The Hobbit Trilogy 4K UHD Extended & Theatrical (2012-2014)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

WB confirmed that Peter Jackson oversaw the UHD masters for all six films. If The Hobbit films aren't in HFR, that's because Peter Jackson either didn't want them in HFR on UHD or wasn't satisfied with the results and felt 24FPS provided a better viewing experience. And if Peter Jackson didn't want them in HFR on UHD, then that's enough for me.

If UHD could support 48fps I think the HFR version would've been a given. But it doesn't support 48fps and so making 48 fit into 50 or 60 would've been a bodge one way or the other. There were easier answers like speeding it up by 4% to 50p, but as 50Hz compatibility is still not assured around the world then you could be cutting off a big chunk of the user market. They could've applied some kind of simple pulldown to duplicate frames to make it up to 60p but as that process adds judder then it goes against the ethos of using HFR to begin with. Best case scenario would've been to apply a brand new interpolation of 48 into 60 but for 9 hours of content that could've been expensive and I don't think Warners or Jackson were particularly inclined to put that much effort into it.

[Fjodor2000]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Best case scenario would've been to apply a brand new interpolation of 48 into 60 but for 9 hours of content that could've been expensive

Such a conversion can be automated and would then not be expensive. But I do not think the result would be ideal. And a "supervised" would not improve things much over an automated one anyhow quality-wise.

For movies that would like to increase fps, perhaps shooting them at 60 fps would be a better option than 48 fps going forward. The problem is that those can't easily be down-converted to 24 Hz for cinemas that cannot show 60 Hz.

To reach a common denominator, movies would have to be shot at 120 fps. That is evenly dividable down to both 24 and 60 fps.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fjodor2000

Such a conversion can be automated and would then not be expensive. But I do not think the result would be ideal. And a "supervised" would not improve things much over an automated one anyhow quality-wise.

I did think about adding a quick edit to make the distinction between a good conversion or a quick one, but I hoped that it went without saying.

For movies that would like to increase fps, perhaps shooting them at 60 fps would be a better option.

Well, yes, but you'll have to get into your time machine to tell Peter Jackson to shoot the Hobbitses at 60fps.

[Fjodor2000]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I did think about adding a quick edit to make the distinction between a good conversion or a quick one, but I hoped that it went without saying.

I don't think there would be much quality difference between an automated vs supervised one anyway. Conversion from 48 to 60 fps will never be really good regardless.

[Vangeli]

Would converting to 240fps (which both 48 and 60 divide into) then cutting that down to 60 do a better job than a conventional conversion or is that what a 48->60 conversion would do anyway?

[lgans316]

My butter fingers are now itching to pull the trigger but holding on for now but not sure for how long I can lol

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fjodor2000

I don't think there would be much quality difference between an automated vs supervised one anyway. Conversion from 48 to 60 fps will never be really good regardless.

When the relevant content creators did the 60 and 24 versions of Billy Lynn's and Gemini Man they actually interpolated them out of the 120fps original to provide the correct motion blur for those respective versions, creating 60 from 48 is doing it the other way around of coursh but with the right handling (how would it not be 'automated'? The point is getting the right software to do it) it could've worked. But, as we've established, doing it right would've cost a lot of money.

[Mobe1969]

Originally Posted by Vangeli

Would converting to 240fps (which both 48 and 60 divide into) then cutting that down to 60 do a better job than a conventional conversion or is that what a 48->60 conversion would do anyway?

It results in the same thing. 48 to 240 means each frame 5 times. Then dividing by 4 means discarding odd frames. You get a pull down artefact like the abominable ntsc 3:2.

[blakeyamc]

I was under the impression (possibly incorrectly) that the 48FPS HFR was done for the benefit of the 3D presentation. Not the 2D showings.

[Vangeli]

Originally Posted by Mobe1969

It results in the same thing. 48 to 240 means each frame 5 times. Then dividing by 4 means discarding odd frames. You get a pull down artefact like the abominable ntsc 3:2.

I’m not saying just multiply the frames by five then divide by four, I’m questioning if blending to 240fps then cutting down to 60fps is better than going from 48-60 using current frame blending techniques. Most of the frames used in the final 60fps render would be newly calculated frames using the difference data between two original frames and there would be zero pull-down judder.

Not sure I can explain it better tbh. Might have to open up some programs later.

[Fjodor2000]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

When the relevant content creators did the 60 and 24 versions of Billy Lynn's and Gemini Man they actually interpolated them out of the 120fps original to provide the correct motion blur for those respective versions

Down-converting from 120 Hz to 24 Hz and 60 Hz is an entirely different thing. It's evenly divisible and thus easy, it's simple and will look good.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

creating 60 from 48 is doing it the other way around of coursh but with the right handling (how would it not be 'automated'? The point is getting the right software to do it) it could've worked. But, as we've established, doing it right would've cost a lot of money.

Not comparable since 60 is not evenly divisible (or actually multiple) from 48 Hz.

It's not a question of money, but simple math. No matter how much money you throw at it, it will never never look ideal if not evenly divisible.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fjodor2000

Down-converting from 120 Hz to 24 Hz and 60 Hz is an entirely different thing. It's evenly divisible and thus easy, it's simple and will look good.



Not comparable since 60 is not evenly divisible (or actually multiple) from 48 Hz.

It's not a question of money, but simple math. No matter how much money you throw at it, it will never never look ideal if not evenly divisible.

But they didn't simply "divide" the 60 and 24 versions of those movies, that's the point: they INTERPOLATED brand new 60 and 24 versions from the 120 originals to bake in the appropriate motion blur for those formats. The maths is still in favour of that process, but as they literally created new frames for the entirety of those 60 and 24 versions then I'm sure that some computer genius - like yourself for example - would be able to rejig it the other way.

I mean, I'm sure you're aware that even the 24fps versions of the Hobbitses had some interpolation from the 48fps original because just cutting out half the frames made the motion blur look weird, no matter that the maths says it's cleanly divisible. They shot @ 48fps with a 270-degree shutter and if you just remove half the frames you end up with an equivalent 135-degree shutter, which would look noticeably jerkier than standard 180-degree 24fps.

[Fjodor2000]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But they didn't simply "divide" the 60 and 24 versions of those movies, that's the point: they INTERPOLATED brand new 60 and 24 versions from the 120 originals to bake in the appropriate motion blur for those formats. The maths is still in favour of that process, but as they literally created new frames for the entirety of those 60 and 24 versions then I'm sure that some computer genius - like yourself for example - would be able to rejig it the other way.

I mean, I'm sure you're aware that even the 24fps versions of the Hobbitses had some interpolation from the 48fps original because just cutting out half the frames made the motion blur look weird, no matter that the maths says it's cleanly divisible. They shot @ 48fps with a 270-degree shutter and if you just remove half the frames you end up with an equivalent 135-degree shutter, which would look noticeably jerkier than standard 180-degree 24fps.

It will never look as good if not evenly divisible. Simple as that.

[Geoff D]

So all those GFLOPS count for nothing? I am VERY disappointed.

But, as someone said, Jackson already has some experience with this kind of thing with the processing they used on They Shall Not Grow Old to take all those weird and wonderful hand-cranked frame rates and turn them into something much smoother. Taking hundred-year-old footage and upconverting it is not the same thing as pristine 2K modern footage where a certain level of quality would be expecteded to be maintained, but it wouldn't be impossible either. Trouble is, it comes back around to money again and doing it for about half an hour's worth of footage, if that, is not the same thing as 9 hours' worth.

[Fjodor2000]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

So all those GFLOPS count for nothing? I am VERY disappointed.

GFLOPS/s are useful for rendering VFX quickly and in high quality (which requires a lot of GPU computing power if the image quality should be high), but does not help much when converting from one fps to another.

You can perhaps do the fps conversion a bit quicker (which is of minor importance since such fps conversion is done very quickly anyway). But unfortunately there is no magic to improve the image quality if the fps conversion is not evenly divisible, regardless of how much money or GPU performance you throw at it.

[Fjodor2000]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But they didn't simply "divide" the 60 and 24 versions of those movies, that's the point: they INTERPOLATED brand new 60 and 24 versions from the 120 originals to bake in the appropriate motion blur for those formats. The maths is still in favour of that process, but as they literally created new frames for the entirety of those 60 and 24 versions then I'm sure that some computer genius - like yourself for example - would be able to rejig it the other way.

I mean, I'm sure you're aware that even the 24fps versions of the Hobbitses had some interpolation from the 48fps original because just cutting out half the frames made the motion blur look weird, no matter that the maths says it's cleanly divisible. They shot @ 48fps with a 270-degree shutter and if you just remove half the frames you end up with an equivalent 135-degree shutter, which would look noticeably jerkier than standard 180-degree 24fps.

Yes, you have a point about that even the 48 -> 24 fps down-conversion requires artificially adding motion blur (if you want the 24 fps to look as if you used the same shutter angle as for the 48 fps).

So the down-converted 24 fps will not look identical to as if it would have been shot at 24 fps directly, since the motion blur is added artificially. The question is how good the algorithms that add the artificial motion blur are, i.e. how close can the down-converted 24 fps variant get to one that was shot at 24 fps directly.

[goathead1]

What gets me with the Hobbit is how bloated the movies feel every time I watch them. I never get that feeling with LOTR, even when I watch the EEs. Even in the EEs, the Hobbit films have always felt a bit "rushed" imo.

[Alister_M]

It's simply a matter of Jackson in particular having far more prep time for LOTR. When it came to The Hobbit, he was insanely rushed from the get-go, locked into an unreasonably tight schedule and with an anvil of expectations hanging over his head to replicate the success of LOTR. What we got was an uneven ride at best, shoehorning in a bunch of unnecessary additions, but there's still some magic to be found.

[motorheadache95]

I think it's important to remember that Peter Jackson really didn't want to direct the movies, either. Lord of the Rings was a passion-project for him but it was also a big chunk of his life and a lot of work, and I think he understandably didn't want to do that again. I think he was happy being in a producer and consultant role with Guillermo Del Toro taking the reigns, and when it fell through and he had to step back in as directing the whole thing, he didn't quite have the energy and fire he had doing Lord of the Rings.

I say that as someone who thinks The Hobbit films came out decent, all things considered.

[slimdude]

The Hobbit trilogy seemed like a quick cash grab immediately after the success of The Lord of the Rings, and it was a disappointment to a lot of people. Peter Jackson tried too hard to make it an epic more than it needed to.