Whatever happened to... HFR?
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
I hope not, the first one looked like shit, HFR completely ruined the experience.
Considering the movies were all filmed at the same time (well, not including later filming after the duology became a trilogy)...yes.
Can 48fps even be enough? The Hobbit did look jittery. The frame rates will get up eventually but it will look smooth, not like this.
I think Cameron even proposed 60 or 100 fps.
It will come. Two thirds of the world's cinemas are digital now, projectors are getting better and better.
All tentpole films right now are 3D. HFR is only the next step.
Eventually you get a very natural image, both stereocopic 3D and extremely high frame rate. HFR reduces eye strain in 3D films. What's not to like?
That's the "Avatar will be the only 3D film and the fad will die" laugh, isn't it?
Can't wait to see a contemporary film and a science fiction film in HFR.
Last edited:
For those of you who didn't like HFR... just don't see it that way. There were so few theaters offering it, I had to drive an hour to find a theater that had it. It's not like it's being forced on us the way 3D sometimes is. A lot of 3D movies will only have a single 2D showing in the afternoon... now THAT is annoying! 
I wonder if people resisted the switch from 14 fps to 24 fps betwen 1927 and 1930.
Because the content sucks, not the effect.
Skyfall in 2D vs Star Trek Into Darkness 3D. 'nuff said.
I laughed because I thought you were kidding...
Uhm, a friendly reminder - Avatar started a fad by becoming one of the most successful movies in cinema history (#1 even, if you ignore inflation).
The Hobbit, on the other hand, did not live up to it's predecessors, was only the fifth highest grossing movie of 2012 domestically, and received worse reviews than two out of three Star Wars prequels.
Because the content sucks, not the effect.
Skyfall in 2D vs Star Trek Into Darkness 3D. 'nuff said.
I don't know, those are both shitty films. Bleh.
I enjoyed the HFR of The Hobbit--in fact, it's the only reason I went. It did take me a moment to get used to it. And I think the dislike is basically about change and change can be hard. I don't think there's some objection reason that 24 frames per second is better--it's just a look we are used to.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I've seen regular movies in theaters and I can tell you that the images are goddamn weak compared to what you see in some of the screening room places in L.A., at least a decade back, and if anything things seem to have gotten worse. If 3D is half the brightness of those, then that's got to be bad.
If you don't understand my use of 'we' then I'm sorry for emphasizing community in filmgoing, but on this you're just full of shit, man. Facts is factz. Hate to quote from a Cameron, but you really got to look with better eyes.
One of the things I have often wanted was variable frame rate within a movie.
You start with nature footatage with the highest frame rate, then go to a lower frame rate as the movie continues, say, to an ever more bleak plotline...perhaps the hero character's death as seen by a crappy camera in a convieniance store, to a Daguerreotype as the credits roll.
HFR IMAX 70 mm, to 35 to super-8...all the way down.
You start with nature footatage with the highest frame rate, then go to a lower frame rate as the movie continues, say, to an ever more bleak plotline...perhaps the hero character's death as seen by a crappy camera in a convieniance store, to a Daguerreotype as the credits roll.
HFR IMAX 70 mm, to 35 to super-8...all the way down.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Trumbull's going to do that mixed frame rate thing. Don't know if it is going to happen on his current space project which is HFR, but he is really excited about mixing the rates to embellish moments (and if you figure he is going to do it with stereo as well, that means he can emphasize the moment with depth as well as extra information.)
I swear, there should have been a foundation to subsidize Welles and the same for Trumbull. We'd be at a much different place technologically with film if he'd gotten to do ShowScan properly in 1980.
I swear, there should have been a foundation to subsidize Welles and the same for Trumbull. We'd be at a much different place technologically with film if he'd gotten to do ShowScan properly in 1980.
So help me, I used to be able to tell what network I was watching just by the hues.
NBC was always a bit yellow/sepia, ABC was the best at showing Trek or bond, and CBS was always a bit dark.
Also, I remember a real-space documentary where an astronaut spacesuit was being tested out in a desert. I seem to remember a dust devil (no, it wasn't Mission to Mars)
. It was being filmed by two cameras. One I assume was digital, the other film.
The film version looked historical--and actually looked more Mars like. The digital one was just also-ran. I hate the new cameras on the series COPS. The old camcorder look was darker, edgier.
Every type od media has its own feel, and its own artifacts.
One of the things I would like to see is severe weather, maybe ball lightning, I hope--captured on different cameras.
Imagine a film camera, a digital camera, and an old camcorder, say, filming an electrical discharge--and explosion, etc.
Each will see something a bit different.
You are right about Trumbull getting more funding. I would love to see that.
NBC was always a bit yellow/sepia, ABC was the best at showing Trek or bond, and CBS was always a bit dark.
Also, I remember a real-space documentary where an astronaut spacesuit was being tested out in a desert. I seem to remember a dust devil (no, it wasn't Mission to Mars)
. It was being filmed by two cameras. One I assume was digital, the other film.
The film version looked historical--and actually looked more Mars like. The digital one was just also-ran. I hate the new cameras on the series COPS. The old camcorder look was darker, edgier.
Every type od media has its own feel, and its own artifacts.
One of the things I would like to see is severe weather, maybe ball lightning, I hope--captured on different cameras.
Imagine a film camera, a digital camera, and an old camcorder, say, filming an electrical discharge--and explosion, etc.
Each will see something a bit different.
You are right about Trumbull getting more funding. I would love to see that.
I do not dislike 3D because of being an "old fogey resistant to change"... I dislike it because it makes my eyes hurt and takes me out of the suspension of disbelief, and because it doesn't add enough to make that literal pain worthwhile. So take your smugness and stuff it in an unshielded exhaust port. 
..and I'd like to see HFR w/o the 3D gloss.
..and I'd like to see HFR w/o the 3D gloss.
Similar threads
- Poll
