The Hobbit Trilogy 3D Blu-ray (2012-2014) [Region Free]

[Mikeatron85]

One movie that I think would absolutely benefit from HFR is the sequel to Tron: Legacy. They could even employ a similar tactic to the 3D in Legacy where the scenes that take place in our real world are exhibited in 24fps (with each frame doubled to make the output still 48fps), and the scenes taking place on the Grid are in 48fps. Been watching a fair bit of Legacy over the past few days and that's all I can keep thinking of!

[BleedOrange11]

I think a really powerful use of HFR would be in a movie with natural-looking set pieces and human characters that aren't caked with make-up and prosthetic faces. Maybe something like the recent Life of Pi.

[Show spoiler]I bet it would make that long dialogue take at the end even more riveting.

It's too easy for audiences to see through fake stuff with the combination of digital cameras + ultra HD + 3D + HFR. Alternatively, HFR would probably look fantastic in 100% CGI animations too.

For action movies, filmmakers could try scenes with fast motion that are typically avoided or diluted for 24fps. Maybe a really outrageous disc wars scene for a TRON sequel or a scene where Magneto levitates a ton of floating objects (popping out in 3D of course) and swirls them around really fast for X-Men. But for HFR to sway critics, there would have to be several of these scenes throughout the movie, and they would have to be integrated with important moments in a good story.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by Mikeatron85

One movie that I think would absolutely benefit from HFR is the sequel to Tron: Legacy. They could even employ a similar tactic to the 3D in Legacy where the scenes that take place in our real world are exhibited in 24fps (with each frame doubled to make the output still 48fps), and the scenes taking place on the Grid are in 48fps. Been watching a fair bit of Legacy over the past few days and that's all I can keep thinking of!

HFR would be perfect for Tron! I can't believe I didn't think of that lol

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Mikeatron85

I've got active 3D and passive 3D displays in my home. And though there is a noticeable drop in quality when you're viewing a 1080p video containing side-by-side/over-under picture information, I'd much prefer have the option of a 720p 48fps encode than 1080p 24fps only. Agreed with Rainhurt - they should definitely offer both options

720p still looks good, agreed; That would be nice for 2 versions.

Originally Posted by Mikeatron85

One movie that I think would absolutely benefit from HFR is the sequel to Tron: Legacy. They could even employ a similar tactic to the 3D in Legacy where the scenes that take place in our real world are exhibited in 24fps (with each frame doubled to make the output still 48fps), and the scenes taking place on the Grid are in 48fps. Been watching a fair bit of Legacy over the past few days and that's all I can keep thinking of!

Interesting.

Tron 3 is planned for late 2014. Hopefully it stays on target. I just watched it the other day also. Hedlund, who plays Sam, did a great job. Clu was awesome.

[Show spoiler]Imagine there was a Clu version 3? But I think it'll be Sark's son. Can't wait to see Tron return as himself after he swims up from the water.

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

720p still looks good, agreed; That would be nice for 2 versions.

That not going to happen. It's not cost effective. - Having just watched the film in the HFR, I'll just say that it is the cleanest 3D image I've ever seen. That being said, it looks completely un-natural during movement, just like the god awful 120 / 240 hz crap all the tv manufactures are pushing on their televisions. (Moving to Cameron's 60fps is probably not going to solve this issue...)

I remember the early comments compared it to a "soap opera" image, and it dead on.

The Hobbit sequels will probably be the last two films we ever see @ 48fps, and then the HFR craze will go away when Cameron has completed his Avatar sequels, by 2016 or whenever they get released.

fitprod

[Mikeatron85]

Originally Posted by fitprod

That not going to happen. It's not cost effective. - Having just watched the film in the HFR, I'll just say that it is the cleanest 3D image I've ever seen. That being said, it looks completely un-natural during movement, just like the god awful 120 / 240 hz crap all the tv manufactures are pushing on their televisions. (Moving to Cameron's 60fps is probably not going to solve this issue...)

I remember the early comments compared it to a "soap opera" image, and it dead on.

The Hobbit sequels will probably be the last two films we ever see @ 48fps, and then the HFR craze will go away when Cameron has completed his Avatar sequels, by 2016 or whenever they get released.

fitprod

See I hate the 'pure motion' features on TVs/projectors and immediately disable the feature as soon as they're in my home - yet I enjoyed the 48fps presentation of The Hobbit. To me, it was like chalk and cheese - on the one hand you have these TVs that simulate the effect (conversion anyone?), whilst on the other, you have the real thing. I thought the difference between the two was extremely evident after seeing The Hobbit.

There were maybe 4/5 shots where I felt like the effect was taking me out of the film. The rest of the time it truly sucked me in. In fact, since seeing it, I now notice the 24fps stutter all the time.

[Zivouhr]

Fitprod, you're probably right about there not being two versions, unless there will be an extended version offered later on with the HFR 3D.

Originally Posted by Mikeatron85

There were maybe 4/5 shots where I felt like the effect was taking me out of the film. The rest of the time it truly sucked me in. In fact, since seeing it, I now notice the 24fps stutter all the time.

I haven't experienced that effect yet having seen Hobbit twice in 48 fps, but I can imagine how 48 FPS has changed your standards from now on for film.

I'm still a fan of 24 fps, but if given a choice in a theater, I'd probably go for 48 fps each time. I agree that it does draw the viewer into the world as if you're watching live action, not cinema.

I agree that it does look more life like for motion like a soap opera does, but this adventure movie is anything but a soap opera, and that's what separates it.

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

I haven't experienced that effect yet having seen Hobbit twice in 48 fps, but I can imagine how 48 FPS has changed your standards from now on for film.

See this is where it is an experience issue. My primary job has been QA of films and video for nearly 15 years...

Remember when Jackson was claiming the issue everyone had with the demo presentation was because the film wasn't finished? He was full of it, and this turned out as I expected.

I am curious it see the film in 24fps for comparison, and my gut instinct is that since this was natively shot 48fps, there will be a ton of motion blur, and it will not look very good. - The only problem is that I would have to sit through this bore-fest in a theater for a second time.

Honestly, the home video release of The Hobbit has the potential to be a complete disaster.

fitprod

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Mikeatron85

See I hate the 'pure motion' features on TVs/projectors and immediately disable the feature as soon as they're in my home - yet I enjoyed the 48fps presentation of The Hobbit. To me, it was like chalk and cheese - on the one hand you have these TVs that simulate the effect (conversion anyone?), whilst on the other, you have the real thing. I thought the difference between the two was extremely evident after seeing The Hobbit.

There were maybe 4/5 shots where I felt like the effect was taking me out of the film. The rest of the time it truly sucked me in. In fact, since seeing it, I now notice the 24fps stutter all the time.

"Pure Motion" is motion interpolation where software attempts to place extra frames of movement in between the recorded frames on the disc. That is why the motion looks unnaturally fast, because there are extra frames of motion that wasn't there to begin with.

In the case of the Hobbit, the movie was recorded at 48 FPS so you are seeing exactly what was recorded with nothing added in between so that is why there is a difference between the two.

[Mikeatron85]

Originally Posted by singhcr

"Pure Motion" is motion interpolation where software attempts to place extra frames of movement in between the recorded frames on the disc. That is why the motion looks unnaturally fast, because there are extra frames of motion that wasn't there to begin with.

In the case of the Hobbit, the movie was recorded at 48 FPS so you are seeing exactly what was recorded with nothing added in between so that is why there is a difference between the two.

Exactly what I meant I was saying that the difference between the two is like chalk and cheese after seeing something natively shot that way. fitprod mentioned that it was just like the pure motion effect on TVs - I was disagreeing

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I agree, but honestly, if you scan many of the comments from all over the web, I think it’s fair to say that The Hobbit, rightly or wrongly, is generating *mixed* reviews, as a whole....actually quite polarizing in fact.

Given that, and especially for the reason described in the following link (i.e. post processing work), the acquisition and exhibition at 60 fps for Avatar II will take steel cajones on the part of Jim C. I hope he's still up to the challenge. -

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...es#post6862836

I really hope that Cameron films at 60,or at least 48 FPS,though I doubt he will disappoint.A Cameron movie without some technical jump is like U2 without a gigantic stage....

The one thing that sold HFR for me more than anything else was the CGI.... I really think that HFR brings CG work into it's own,takes it to the next level.Gollum was really there,just beyond that window,which once was a screen.
Avatar 2 at HFR will be an absolute eyeball-melter,it will bring Pandora and the NA'VI to life.However since it'll require a lot of work in post-production and a lot of rendering I don't expect Avatar 2 before 2016..... though I pray for 2015.

Anyways,here's hoping to lots and lots of HFR 3D movies!!

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Mikeatron85

Exactly what I meant I was saying that the difference between the two is like chalk and cheese after seeing something natively shot that way. fitprod mentioned that it was just like the pure motion effect on TVs - I was disagreeing

Sorry about that. From your post I thought you were confused as to why you don't like motion smoothing on your TV but didn't see that same effect with the Hobbit at 48 FPS.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Thanks, Penton. I had almost the same experience as your family at their second viewing. It seemed like Bilbo was moving abnormally fast very early on in the Shire. Then things settled down and looked more normal for the rest of the movie. My mom noticed it as well. That "sped up" motion could certainly be a result of the projector's capability. I might go to a Digital IMAX showing next weekend to compare....

I do know it wasn’t dual projector IMAX and other than that, I don’t know what particular projector system they used but, worst was the (non-Hobbit) HFR 3D footage which they showed at SIGGRAPH 2012, of which the ‘sped up’ motion was obvious to all in attendance, as well as other much more subtle temporal artifacts (such as actors slightly changing in volume when walking across the screen) being present during the exhibited footage.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Rainhurt

Hopefully they release two 3D Blu-Rays. The regular 24fps 3D one and a delux 3D Blu-Ray with 3D 1080p 24fps and 3D 720p 48fps.

^ bolding (mine)
So, in essence what you’re hoping for is that the BDA changes the spec for one movie…The Hobbit, and I guess potentially another theatrical blockbuster, AVATAR 2…

or,

The rights owner makes a deal with ODEMAX and The Hobbit HFR 3D is distributed vis-a-vie the RED RAY player to consumers in their homes ….
http://www.redgrabs.com/up/1354392330.jpg

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by fitprod

That not going to happen. It's not cost effective. - Having just watched the film in the HFR, I'll just say that it is the cleanest 3D image I've ever seen. That being said, it looks completely un-natural during movement, just like the god awful 120 / 240 hz crap all the tv manufactures are pushing on their televisions. (Moving to Cameron's 60fps is probably not going to solve this issue...)

I remember the early comments compared it to a "soap opera" image, and it dead on.

The Hobbit sequels will probably be the last two films we ever see @ 48fps, and then the HFR craze will go away when Cameron has completed his Avatar sequels, by 2016 or whenever they get released.

fitprod

HFR will have a hard roe to hoe because(especially, before Cinemacon) I think the expectations from the filmmakers were that with The Hobbit, they thought they would hit a home run out of the park, with the HFR version, that is.

People could argue that given the mixed reviews maybe they got a single or double (at most) with the HFR version. So, HFR pioneers dug themselves a hole from the get-go if they were looking towards HFR eventually supplanting 24fps. Unless they can improve upcoming offerings, HFR may very well be destined to become an ‘optional’ format, at best. Reviews indicate that the theatrical offerings were not immensely popular and HFR production is significantly more expensive than traditional 24fps.

Although, to be fair, I think it is difficult to judge something *different* based upon one offering. P.J. and crew should really emphasize the fact that this was a learning experience for them. This format is so new, it is actually difficult to even get proper calibration during color correction. I hope that there will be further refinements in the appearance of future offerings of HFR by P.J. and Jim C. because, aesthetics aside, HFR allows for brighter 3D and less flicker and motion artifacts (blur, strobing, judder) , which is an undeniable benefit to the 3D format. I would have loved to have seen this shot and exhibited in HFR…

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1792647/

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Thanks, Penton.

That "sped up" motion could certainly be a result of the projector's capability....

I have no doubts that some particular projector systems accentuate the problem. Motion perception differences are not due to cognitive or neuro-opthalmic variances amongst normal individuals.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I have no doubts that some particular projector systems accentuate the problem. Motion perception differences are not due to cognitive or neuro-opthalmic variances amongst normal individuals.

That makes the much more sense than the problem being inherent to 48fps. Hopefully the projector manufacturers can make some improvements by the time the next HFR film is out.

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

That makes the much more sense than the problem being inherent to 48fps. Hopefully the projector manufacturers can make some improvements by the time the next HFR film is out.

Well they'll have a year, since Hobbit Pt II is the only thing on the schedule.

fitprod

[eriaur]

Is it possible with variable frame rates? Movies shot in vfr, and shown in vfr. Some scenes in 24fps and others in 48fps ?

http://www.hfrmovies.com/2012/11/21/...-hfr-projects/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...e-frame-360410
http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/08/t...e-rate-cinema/

"films don't have to be married to a given frame rate, given the costs and complexities involved. If a scene features a locked-down camera and not much motion in the frame, it's not going to benefit from an increased frame rate, and the cost savings of shooting and post-producing much of a film at 24fps rather than 48 or 60 fps could be significant."

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by eriaur

Is it possible with variable frame rates? Movies shot in vfr, and shown in vfr. Some scenes in 24fps and others in 48fps ?...

Good question….and quite complex to solve in terms of exhibition.

What I mean is that, currently, with the recent publicized 3D HFR upgrades which were installed, many digital theatrical projector systems are going to hiccup in regards to trying to seamlessly project a VFR (variable frame rate) motion picture….’hiccups’ as long as 5 – 10 sec., in some instances.

Two reasons…

#1. Projection flash rates are compelled to change with different frame rates (given sequential 3D and HFR) and mechanisms to support this need, instantaneously, during the play back of a VFR movie are not included in many present day installations.

#2 The projector systems can’t cope successfully in managing all possible frame rate changes through configuration of the system’s show playlist.

The display/exhibition part of bringing VFR motion pictures to the theater-going public will take some take time for the engineers to figure and work out. It’s not as easy as flipping a switch on a camera during the shoot.