I'm watching The Hobbit on netflix, a film I originally saw in HFR and I am wondering - has this taken off? Is anyone else making films in it?
Cameron is doing The Avatar sequels in HFR. Other than that, this shitty gimmick is pretty much universally despised. (pic related)
I detest 3D, but saw the first Hobbit in 3D HFR out of curiosity, having seen it before and after that in 2D... it was mainly annoying in the interior scenes, which definitely didn't look filmed but very video-y. Given my antipathy for 3D I'm not sure how much of my dislike was from that and how much from the HFR, w/o a 2D HFR version to compare it to. My review is summed up by my reaction to seeing it again in 2D afterwards... I kept thinking "now it looks right." ...and 3D is dying too, it's just that the studios' up-front investment in it means we'll have to see it die a slow, lingering death over the next few years. I'm looking forward to it.
I am not against 3D itself, but rather how it is used. When the film is made with the intention of being seen in 3D, it can be (not always) highly effective. Hugo was an example of really good 3D, I remember enjoying Coraline, and Avatar. When the movie is just converted to 3D it often ends up being poor. With two kids, we see a lot of animated movies, often in 3D. I have to say that some really use it effectively, but the majority do not.
I'm one of the (apparently few) people who really liked The Hobbit in HFR. I thought it made the 3D much more effective and counteracted some of its negative effects, making the whole movie more immersive in the process. And while I did notice the cheap-looking lighting in the interior scenes, I kind of suspect that's a result of the digital photography that just becomes much more noticable in 48 fps and not an inherent problem of HFR. I've heard that the RED camera always has problems with brightly-lit sets, HFR or no. Anyway, I'm excited to see what Cameron does with the technology. There's a web series, Video Game High School, that uses HFR photography to good effect for the in-game sequences in season 2. Maybe a show about video games is a better use for it than a fantasy epic? http://www.rocketjump.com/?video=vghs-season-2-episode-1 (you have to activate the HFR by clicking on the gear on the bottom right of the player)
Just a bunch of old fogies who aren't used to something looking that good. That's what the complainers sound like to me. 3D is not dying by a long shot either.
3D has only recently been getting adopted by genuinely artistic filmmakers, like Ang Lee and now Cuaron on GRAVITY. They are using it much more creatively, making it another tool in the arsenal rather than its own end, and that suggests it WILL go on for some time (I haven't seen anything in 3D in over 30 years, but that might change when they finally get the theater brightness on projection to a decent level - we're all viewing super-weak images in cinemas right now.) Doug Trumbull, who is really the father (grandfather if you think back to Showscan, created in the 70s, deployed on shorts in the 80s) of HFR, is going ahead with his film from what I read recently. His system is a higher rate than the Jackson/Cameron stuff, so it might be that it is even more objectionable to some, or perhaps the superhigher rate will transcend the mexican soap opera look. EDIT ADDON: It would be interesting to ask folks who saw Trumbull's Showscan done on 70mm film AND who have seen recent HFR to see if they perceived it in the same way. I'm really wondering if perhaps the higher frame rate worked better in an analog film system than it does in digital, because I don't remember anybody being disturbed or annoyed by Showscan, just amazed by it.
I think the issue with HFR in The Hobbit had more to do with the effects. CGI is not quite "up to speed" yet, so some of the effects/designs looked poor. It was kind of like watching my DVDs of TNG on my Full HD television--in the sense that you have two technologies from different eras. I can imagine HFR being the standard a few years from now.
Uh, how would you know? I'm very picky about what 3D movies I see, and only go to urban multiplexes where the staff are likely to know their stuff, but it's honestly never occurred to me that a 3D image I've been viewing was unnaturally dim.
I've interviewed with Trumbull and Ang Lee and even Cuaron, plus several 3D guys too ... everybody in the industry knows that projection standards are supposed to be around 14-16 foot-lamberts, but that most systems put out about 4. When you have 3D, that is roughly halved, unless you use dual projection, which still only gets you back up to the substandard seen in regular 2d, but which hurts 3D more because the effect can be more immersive with the right light level. Eyestrain increases too. There are a couple of innovations with projection that are coming, one very quickly and another in a few years, and it sounds like by 2020 you can probably go see a movie projected properly in most cities, if not most cinemas.
I could care less about 3D, it's a total gimmick, but HFR was a revolutionary different image quality.
^ Yes, I've read those and other pieces, and say again that, whether by luck or something else, I've never had a problem with dim picture at the movies, and I think I'd have noticed. I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist, I'm just saying that trevanian doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on when he claims "we're all viewing super-weak images in cinemas right now", especially when he hasn't seen any 3D films himself.
I agree, and I also hope that 3D isn't going away-if and when I can resolve certain issues, I'd like to be able to buy the 3D camcorders, TV sets, and still digital cameras to take great 3D pictures/make great video. I will admit that when I see a 3D movie, I prefer it in 3D IMAX just because the picture seems to be brighter in that format than in standard 3D.
Again people and their problems with change. HFR, stereoscopic 3D and ultra high resolution is clearly the way to go and it's going to become better an better and in a few years, people will look back and see how jittery, blurry and flat the films of the past have been. The problem is that years of televion (which has always used HFR in a way, as the field frame rate is twice as high) have drumed the idea into us that HFR is cheap looking. Because only bad television films and stupid reality TV shows have that look. And only expensive films have that jittery 24fps look. That's why they look so good. In a few years, the majority of films will be HFR, and 3D (and not post-converted). I'm going to love that.
I just saw Percy Jackson 2 in 3D and like most post-conversions you can't even tell it's in 3D. Sigh. I had a free ticket anyway. Just makes HFR all the more amazing!