Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk 4K UHD 60p/3D (2016) - Page 58 - Blu-ray Forum

levcore · 12-06-2018, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

What do you do about the whole "real world" thing?

I live in it every day so I've gotten used to it.

RockyIII · 12-06-2018, 01:42 PM

Everything evolves and progresses, and so should film motion

DJR662 · 12-06-2018, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Everything evolves and progresses, and so should film motion

Yeah, except there is no need to "evolve" or "progress" when it comes to film motion. Unless you actually want movies to stop looking like movies.

Doctorossi · 12-06-2018, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJR662

Yeah, except there is no need to "evolve" or "progress" when it comes to film motion. Unless you actually want movies to stop looking like movies.

There's no "need" to improve any aspect of movies' presentation. Movies looking "like movies" is a technological artifact. That effect can still be retained within higher frame-rate formats, if artists so desire.

reeper · 12-06-2018, 02:23 PM

Yeah sure, HFR makes the picture clearer because it removes the motion blur but everything looks so artificial. Disable that feature whenever possible! Whenever I'm at someone's house and I see that its enabled and they don't realize it, I take the liberty of picking up the remote, going through the TV menu and disabling it.

Those people have often thanked me because they couldn't figure out why their TV looked so strange to begin with and just lived with it until I disabled it.

It....looks....terrible.

Doctorossi · 12-06-2018, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reeper

Yeah sure, HFR makes the picture clearer because it removes the motion blur but everything looks so artificial.

It actually looks less artificial; you're just accustomed to artificial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by reeper

Disable that feature whenever possible!

Motion interpolation and natively-photographed HFR are two very different things. Motion interpolation can indeed look very artificial.

imsounoriginal · 12-06-2018, 02:33 PM

Yeah there’s a big difference. My eyes will never accept the MotionFlow or whatever on TVs. But in theaters they adjusted to HFR in a few minutes. I really dig it

I think if people are judging HFR based on the first or second Hobbit, the tech must not have been ready yet. Whatever I saw on Hobbit 3 looked great. And if Lord Cameron is really doing 60fps for the Avatar sequels, it’ll just keep getting better.

kwr212 · 12-06-2018, 02:58 PM

I watched the UHD the other night in 60 FPS. It’s hard to separate the look of 60 FPS from the look and style of the film. Pros: the movie was insanely sharp. There’s a wide shot in a cemetery early in the film and you can read the names on the distant tombstones. It’s an amazing amount of clarity, but this may have nothing to do with frame rate and more with the lenses and native resolution. The 60 FPS didn’t work for me in some scenes, including many of the opening scenes which just had people standing around. It worked better in the big stadium scenes later in the film with fireworks and huge crowds. At times it had that soap opera look, especially in panning shots. I’d love to see a more artistic/experimental approach to HFR rather than apply it across the board in a drama. Also, the look of the cinematography only added to the “digital” look for me. I’m sure it worked better in 3D, but in 2D all of the super wide shots with zero depth of field were monotonous. The colors looked as direct out of the camera as possible for most shots so that it could match reality, but many of the locations were visually bland or ugly, so while clarity was high, it wasn’t a gorgeous film for me. The movie itself was okay. It got better as it went along and by the end I enjoyed what Ang Lee was trying to say. Not his best and not a masterpiece, but with the right (low) expectations it’s an okay experience. Overall, I remain curious to see more HFR. I think we need a filmmaker who is willing to push its capibilities and experiment with different rates that fit the different scenes. I doubt it will become a standard, 100%, across the board frame rate, but like aspect ratio, film stock/digital, 3D, HDR, and so on, it can enhance an experience when used with the right content.

Doctorossi · 12-06-2018, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwr212

It’s an amazing amount of clarity, but this may have nothing to do with frame rate and more with the lenses and native resolution.

It's both.

reeper · 12-06-2018, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Motion interpolation and natively-photographed HFR are two very different things. Motion interpolation can indeed look very artificial.

I stand corrected. I meant motion interpolation, not HFR. The "True Motion" feature on TVs needs to go away.

RockyIII · 12-06-2018, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJR662

Yeah, except there is no need to "evolve" or "progress" when it comes to film motion. Unless you actually want movies to stop looking like movies.

Q: What makes a movie look like a movie?
A: Simple. Heavy judder and strobing, with blurry motion

Or maybe it is up to the artist/director to determine what a movie should look like on an individual basis?

RockyIII · 12-06-2018, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

It actually looks less artificial; you're just accustomed to artificial.

.

I think what he is implying is that movies should look artificial. Blur and judder makes movies shine

LoSouL · 12-06-2018, 03:36 PM

I think the HFR in Billy Lynn also works on a conceptual, narrative level. Every minute of it. Sensory overload.

reeper · 12-06-2018, 03:36 PM

Actually, I watched The Hobbit 2: Desolation of Smaug in theaters in 3D HFR and I couldn't stand it. Everyone was moving at a very strange pace.

HFR can be reserved for sports and video games. Leave films out of it!

Socko · 12-06-2018, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I agree, I keep it at 1 or 2 just to help smooth out pans. But anything more than that and it becomes too obvious, which I can't stand.

Weird, because I really liked HFR, especially when paired with 3D. Feel like I say this all the time, but after seeing Hobbit 3 in HFR 3D, I really think ALL 3D should be HFR. The improvement in clarity and fluidity is that drastic.

I agree.

To get back to motion interpolation.
My projector has motion interpolation (so no, that is not HFR) and I use it mainly for animated CG movies. When I watch Avatar in 3D I think it looks so much better. Then again, Avatar is basicly an animated movie

With live action 3D movies I sometimes check which setting I find better looking.
Another live action animated CG movie is Gravity. That looks great in 3D with motion interpolation on, but the filmmakers never intended it to look like that.

RockyIII · 12-06-2018, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reeper

Actually, I watched The Hobbit 2: Desolation of Smaug in theaters in 3D HFR and I couldn't stand it. Everyone was moving at a very strange pace.

HFR can be reserved for sports and video games. Leave films out of it!

I thought only Hobbit Part 1 was in HFR in theaters

Doctorossi · 12-06-2018, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyIII

I thought only Hobbit Part 1 was in HFR in theaters

Nope. All three.

LoSouL · 12-06-2018, 04:17 PM

I hope we get the HFR versions on UHD.

DJR662 · 12-06-2018, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Q: What makes a movie look like a movie?
A: Simple. Heavy judder and strobing, with blurry motion

I don't know what the hell you're talking about? Perhaps you need to get a better TV then?

RockyIII · 12-06-2018, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJR662

I don't know what the hell you're talking about? Perhaps you need to get a better TV then?

So now it went from bashing HFR to bashing personal TV preference...I see

12-06-2018, 01:42 PM	#1142
RockyIII Blu-ray Baron Member since:Feb 2016 Location:Miami, Fl Trading Score:25	Everything evolves and progresses, and so should film motion

12-06-2018, 02:23 PM	#1145
reeper Senior Member Member since:Sep 2014 4K collection:158 Blu-ray collection:820 Digital collection:299	Yeah sure, HFR makes the picture clearer because it removes the motion blur but everything looks so artificial. Disable that feature whenever possible! Whenever I'm at someone's house and I see that its enabled and they don't realize it, I take the liberty of picking up the remote, going through the TV menu and disabling it. Those people have often thanked me because they couldn't figure out why their TV looked so strange to begin with and just lived with it until I disabled it. It....looks....terrible.

12-06-2018, 02:33 PM	#1147
imsounoriginal Blu-ray Grand Duke Top contributor Member since:Dec 2008 Location:NYC 4K collection:320 Blu-ray collection:946 DVD collection:70 Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:59	Yeah there’s a big difference. My eyes will never accept the MotionFlow or whatever on TVs. But in theaters they adjusted to HFR in a few minutes. I really dig it I think if people are judging HFR based on the first or second Hobbit, the tech must not have been ready yet. Whatever I saw on Hobbit 3 looked great. And if Lord Cameron is really doing 60fps for the Avatar sequels, it’ll just keep getting better.

12-06-2018, 02:58 PM	#1148
kwr212 Active Member Member since:Aug 2013 4K collection:914 Blu-ray collection:3754 DVD collection:602 MA collection:164 Digital collection:158 iTunes collection:2233 Prime collection:7 Trading Score:3	I watched the UHD the other night in 60 FPS. It’s hard to separate the look of 60 FPS from the look and style of the film. Pros: the movie was insanely sharp. There’s a wide shot in a cemetery early in the film and you can read the names on the distant tombstones. It’s an amazing amount of clarity, but this may have nothing to do with frame rate and more with the lenses and native resolution. The 60 FPS didn’t work for me in some scenes, including many of the opening scenes which just had people standing around. It worked better in the big stadium scenes later in the film with fireworks and huge crowds. At times it had that soap opera look, especially in panning shots. I’d love to see a more artistic/experimental approach to HFR rather than apply it across the board in a drama. Also, the look of the cinematography only added to the “digital” look for me. I’m sure it worked better in 3D, but in 2D all of the super wide shots with zero depth of field were monotonous. The colors looked as direct out of the camera as possible for most shots so that it could match reality, but many of the locations were visually bland or ugly, so while clarity was high, it wasn’t a gorgeous film for me. The movie itself was okay. It got better as it went along and by the end I enjoyed what Ang Lee was trying to say. Not his best and not a masterpiece, but with the right (low) expectations it’s an okay experience. Overall, I remain curious to see more HFR. I think we need a filmmaker who is willing to push its capibilities and experiment with different rates that fit the different scenes. I doubt it will become a standard, 100%, across the board frame rate, but like aspect ratio, film stock/digital, 3D, HDR, and so on, it can enhance an experience when used with the right content.

12-06-2018, 03:36 PM	#1153
LoSouL Blu-ray Guru Member since:Jan 2017 4K collection:526 Blu-ray collection:950 DVD collection:37 Trading Score:82	I think the HFR in Billy Lynn also works on a conceptual, narrative level. Every minute of it. Sensory overload.

12-06-2018, 03:36 PM	#1154
reeper Senior Member Member since:Sep 2014 4K collection:158 Blu-ray collection:820 Digital collection:299	Actually, I watched The Hobbit 2: Desolation of Smaug in theaters in 3D HFR and I couldn't stand it. Everyone was moving at a very strange pace. HFR can be reserved for sports and video games. Leave films out of it!

12-06-2018, 04:17 PM	#1158
LoSouL Blu-ray Guru Member since:Jan 2017 4K collection:526 Blu-ray collection:950 DVD collection:37 Trading Score:82	I hope we get the HFR versions on UHD.

Best 4K Blu-ray Deals