The Hobbit: An Unexpected Masterclass in Why HFR fails, and a reaffirmation ....

[Rakido]

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Masterclass in Why HFR fails, and a reaffirmation of what makes cinema magical

very interesting and objective thoughts from a guy who tried all three versions of the movie

Tonight I went to see his latest film in all three flavors of its release: 3D HFR, Standard 3D, and in 2D.

On one end of the spectrum I had one of the most disappointing cinematic experiences in recent memory, and on the other extreme I fell into the film and enjoyed it very much – all watching the EXACT same film mind you…

It also felt like there was far too much depth of field… all "appeared" in focus. The depth was overwhelming. I can honestly say I found it visually repugnant at times (harsh words I know – but you have to realize I almost RAN out of the theater within the first 5 minutes.)

Yet when I saw the exact same scene in 2D guess what? I loved the lighting. The depth of field wasn’t there anymore. The image was cinematic. And this was with the exact same scenes… shot with the exact same lenses, camera moves, lighting, and f/stop. These were the IDENTICAL takes shown without the 3D HFR!

And guess what else? I connected with the actors. I was left to let my eyes wander and tunnel vision if you will to the detail or actor that I wanted to "listen" to or see. I caught every joke and chuckled. I became immersed. And I found this absolutely fascinating – even stunning to the point that I had to ask myself (even though I knew the answer) whether the same scene had been re-light and re-shot in 2D (it wasn’t – they simply used only one of the 2 cameras they shot with.) And this is coming from someone who has been studying lighting and the visual medium for 22 years. I had two polar opposite reactions to the lighting and visuals of the EXACT SAME MATERIAL.

So if anything – I thank Peter Jackson and all of the crew and cast in New Zealand – for helping me re-affirm many of my opinions for myself on what I like and don’t like as a filmmaker, and for teaching me quite a few things by going to all 3 of these projections in one night. I think it’s fair to remind you of the obvious: these are but one person’s opinions and observations. I have seen a notable difference in opinion already in the twitter sphere and web with people in the under 30 age group. Many of them seem to very much like HFR.

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/...et%27s+Blog%29

[Brian Ellis]

Except when the camera moves round an object, 3-D isn't 3-D; it is a series of 2-D planes in front of each other. Everything in mid-distance and beyond might just be stage flats made from painted hardboard. This looks so artificial that I can understand what the guy is on about and it is why 3-D has always failed in the past after 2 or 3 years (plus the cost of chemical film for it).

2-D HFR is, IMHO, the way to go.

[KRSESQ]

I think the problem is that the brain interprets 2-d movies and 3-d images in radically different and perhaps irreconcilable ways. The brain normally interprets 3-d as the real-world, stream-of-consciousness environment and that's better suited to first-person computer environments. The problem with 3-d movies in general is that with every cut and close-up and change of angle and perspective, the brain has to shift gears and re-interpret the 3-d information and the eyes have to refocus. In motion pictures, those changes simply come too fast. The eyes and the brain just can't keep up. They get tired. That would explain why younger people seem to like 3-d more than their parents. Just wait a few years, laddie.

This might be relevent.

[Brian Ellis]

I'm not sure. Let's go back to chemical film. In the early days, the norm was 16 fps but it was when sound came along to get better high frequencies. In those days, the cinema was nicknamed the flicks for a very good reason. Then someone came along and thought that if we put a shutter in the projector light path and showed each frame three times, the eye would not perceive the flickering of the image. So, we saw a frame rate of 72 fps, even though the image changed at 24 fps. This was widely accepted and even 16/48 fps silents became acceptable.

So we must ask why digital cinema should be different. I think the answer is that we no longer see 72 flashes of a whole image on the screen. We see an image scanned 24 or 48 times/second. Although we think that the eye can't see faster than n fps, it could well be that it objects to seeing the bottom of the image a fraction of a second later than the top. IOW, we don't see the whole image at any time. There is another problem, optical distortion. Imagine a close-up film shot of Babe Ruth hitting the ball hard. The ball appears blurred on the screen because it has moved during the time the shutter on the camera is open. When projected, the eye accepts this blurring. Now imagine Albert Pujols hitting a home run. The video camera is operating with an electronic shutter opening of 1 ms or less. This means the ball appears much sharper, but it becomes distorted because the camera sees the bottom of the ball a fraction of a second later than the top. A still of the frame would show the ball as a sharply defined ellipse with the major axis at an angle to the vertical. I speculate that the eye does not accept movement distortions as readily as simple blurring.

As for 3-D, what is not realistic is that the eye does not refocus when looking from a close plane to a distant plane. The image separation changes, but the focus remains on the plane of the screen. This is unnatural. In real life, as the image separation changes, so does the focus, ie, the ciliary muscles change the shape of the internal lens. In 3-D, these muscles don't have any work to do, but the lateral rectus muscles work overtime to produce vergence. This separation of functions possibly has neurological effects, causing fatigue.

Just some thoughts...

[xortam]

... and if you don't have two good eyes (like myself) then any of these attempts at 3D imaging is a mess.

[KRSESQ]

... and if you don't have two good eyes (like myself) then any of these attempts at 3D imaging is a mess.

Exactly. With less-than-optimal vision (like wifey Christine - even corrected!) 3-d is simply headache-inducing.

[cjolley]

And if you need glasses and have a tiny nose like our daughter, a second pair slips off her face unless she sits through the whole movie holding the 3D pair.

[xortam]

My lazy eye can't be corrected so glasses weren't even a factor when I went to see Avatar in 3D IMAX ... no 3D effect at all. I also lost out on the 3D hologram projection that my wife thought was neat at the Star Trek expo. My good eye has gotten weaker with age so now I've gone beyond just needing reading glasses. I have doubts 3D technology will ever get good enough in my lifetime to overcome my lazy eye.