uses the "flicker" method like a lot of 3D televisions. Not sure really.

Heh my eyes are a bit sore right now, I saw Life of Pi at the same theatre a few hours ago the flicker method does seem more straining on the eyes.

['Itan Atxur]

I'd imagine that this is something that people who play video games frequently like me will latch right on to. People who don't normally play games are more likely to be used to 24 FPS.

[Ricardo]

Did anyone else get a kind of fast-forwardy perception of the motion sometimes?

I agree. I was in a cinema with polarization glasses, no shutter technique.

[Eanikran]

I like it. I was in best buy the other day and I saw a 3D tv with the same high frame rate. How it works is frames are repeated once or twice before the next frame, kind of sandwiched. (1, 1.5, 2) and it makes for a smoother transition between frames. Personally I like it because I'm a gamer and I prefer high frame rate.

[Txur’Itan]

After watching the Hobbit in HFR 3D, I got a sense of color depth and animation detail that reminded me of HD videogames. I like that the effort is going into making the projections/displays so that they are catching up with the rendering technology.

I hear plenty of complaints that 3D and/or HFR is either gimmicky or bad, but I think this is because the complaint is coming from someone that was situated in a bad seating location, or they have trouble using the 3D glasses stereoscopically.

For optimal 3D seating, I always sit center of center. And since I do not need my glasses to see, they just help my eyes relax, I use the 3D glasses without my prescription lenses. This will not always be feasible, but there are some real limitations to the technology.

SCREEN	SCREEN	SCREEN	SCREEN	SCREEN	SCREEN
SPACE	SPACE	SPACE	SPACE	SPACE	SPACE
Seat	Bad	Seat	Bad	Seat	Bad
Seat	Bad	Seat	Iffy	Seat	Bad
Seat	Good	Seat	Good	Seat	Good
Seat	Iffy	Seat	Good	Seat	Iffy
Seat	Bad	Seat	Bad	Seat	Bad