High Frame Rate

[AmrlKJaneway]

I'd thought I'd create a thread, even if it means it stays dormant for a while. It's about High Frame Rate. The next big thing? Or is it? I want to discuss this technology I haven't witnessed yet, it's artistic applications, technical limits and general opinions.

I also wish to include a complete list of upcoming productions in the format. Here it is (please help if you know of something else). Everything is 3D unless otherwise stated;

Released:

1. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012, 48fps)
2. To Space and Back (2013, Limited documentary, 8K, 60fps)
3. Ore Nyabagam (2013, 2D, 48fps)

Confirmed:

1. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013, 48fps)
2. The Hobbit: There and Back Again (2014, 48fps)
3. Avatar 2 (2016, 24fps, some scenes at 48fps)
4. Avatar 3 (2017)
5. Avatar 4 (2018)

Rumoured:

1. Andy Serkis' Animal Farm (48fps)
2. Battle Angel Alita (2020+, development starting in 2017, possible trilogy)
3. Douglas Trumball's Untitled Science Fiction Project (120fps!!??)


I've had some thoughts on application. Motion smoothing technology, albeit "fake", has been available in certain manufacturer's televisions for some time. The option is normally recommended to be turned "off" during a film, and store salespersons suggest it to consumers who wish to watch a lot of sport or play video games.

So maybe this is a hint at what movies we'll see next in HFR. Like 3D, I believe it will have certain applications. Anyone wanna watch The Green Mile or The Artist in 3D? I didn't think so... Hugo, however... Back to sports and video games, will this mean it would be best to film a sport movie (eg. Any Given Sunday) in HFR? Or a video game adaptation? Resident Evil has always stayed ahead of the technical curb as much as it can with its budget. Resident Evil 6 in HFR?

In Australia, big sport events (like our State of Origin rugby games) are shown theatrically. I don't know if the States, or other countries does this with the Superbowl, or Major League, or World Cup or whatever, but I assume these screenings (broadcasts?) may benefit from HFR.

Ride-films like Disney Theme Parks' Soarin' Over California have used HFR. Some theatrical features are considered rides by fans and critics alike. Star Wars and The Avengers spring to mind. Will we see sequels of these franchises in HFR (Disney's experience could pay off in helping these productions achieve this)?

Hope y'all like my thread. I know there's not much to discuss right now, but there could be a lot of activity in here in a few years. Or not, I guess we'll see!

P.S. I guess upcoming home technologies that can display true HFR could also be discussed here, when some specifications are available. Also, here is a link to the High Frame Rate website; http://www.hfrmovies.com/ I've checked out the sample shots, and was more impressed than I thought I would be. I was using the 120hz LG monitor listed in my signature.

[AmrlKJaneway]

I won't vote until I have seen HFR. That could be years. There were nine cinemas in my state projecting The Hobbit that way, and I couldn't afford any of them. Hopefully there are more locations available for the next one, but I suppose it will be Avatar 2 that forces cinemas to upgrade, and the date on that is very uncertain.

[MarkJ801]

I've still yet to see it. I wanted to with The Hobbit, but never made it out to it. I am way more open minded about it than most people seem to be though. I think people saying it looks too real that it looks fake are not quite understanding the point.

[legendarymatt92]

I haven't seen any in HFR either.

But, when I do, I plan to watch at least 3 in it before making a decision about it; I don't think you can get a complete idea of your feelings towards it just seeing it once, especially if it's your first time.

The feedback I've heard from most people I've spoken to on my course, and that includes lecturers, is that it looks complete unnatural and has a disjointed quality about the action. Some said it was alright, but the overwhelming consensus was that is was more of a hindrance that stopped them being absorbed into the film than it was helping them.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by MarkJ801

I've still yet to see it. I wanted to with The Hobbit, but never made it out to it. I am way more open minded about it than most people seem to be though. I think people saying it looks too real that it looks fake are not quite understanding the point.

I think that's the key: you have to go into with an open mind because, if you already have a pre-conceived feeling towards it, you're more likely to go that way when you see it (especially if it's negative).

[42041]

My gut reaction is that I don't like it, but I also realize this is somewhat irrational and based upon a lifetime of conditioning. I wasn't a fan of how it was used on The Hobbit, but I'll wait until a few more movies use it before making up my mind about it.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

I haven't seen any in HFR either.

But, when I do, I plan to watch at least 3 in it before making a decision about it; I don't think you can get a complete idea of your feelings towards it just seeing it once, especially if it's your first time.

The feedback I've heard from most people I've spoken to on my course, and that includes lecturers, is that it looks complete unnatural and has a disjointed quality about the action. Some said it was alright, but the overwhelming consensus was that is was more of a hindrance that stopped them being absorbed into the film than it was helping them.

Actually, that's something I was going to say. Thanks for reminding me!

You can vote whenever you wish, but I recommend not voting until you have had multiple experiences. To liken it to 3D again, someone who watched Avatar and Hugo might vote; "Love it! Everything 3D!", someone who watched Conan and The Last Airbender might vote; "Hate it! 2D for life!" And someone who has seen a great range of 3D might vote either, or any of the other two options, with personal preference (not good/bad experiences) shining through more in their response than the first two subjects.

[blakeyamc]

HFR and 3D = YES!

HFR and 2D = Probably no.

I enjoyed the 3D experience with the HFR. But, I also can't stand the motion smoothing settings on most TV's, but that is only in 2D. I have not seen native HFR, in 2D. Unless you count horribly lit soap operas, news and sports.

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

I haven't seen any in HFR either.

But, when I do, I plan to watch at least 3 in it before making a decision about it; I don't think you can get a complete idea of your feelings towards it just seeing it once, especially if it's your first time.

The trick will be actually seeing 3 films in HFR, before it goes the way of the dodo... Besides the Hobbit and Avatar sequels, I don't think anyone if going to be using it. (There are rumors that Singer may use it for X-Men: Days of Future Past, but I don't know where that officially stands.)

That's not going to give you a wide sample size.

Hell, who know when the Avatar films will show up, supposedly Cameron wants to start shooting this year, but the script isn't done. With his tendencies, I don't expect Avatar 2 to hit theaters until 2016 at the earliest.

fitprod

[cricepng]

I enjoyed it with Hobbit AUJ. It was one of the best movie experiences I have every had.

[AmrlKJaneway]

I've been heavily editing the first post if anyone wants to re-read it.

Thank you fitprod for pointing out X-men to me! It is not a franchise I follow, and I had no knowledge of the news. If Singer enjoys working with it (if he does) and his results, this could effect one franchise I do love. Battlestar Galactica in HFR in 2016! I'm taking bets now, lol.

Your news led me to research other rumours and I found a few, and also another application of HFR in theme parks rides, which I edited my opinions of the potential into the first post.

I'll try to keep this thread as up-to-date as possible, even if it takes a few years to spark major interest. And I will document the possible death of the technology if it comes to be, the reasons, the repercussions to early adopters, and how it could have been marketed better in hindsight. $1 million per screen, when a lot have only recently upgraded to digital or 3D for roughly the same price... hmmm... Success of the format isn't screaming at me, but I've been surprised before.

Does anyone have any knowledge or information about storing HFR on home media formats, such as Blu-ray disks, that could be helpful to the discussions in this thread?

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by cricepng

I enjoyed it with Hobbit AUJ. It was one of the best movie experiences I have every had.

Were you in Pennsylvania or PNG? How many cinemas in PNG were able to display The Hobbit in this way?

[42041]

I don't think HFR could "fail", other than simply drawing no interest from filmmakers. It's likely that any new digital projector system going forward will have the capability of projecting HFR, so any filmmaker that wants to use HFR has that option.

[raygendreau]

HFR was introduced by Jackson to make fast action 3D scenes smoother, thereby reducing discomfort for some viewers. Many viewers had negative reactions, probably because they spent too much time trying to evaluate how they felt about it, rather than 'letting go' and immersing themselves in the movie.

I watched The Hobbit in 3D HFR and it improves the fast action scenes in my opinion. I have had 3D in the home for over 3 years and have watched numerous 3D films in the theater without discomfort. I see no reason to use HFR for 2D.

I have read that, in the future, there may be some use of variable frame rates, with 24 fps used for more static scenes, then switching to 48 or 60 fps for the action scenes.

http://www.hfrmovies.com/tag/variable-frame-rates/

[NARMAK]

Like many others, i have yet to experience it and when i do i'll be able to make a decision but my past opinion was that i wouldn't support the HFR move from 24p if it meant we lose the 'look' that makes it seem like a hollywood movie that we currently get in 24p.

I'm all for tech that can eek out the absolute best in motion, clarity etc. but i don't like to think it comes at the expense of the aesthetic look. Now i know many may try jump down my throat by trying to compare it to the much slower days of old when cameras first came into existence and were B&W, but that's not true.

I simply try to support technology that benefits the experience, not ones that detract me from immersion. I think those motion-flow style 'sped up', soap opera style systems that many TVs could activate and made 24p movies look like cheap TV were a problem is all.

I don't want that to happen because it takes me out of the experience rather than immerse me even more

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

HFR was introduced by Jackson to make fast action 3D scenes smoother, thereby reducing discomfort for some viewers. Many viewers had negative reactions, probably because they spent too much time trying to evaluate how they felt about it, rather than 'letting go' and immersing themselves in the movie.

I watched The Hobbit in 3D HFR and it improves the fast action scenes in my opinion. I have had 3D in the home for over 3 years and have watched numerous 3D films in the theater without discomfort. I see no reason to use HFR for 2D.

I have read that, in the future, there may be some use of variable frame rates, with 24 fps used for more static scenes, then switching to 48 or 60 fps for the action scenes.

http://www.hfrmovies.com/tag/variable-frame-rates/

Hey! Switching frame rates? Like switching aspect ratios, that could become an art in it's own! No one wants to see every detail of someone's lips moving, however a mini-gun being fired is a different story!

As for home media, wouldn't TV's with 120/240+hz already be able to display HFR, in 3D, if the source allowed it? Or would the technical limitations of a HDMI cable not allow this? How about DVI-D? I don't see why, seen as it's just double the frames, 2D content at HFR couldn't be stored on a disk in a similar MVC to 3D, and displayed on a 3D TV, or motion smoothing TV with a high refresh rate. But as many have stated, including Ang Lee on the HFR website, the main current reason for HFR is reducing some of the jumping in action sequences, particularly in 3D.

Hopefully, future home media formats won't be divided into the source format, ie. one form of disk/player for 4K or greater, and another for HFR 3D. Both formats should be looking for a storage medium with greater capacity (and properly formatted blu-rays could be the key, with a new player to read them), and it would be beneficial to the consumer if they both opted for the same format, with players that are able to read multiple codecs. They could also release entire HD TV shows, like nine seasons of Seinfeld, in theory, on the one disk.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Douglas Trumball, the visual effects artist behind Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey is currently helming a ten minute short to push the boundaries of High Frame Rate film production.

UFOTOG, as it is being named, is not only filmed in 4K 3D, but is also at a whopping 120fps! On top of this it will be accompanied by Dolby Atmos sound. The experimental film should be shown to select audiences in Los Angelas sometime in August, and I'm guessing it would be a must see for film makers interested in the new technology, such as James Cameron and Peter Jackson.

This is not to be confused with Douglas Trumball's upcoming 120fps film, which is reportedly a feature length space epic set 200 years in the future.

So, exciting times for HFR fans!

Full story here;

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/beh...ds-last-569988

[vegeta88]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

Douglas Trumball, the visual effects artist behind Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey is currently helming a ten minute short to push the boundaries of High Frame Rate film production.

UFOTOG, as it is being named, is not only filmed in 4K 3D, but is also at a whopping 120fps! On top of this it will be accompanied by Dolby Atmos sound. The experimental film should be shown to select audiences in Los Angelas sometime in August, and I'm guessing it would be a must see for film makers interested in the new technology, such as James Cameron and Peter Jackson.

This is not to be confused with Douglas Trumball's upcoming 120fps film, which is reportedly a feature length space epic set 200 years in the future.

So, exciting times for HFR fans!

Full story here;

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/beh...ds-last-569988

That sounds really exciting! I really enjoyed The Hobbit in 48fps3D. I'm glad to see the medium is not necessarily dead due to some poor reception. I would love to see this demo.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

I'm not sure why we remain stuck at multiples of 12 and 24.

I know that people frequently say that 24 fps is how the eye "sees", but that's completely false. During the silent era, film speed was standardized at 16 fps b/c that was the minimum speed that generated a fairly "continuous" motion image. Filmmakers were reluctant to go higher b/c film was so expensive.

Frame rates were upped to 24 during the sound era b/c that was the minimum required to have audio sound "natural" when optical tracks were added to film strips.

Now that we're using digital projection with audio not dependent on how quickly film is being passed through a projector, we don't need to be restricted by multiples of 12 or 24.

[Falaskan]

I thought most shots looked sped up when I saw the hobbit in 48fps. I have no idea why since you'd think it would make things smoother looking, but it didn't.