Planetside Software Forums

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/peter-jackson-is-shooting-the-hobbit-at-48-frames-per-second/

actually I hope that they finally use higher frame rates. It would make more sense though to "unify" the frame rates, and go for 50/s like you have in the HD specs for video.
That way we get 48 for film, 50 or 60 for video - and again we will have all sorts of stuttering and stuff the like because movies have to be converted from one frame rate to another.

Interesting, Walli.  I had no idea, but this makes sense.  I can't wait to see this on the big screen.

I agree with Walli, the many varying formats for everything are maddening. Any conversion you need to do brings loss in quality. It's better these days than it used to be. In the days of DVD and before, you had PAL and NTSC with different resolution and frame rates, now at least everything that's HD is either 1280x720 (720p/i) or 1920x1080 (1080p/i) and either progressive (p) or interlaced, with an increasing amount of content being progressive. Never was there seen a more damaging video formatting issue than interlacing! But there are still the differences with film frame rates and film is where a lot of our content originally comes from, filmed largely at 24fps. The transition to digital recording makes it possible to record at whatever speed we want, so it makes sense IMO to go for 50 or 60fps (60 makes more sense than 50 to me, but 50 is closer to a direct multiple of the current 24fps film standard).

What's interesting about all this though is that this will make the actual theater visual experience much different. Many people actually perceive the lower frame rate of film in the theater to be part of the experience and higher projection/filming rates actually end up looking "cheap" and more like video. Hopefully directors and camera makers will ignore that and push through any backlash because it's purely psychological as far as I am aware and once we're all used to 60fps, we can enjoy not only higher picture and motion quality, but also improved 3D (less headache-inducing from lessened flicker, for example), easier transfer to other formats, etc.

- Oshyan

Quote from: Oshyan on April 19, 2011, 12:56:42 PM

What's interesting about all this though is that this will make the actual theater visual experience much different. Many people actually perceive the lower frame rate of film in the theater to be part of the experience and higher projection/filming rates actually end up looking "cheap" and more like video. Hopefully directors and camera makers will ignore that and push through any backlash because it's purely psychological as far as I am aware and once we're all used to 60fps, we can enjoy not only higher picture and motion quality, but also improved 3D (less headache-inducing from lessened flicker, for example), easier transfer to other formats, etc.

- Oshyan

Exactly. What I find most disturbing in movies with 24 fps in the theatre is panning shots. It stutters and really gives headaches.
I suppose that's also because of cheap interpolation algorithms, but regardless of that we won't have to deal with that anymore when shooting/projecting at 60fps.

60fps = 2,5 x 24fps...I guess that makes more sense than 50fps Oshyan ;)

exactly, the stuttering is what makes me cry everytime. And when they then start to convert the 24FPS to other framerates, it only gets worse.

I'm brining this thread back because my head is all jumbled up now. I thought I new what I was thinking but I have said a word to my self to many times and now it sounds like jiberish.

If I am rendering an HD animation from TG2. Are you guys saying that *ideally* it should be at 50-60 FPS?!
I have been reading a bunch on this lately, seems the topic is popping up in a lot of places. And I feel like its something I should seek clarity on.

ty

A while back James Cameron (Avatar) made comment that he was experimenting with frame rates of 60.  He was much happier with the results than the standard 24 fps.

Personally I think 30fps is fine for most uses at this point. 24fps is 20% fewer frames, which is a lot, so it makes a bigger difference than the small numerical difference might suggest. Unless you are making something for actual movie theater film projection or for integration into 24fps film output, don't use 24fps, that would be my advice. Use 30fps, higher frame rates are not necessarily widely supported still, they have diminishing returns and will cost you a lot more render time for 3D shots, and perhaps most importantly many people (myself included, sadly) still feel like higher frame rate video looks "cheap" and "artificial" somehow. It's a weird thing that we've gotten used to lower frame rates as representing "higher quality", but it's true. So I say let the big Hollywood directors tackle the FPS issue and get it fully solved before you start worrying about going 48 or 50/60fps yourself.

- Oshyan

Quotemany people (myself included, sadly) still feel like higher frame rate video looks "cheap" and "artificial" somehow.

Film definitely does have a very organic feel to it. I am rather sure that organics can be added back in post. Or if you have the budget the "red" cameras are very good at making digital look traditional right out of the can, so to speak. I do agree that raw digital has an artificial feel to it though. And I don't think thats just because I am used to seeing film, I think film just does look more natural, more like life is, or feels.

But what I would really like to know is about the viewers perception of movement in a high frame rate video. So say the following were possible in TG2, for the sake of conversation...

Imagine a still camera shot of a figure walking from right screen to left as an animation in TG2. Would at a high frame rate the figures movements as he walks look more real compared to a low frame rate?

Now imagine a camera flyby of a terrain. Would at a high frame rate the imagery look smoother, more like what the eye sees from an aircraft?

I think so. But the question is what is optimal? So clearly a flash animation at 12 frames per second is not going to fool anyone. I know 30 FPS animation can pass very well for film. So are you saying 30FPS is ideal as a mater of practicality or is 30 FPS the closest to the human eye we can get? Or, is it that the tec just cant somehow process out the high frame rates in a way that looks good?

Have you seen any video examples demonstrating simple things like in my questions, where we could see a man walking at the different rates?

I think the 30FPS Oshyan mentions is mostly something personal. 30FPS is practical as it doesn't increase rendertimes too much, but still it offers a great improvement.

It's hard to say what's ideal. 48, 60 or even more FPS. As far as I know it's not entirely clear at which FPS the eye works. You have central (slow) and peripheral (fast) regions of vision and your brain filters these two for relevance. Same goes for light. The eye has a huge dynamic range, but is also very capable of adjusting this dynamic range for fast/strong changes in lighting. The same goes for the eye. It's very dynamic.

At higher frame rates there will be significantly less motion blur and thus it's far less forgiving when it comes to flaws in model detail, texturing and lighting.
It has to be much better than 24FPS when you need to deliver in 48 or 60 FPS.
At 24FPS the motion blur really obscures so much of the model and texture detail.
I bet if we would see it in real life we would see it much clearer, crisper and detailed, with less motion blur.
That's why Peter Jackson and James Cameron are trying to tackle the issues with high FPS filming. To improve the movie experience and to make it look much more realistic.

I think you're mixing up a lot of related but critically differentiated things here, so I'll try to separate and tackle them individually.

QuoteI do agree that raw digital has an artificial feel to it though

That's not actually what I was saying. Regardless of digital or film, the frame rate makes a difference, and it's frame rate that I was specifically referring to above. The process of adding back in grain/noise to match the look of film, or doing tonemapping/color grading to match a particular film look, is quite separate from what frame rate the digital *or* film video is shot at. It's the frame rate itself that looks different.

Surprisingly enough, faster frame rates don't look as "good" to many viewers. It's not even necessarily a question of real vs. not real-looking, but rather association, that people have grown to associate film (and, critically, its relatively slow frame-rate) with "high quality", whereas the faster (comparatively) frame rates of e.g. video, especially home video, have become synonymous with "low quality". Historically this was true for a number of reasons, including quality of non-film equipment, lens availability, etc. and the association of film = quality made some sense, despite the lower comparative frame rate (in all other respects film was better). Now, however, with e.g. dSLRs, RED, and many other high quality *and* high frame rate video recording systems, the association is partly obsolete. Yet we still maintain the learned *feeling* that the typical frame rate of film (24fps) is "high quality". It's quite interesting, but a bit frustrating as it has the potential to hamper improvements in video standards.

Now, regarding "ideal frame rate" and "realism", Martin is right that quantifying the limits of our visual perception is extremely difficult, in large part because it varies across our perceptual frame (center of the eye vs. periphery, for example), but also because we're trying to map limits of analog systems (eyeballs, brain) to digital systems (pixels, frame rate). It used to be thought that 60fps was the limit of human vision in terms of frame rate, and indeed tests can show this to be somewhat the case as far as direct, conscious perception, yet there are many aspects of perception that work partially or entirely subconsciously and may not show up on tests of conscious perception, such that differences at 120fps or even higher may be perceptible in some circumstances. All that being said, one must also contend with the limitations of current video standards and output ability, and 60fps is all anyone is really targeting right now at the top-end.

In answer to your questions:

QuoteWould at a high frame rate the figures movements as he walks look more real compared to a low frame rate?

and

QuoteNow imagine a camera flyby of a terrain. Would at a high frame rate the imagery look smoother, more like what the eye sees from an aircraft?

Both really depend on what you mean by "more real" and "what the eye sees". It appears to be the case that our perception of "realistic" varies with context. What looks "realistic" when we're watching a video is not necessarily a direct correlation to what is technically speaking the best representation of reality. 60fps ought to look more "real", but we expect 24-30fps and associate that with high quality content (e.g. movies), and so many people actually perceive 60fps to look "too much like video" and therefore not realistic. Many say it looks "unnatural", though perhaps what they actually mean is "hyper-real", hard to say. There is also of course the difference between looking "good" and looking "real"; 60fps may look more "real", like you're actually standing there (I would argue that's the case), but at the same time it somehow looks *worse* from an aesthetic perspective (in my experience). It looks cheap and artificial. This is really just down to our learned associations and biases with film vs. video and the associated factors of each, which include frame rate.

So with all that in mind I still maintain that 30fps is a more practical and useful goal because the improvement over 24fps is significant, and the render time increase is less so. In other words your net gain from the sacrifice of longer render times is proportionally greater with 30fps vs. 24fps, and it diminishes the higher you go from there in terms of perceived increase in motion smoothness. To say nothing of the aforementioned problem that the specific 24fps frame rate is seen by many as more "realistic" because of the association with film and the expensive equipment with which it is made.

The problem with demonstrating any of this is it depends heavily on the output device and playback methods. Your monitor probably displays things at a minimum of 60hz, so should be able to display a video at 60fps. Likewise there are PC video players that can do 60fps. Finding native (filmed at) 60fps content is a little harder, but not that bad, though you need to make sure that it's actually being displayed at 60fps! Youtube, for example, converts uploaded 60fps video to 30fps, as does Vimeo and most other hosting sites, so you can't just go to Google and expect to easily and quickly find online streaming videos at 60fps. Even if you do find a 60fps video to download, many desktop video players do not play at 60fps, or at least not by default. Then it's further complicated by the fact that taking 60fps video and converting it to 30fps won't necessarily give you the same result as filming natively at 30fps, so the ideal comparison would have 2 otherwise identical cameras filming the same scene at the same time, one at 60fps and one at 30fps. I imagine such comparisons have been done but I haven't seen them.

All this should really start to tell you that 60fps is neither common nor well supported and so even if you do choose to go for it for "maximum quality", the portion of your audience who will actually get to enjoy it as intended is going to be small. So again in my opinion it's simply not worth it right now. You double your render time for the benefit of a very small minority of people, and even those who can see it might think it actually looks *worse*! (see above regarding the perception of film vs. video related to frame rate)

- Oshyan

OK, you guys got me to not worry about for now. ;D

But if you happen on some website that claims to have research on this matter (video comparisons) please remember this thread and post a link.

Its definitely something to keep an eye on.

this should help

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html (http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html)

Quote from: N810 on November 07, 2012, 02:19:50 PM
this should help

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html (http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html)

Thanks :) On the same site, at the bottom, you can find this link which might be even better:
http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

Those are both definitely useful comparisons, though it's *critical* to remember that both actual recorded video (from the real world) *and* CGI will differ somewhat from those representations, depending on how they're handled. Differences in motion blur, shutter speed (different from frames per second!), aperture (simulated or otherwise), depth of field, etc, etc. all have a not-insignificant impact in this area. That's why real side-by-side simultaneously shot video footage would be ideal as a comparison. Not to mention differences in output device capabilities, for example my LCD monitor doesn't have a super fast response time so even on the "no motion blur at 60fps" example I see some blur.

I suppose you could try making your own short TG animations, a couple seconds long, with the same motion at 30fps and 60fps. Would be an interesting experiment...

Some good quotes on both those pages as well, e.g.

QuoteBy not showing enough visual information, we force the brain into filling in the gaps... it draws you in even more.

which is conjecture but is a possibly good (partial?) explanation for why 24fps film might be more "immersive". And

QuoteYou get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience. It's similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs.

which is what I would expect to be the case, and the comparison to CDs is a good one. We totally take that change for granted now, but many did throw up a fuss when it happened. I was not one of them and never expected to be in the future, which is why the 24-48+fps change is particularly interesting to me as I too see the seeming "artificiality" or "too smooth" feel of higher frame rate content. But I'm hopeful I'll soon get used to it.

- Oshyan

Wow! Ask and receive! Nice.
Those were very helpful, thanks for posting!

About Oshyan's last post, and also the notion of "suspension of disbelief"

Based on what I just saw in those links and what I know about SOD, I think that there would be absolutely no problem for almost anyone to become immersed in a high frame rate movie. The simple fact is that within the first 5 min a viewer will be hooked or not. And being hooked depends nearly entirely on non-esthetic maters. The story and the characters will hold the viewer or they won't. I think if the story is good, Oshayn, you would not even think about it during the film.
But in terms of what we are doing here, I am very interested in your idea of having to adjust to the new rates.
This reminds me of how my brother told me he did not like how HD video looked, compared to analog, which is what he was used to.
I was really shocked to hear it, I could not imagine how anyone could not *feel* (and see) how HD was so much better.

As to wether frame rate can make something more real or not... Well, If it can, than I would want it be used. The more real the images and image sequences are, the easier it is to except the unbelievable events that happen in movies. The word vivid should be used here some place. I think someone used the term super real in this thread. But we have to decide if we are comparing only frame rates, or we are comparing video to actual reality. They will have, I am sure, different answers.

I like Oshyan's suggestion to try this in terragen. But I don't think repeating such a simple test can be of any benefit. We would have to do a short sequence, something that involves edits, cuts and transitions. Because the question cannot simply be at what frame rate does a ball bouncing up and down look best though that is a *Great* start. Or if a man walking looks more real, as I first asked.
Now we need to see how the frame rates effect both objective and subjective story telling.

As I type this I thought of Cypher's work "Arrival" http://vimeo.com/23390908
This would be the kind of thing we would need to do to really see the effect. The test needs to be a little long in duration to allow the viewers eyes enough time to adjust.

I would like to do this test. But I'm to backlogged right now. Maybe in the near future though.

Very well said Michael. Especially the first part. A movie hooks you right away and that has little to do with esthetics. I think the same way about that.

As for testing this with TG2. I suppose that, since we can't set fps in TG2, you'll need to fiddle with the motion blur (MB) length to make it look right?

Now that I'm thinking of it. How useful is MB anyway as how it is implemented now in TG2 without a fps specification parameter?
TG2 would never know if I intended the 1000m camera move of 480 frames to be projected in 20 seconds or in 10 or 8 seconds, wouldn't it?
MB length would be off, wouldn't it be?

I know many people don't render with MB and apply it in post, when you do have a fixed fps and thus can tweak it manually.

Aesthetics *do* matter to many people, story and acting do go a long way toward immersiveness but technical issues can *absolutely* have an effect on it. I would cite 3D as a prime example. Many people, myself included, feel like 3D is generally more of a distraction than an improvement. I know I'm not in the majority here but the point still stands: I simply can't ignore 3D, especially badly done post-3D, regardless of how good the story, production, acting, etc. are. The same is likely true of frame rates, both faster and slower. Imagine watching a movie at 15fps, are you saying you wouldn't notice or care? Clearly there's a line somewhere, and why would we suppose it is 24fps?

Ultimately I think it has already been said that higher frame rates seem less "cinematic" to many people. This is a simple reality. As your anecdote about your brother and High Definition demonstrates, technically better is not always subjectively better. But the reality is we know HD to be superior, and everything is moving that direction. This is a good thing. The same is true of higher frame rates, it's something that is being done and we'll all just get used to with time. In 20 years 48fps or higher will probably be more common than 24 or 30fps, and everyone will think it looks great. We need pioneers like Jackson to push through our predispositions and give us better technology despite our misgivings. The future will thank us for it.

But *again*, this does not necessarily mean that everyone should immediately follow that lead, especially where other perhaps more significant issues are involved, e.g. render time, availability of playback methods, etc. You could end up with twice as much render time and cost and hardly anyone could see the benefit of it (due to lack of widely available >30fps playback methods), and even those that did might not all actually appreciate it. So the answer to the original question remains the same in my view: don't bother with higher frame rates, not yet. All the testing in the world won't change the reasoning for that decision. I'd be interested in the results of such tests in general, but they would not be a significant factor in any decision I made on whether to animate at higher frame rates at this point. Wait until the support is more widespread.

- Oshyan

Hi again,

Yes aesthetics matter. Too much sometimes. But they matter. I only mean that it is easier to watch a movie or play with good story and acting and bad sets or effects, than it is to see a film with great effects and terrible everything else. Remember 2012, Transformers 2 & especially 3! (I give #1 a pass for my own reasons) They were horrible movies, but they looked great.

But I certainly get your points. And I agree that there is a good amount of time before we need to worry about this. Though I am going to keep my eyes on this, it will likely be very important at some point.

Now since it was brought up and I want more info on it too...
In After Effects, a user can tell the software what frame rate to create a file with when the file is created. This is not possible in TG2, Maya, or any other 3D software that I am aware of. Why?

Is there any good reason why 3d software does not have this option that you know of? Why cant we do it in TG2? It seems like it would be a great thing to have. I know that when I composite or edit. I like to have all my footage at the same resolution and frame rates.
Now I know that I can figure it out in TG2 and Maya. But why not just have a box to tick, or a input field so that its always perfect?.. especially where motion blur is concerned, wouldn't this make the calculations the software makes more true?

After effects , Premiere kind of programs goal is to make videos . So you have to choose FPS .

In a 3D application you choose all the parameters.
If they have a previewer or some camera settings you choose the frames per second there and can control your animation accordingly.
If you use PAL and want to make a camera pan from left to right in 1 second you put the last keyframe on the 25th frame.
With NTSC 30 etc. If you want to last the pan 2 seconds you make them 50 or 60 accordingly.
In Lightwave it is a percentage like in TG2(i think).
Actually in real life with a camera they are kinda the same.
It is the difference between frames the camera and-or the objects are moved + the shutter speed.
Because using a 3d animation program is actually independent of the FPS used by a camera (you can use whatever you want) they use a percentage between the first and the next frame.
It depends on shutter speed the shooting speed(FPS)like in an normal camera.
I mostly use very small percentage of motion blur if any.
It is not natural as it seem at first if you ask me.
Because when you look at a fast moving object that goes from left to right with your eye and with an camera there is not a problem at first.
But when you look at the surrounding part at the video after the shoot all is blurred.
If you look at the surrounding as the object goes from left to right (in real life) you can see it without blur ,basically it depend where you look at the moment.
But in a picture you can look where you want. You are not restricted to the focused parts.
Not sure if this makes sense.
There are probably better explanations somewhere on the net and some of our friends here could make it more comprehensible i am sure.
One of the reasons i do not like it , is, it is used as a cheap method to hide bad parts in cgi , comping . Especially on tv .
You can be sure wherever you see high motion blur or better said plenty blur they are hiding bad and or cheap VFX .
I used it too in the same way for some basic work that wasn't as good as i liked ;)

I really want to see those 48 - 60 frames movies  .
After so much years lesser motion blur hopefully .
As you guys talked about this 48 FPS situation here it may bring some different things with it.
But i made some tests years ago as my computer at those times could barely play them and i liked them .
I want crystal clear images  :)

I can comment on how FPS works with motion blur for rendered images where you're animating according to frames, as we do in Terragen.

In our case, FPS just changes how many frames are displayed per second, but the renderer does not care about this because it only has to think about frames. To produce motion blur it only needs to know how the scene changes between the current frame and the next (or perhaps also the previous frame if you have a negative shutter offset). When motion blur length is set to 1, this means that the shutter is open for the duration of one frame. Things in your scene will move a certain distance while that shutter is open. When you animate you set your key frames according to frame number, so the distance that the object moves while the shutter is open is exactly the same no matter what FPS you decide to play the frames at later on. The key thing here is that FPS only affects playback later on, and the content of each frame is the same regardless of the FPS you want to play at.

Now, if the motion blur settings were based on the number of seconds that the shutter is open, we would have to think about FPS when rendering. You would have to tell Terragen the speed of the shutter and the FPS. However, usually when shooting movies it's quite common to want the shutter duration to be a certain fraction of a frame. Half of the frame time, "180 degrees", or 0.5 in Terragen, is quite common. If you animate according to frames, not seconds, you don't need to know the FPS to render a sequence of images with a 0.5 (180 degree) shutter.

Matt

I personally think that higher FPS will be a good thing, provided film production quality can cope with the higher fidelity. 24 FPS is quite horrible to look at panning backgrounds in film. Maybe I will change my mind when I actually see it... ;)

Regarding the "strobing" that the audiences have noticed at 48 fps, I wonder if it would help to keep the shutter open for the same time that they would for 24 fps, i.e. a 360 degree shutter at 48 fps. Or as close as possible given limitations of the camera. So motion would still be as blurred as a 24 fps movie, but a lot smoother. One advantage of doing this is that you could produce a 24 fps version simply by dropping half of the frames, and the motion blur would be "normal" for 24 fps.

Matt

Thanks Matt ! Good to know :)

Thanks Kadri, some bits you wrote helped to clarify things for me.


Matt,

I checked, and indeed you guys have 0.5 ("0.5 (180 degree) shutter.") as the preset in the blur field. Thanks for the detailed info!

But you said that 0.5 is quite common, you gave a pretty good account of what that is doing. But can you also provide an example of why a user would maybe want to adjust it? Kadri suggested that increasing the blur amount would be a good fix for a bad shot in post.
But why would you lower the value? My impression now is that you put it the default value because that was "best". So the amount of blur is *equal*(?) to speed and distance? How does one even figure that out?

Hi Badger,

I think it's mostly subjective. If you prefer how it looks with less/more motion blur, then that's the right option for you. But we could look at what other film makers prefer. It used to be that 0.5 was very common, but I've seen movies that were shot with greatly reduced motion blur. Much less than 0.5, maybe even less than 0.1. The first one that comes to mind for me is Gladiator, particularly in the action sequences. My guess is that they shot with a high speed sports camera - I am no camera expert. I guess that makes sense because they had some slow-motion shots and time ramps and stuff like that, and the easiest way to do that is to shoot with a high speed camera and then drop out frames in post production to create the speed you want. Since each frame was much shorter in time and you lose some frames in the final shot, you lose a lot of motion blur. Since then I've seen it again in many other movies. Perhaps the director wanted to give the feeling of TV sports shot with a high speed camera, because that's what it looked like to me, or maybe to preserve more detail in the images. Kadri also gave some good reasons why reducing motion blur could be more natural in some cases. Something Kadri said that I empathise with is the idea that you can look at any part of the scene and always see detail just like you would in real life. On the other hand, when you look at the objects that the camera is tracking I think it's better for the background to be motion blurred to remove the unnatural strobing/cloning effect that happens. For this reason I quite like the look you get with motion blur of 1, but few people go that far (not least because it's technically impossible to film that with a real camera without using multiple lenses or some other technique.) So there are always compromises. I personally think that everything looks like a video game when there's no motion blur, but others may have a different reaction according to their own experiences. If you want a "safe" value that is not likely to offend the viewer ;) then I would choose 0.5.

Matt

The "sharp, strobing action" effect was also used (prior to Gladiator) in Saving Private Ryan, which I think is more well-known for it, perhaps somewhat pioneering (at least as far as major motion pictures are concerned). It sounds like it's mostly to do with faster shutter speeds which reduces motion blur. Tossing out frames seems to have also been done on Gladiator, possibly in conjunction with 48fps shooting.

I was a bit confused by the use of degrees to refer to shutter speed, but I found an explanation that I think clears it up for me (and is hopefully accurate, it's just from a forum user on another site):

Quote"When camera people talk about their shutter, they talk about what the physical rotating shutter in a film camera is set to. Typically it is a 180 degree shutter. That is to say, a half-circle of flat black metal spins really really fast, and the film is exposed as it flies around and is "absent" from the film plane. Half of a 360 arc is black, half is image striking film."

- Oshyan

So the more degrees the more time the film is being exposed and thus the more motion blur?

That's my understanding of it Martin. But not based on tons of research. ;)

- Oshyan

QuoteSo the more degrees the more time the film is being exposed and thus the more motion blur?

Its a very simple and straight forward way to put it. I think its good when things can be stated clearly and simply.

Thanks guys.

I tried watching some higher frame rate movie clips here. The fluidity of movement was quite unsettling i.e. when people were moving around. As though you were too much in the scene. I can see it would be cool where landscapes were involved. Nature programs and such like. Action movies would benefit. The more options we have the better but different media capture and playback methods definitely create different mood and effect. An old black and white movie can be just as good as one done in colour HD. I believe there are certain cut off points where extra quality begins to matter less because the story content is prime. Unfortuately nearly all movies that rely on high tech effects are actually rubbish movies because the story, charactors, etc are very poor. I think this has to change at least to some degree because the effects will not have the novelty value anymore. Early moving pictures must have been amazing for people to see but stories had to come to keep the audience. Back in the 1930s, watching Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs was astounding for people when they were used to black and white movies of real life.

I recently watched the Pixar movie called Brave. I noticed some better story content than usual. They are obviously attempting to up the content in line with older Disney animations. That's what made this movie better although some of the 3D effects have improved as well which definitely enhanced things because this type of animation can be a little boring to look at after we get used to it.

Another movie I recently watched which was interesting was Ted because they used the tech as a mean to bring the bear to life. The movie was not about the tech. When you watch that, you strangle become completely unaware that you are watching an animated teddy bear. He is totally a charactor in the movie.

I'm pretty much forced to use my digital SLR camera because digital versus analog film is no contest in convenience. The digital SLR has crystal sharp picture but somehow lacks the colour content created with my analog SLR.

Coming from doing music, I can say that digital high definition perfection in this area is defintely not an ideal at all. Often the sounds need that lo-fi dirt or it's just too in your face. That "low-fi" dirt of analog processors also requires very high end analog to digital convertor to capture properly so it is actually adding enrichment as well. Unfortunately, standard audio convertors are not good at all. People don't seem to mind too much though about the digital to analog conversion loss or crappy speakers. Why? because although I'm obsessive about it since I'm actually capturing the sounds and I want them to be up to par well into the future, most people are more concerned with the content.

Is an analog movie converted to digital exactly like watching the original movie? It might not be. It certainly won't be if viewed through an LCD or plasma screen. Unless you've got extremely good speakers the sound won't be up to much cop either but is this more important than the story content? I think the idea that everyone is going to want giant 3D screens with ultra high definition is flawed. Is everyone listening to high end surround sound playback systems for music? No, it's a step further than is really necessary for most people.

Yes, we need to be concerned about the tech with High frame rates, real looking scenes etc but it's always the content that rules. Unfortunately, even if TG2 gets used a whole lot for movies, it's almost a certainty that most of it will be garbage anyway. When I see that kind of garbage use, I don't care how impressive the 3D is. It doesn't impress me. It's a waste of time.

Digitally created 3D images is a much vaster leap that creating digital sounds though. That's what interests me about apps like TG2. You can create entire three dimensional worlds that have no equivalent outside of the computer. You can't paint it, or even make models and have it look anything like the same. In this sense, the more high definition and high frame rate we have the more we can create believable worlds that will be impressive to see. Unfortunately though the technical side of things is a pain. I'm not actually primarily interested in what this fractal does or how to hook that node up to get this effect, what's that motion blur going to look like etc except for that fact that I have to learn that as a means to the end which is to create the interesting content. I lose interest because of these problems that don't occur when drawing or painting.

As for movies in general though, another point is that providing the viewer with way too much high tech high definition gloss can reduce their ability to use their own imagination. Reading a book can be equally as enjoyable as watching a movie. It's just that reading a book requires more imaginative input from the reader. All this high tech immersive garbage entertainment will make people brain dead. People are as dependant on TV as junkies are on herion. It is incredible. Try taking a TV away from someone who is regulartly watching it. They don't know what to do. I've never personally owned a TV. I've just lived in some houses where there was one.

Quote from: efflux on December 01, 2012, 11:09:55 AM
I tried watching some higher frame rate movie clips here. The fluidity of movement was quite unsettling i.e. when people were moving around. As though you were too much in the scene.

Precisely. This is what you hear a lot from people who have seen this stuff, and it's been the same with my limited experience as well. I do think it will be less odd-looking over time, and eventually seeing old 24fps content will just look bad (by comparison, for equivalent scenes). But it will be a while before we even get past "48fps looks weird", I think.

- Oshyan

QuoteThe fluidity of movement was quite unsettling i.e. when people were moving around. As though you were too much in the scene.

I think I just don't understand what you guys are experiencing. What do you mean by "too much in the scene"?

I think what he meant by "too much in the scene" is you feel like it's real, right there in front of you, like *you* are IN the scene, and that sounds like a good thing, but somehow it's not. ;) I'm pretty confident you simply can't and won't understand until you see it.

- Oshyan

Your response is making me obsessive now. Now I must experience this for my self!!! It sounds like a certainty that this is the future. To much in the scene? Yes! Do it!

On a another note. If its as immersive as you are making me imagine... I remember a class I took about implementing film theory in production, or something like that. One of the classes was on how pornographers are leaders in bringing their product to market via new technologies before almost anyone else. And last week I saw part of a documentary on web addiction/sex addiction. It also had some parts about escapism and how much time the average person watches TV every week...

This Frame rate thing sounds like its guaranteed to happen. Based on your descriptions of the experience. And what I mention above.

I personally would not describe it quite like Efflux does, although many people do say it looks "too real". I'm not prepared to be so specific, I can't really put my finger on it, it just looks "wrong", or perhaps one could say "bad". The best comparison I cam come up with is it looks like it's "shot with video" rather than "shot with film" (i.e. cheap production, home video, vs. expensive, film production). By no means is this a good thing! I'm not saying it's *not* better, just that for *many* people the effect *LOOKS BAD*. I know you think it must look better, it must be great, I thought it would too, but it doesn't (to my eyes, and those of many others). Then again I hate most 3D, so... ;) That being said, I do think that higher frame rates will become the norm over time (unlike 3D), but it's going to take some getting used to.

- Oshyan

I'll use another music analogy here since music requires less high tech and hence is further forward in recreating extremely real sound as in it sounds like it's in the room. I have some ATC speakers here. Incredibly realistic sound reproduction.

For years I didn't have such good gear. I even used cassette a lot of the time. Now I have an extremely high end convertor, really good mics and speakers. I can record an acoustic guitar and the end recording sounds like it's in the room. I haven't got surround sound but that could take in even further. However, what I find is that instead of the sound appearing to exist in another space it's like it's in my face. That sense of the speakers being a window to somewhere else isn't there so now that the speakers can bring the sound right into the room I have to choose to use sounds where the speaker is like a door to some other less realistic space. The beauty is that I have that choice now. I still use tape and have tons of gear with valves because that less sharp and coloured distorted sound has it's own characteristic. As convertors keep improving and gear gets cheaper people will be wowed by this realistic effect but they will start to notice the murkier effects of tape and such like creates it's own atmosphere.

The major problem with a lot of modern music production is that it goes even beyond realistic. They create a kind of hyper in your face effect by compressing the hell out of all the dynamics. Music like this is fatiguing to listen to. I predict that high definition 3D movies will eventually have this same fatiguing effect as they push it too far.

Just another point. I usually watch movies here on my Macbook. I could get Blue-ray. I have two Eizo monitors. One is new and incredible picture quality. I have the ATC speakers and amazing audio convertor but I still watch movies as DVDs on my Macbook. I even sometimes listen to music through it's speakers or I use headphones from the Macbook and those don't sound like headphones plugged into my high end convertor. This is because I've heard and seen stuff at amazingly quality but it's so much less important than the content that I'm not that bothered about the reproduction quality. I just want to know my music production will sound great on a high end system as well as a poor one.

Oshyan,
I get what your saying about it looking bad, I mean I understand. You have been pretty specific and consistent in your explanation of what you saw. I'm inclined to believe I would see it too based on your explanation. Having not seen it my self yet. But clearly it very interesting stuff. And if there is a future in this, I am sure people will work just as hard at cleaning up issues as developing it in the first place. What I mean is, I don't think it will be a matter of "this or that". It is reasonable to think that as the pioneers develop the tech, They will modify it to cake care of the things you described, I would hope. But I think you said something pretty similar.

Efflux,
You said a lot of interesting things. But I just want to focus in on one point you made for the moment.

QuoteI still use tape and have tons of gear with valves because that less sharp and coloured distorted sound has it's own characteristic. As convertors keep improving and gear gets cheaper people will be wowed by this realistic effect but they will start to notice the murkier effects of tape and such like creates it's own atmosphere.

It sounds to me like you are viewing the medium as a component of the reality.
Yes, while the tape or the speaker is real, it is not really a guitar even though you can hear a guitar from it. I know you and everyone knows this, of course. But what I am saying is that its clear you do not expect to hear a guitar when you turn on one of your devises. You are expecting to hear a device make a sound like a guitar. And then even alter the guitars sound. So at that point the medium becomes another instrument, playing with the guitar. Brilliant musicians probably know this, count on it, and include it in the planning. Thats cool and good. You sound like you do this your self.

So likewise when you turn on a TV or see a film you are also expecting to see a representation of something, rather than looking out a window. Thats normal I would say, or at least it should be as things are.
But I would like to see that unreality removed. When I listen to a recording of a guitar, I want to hear the guitar and nothing else. I am not saying that the other things are not good. Just that I want to be able to pick and choose at my leisure.

All I'm saying is that there are lots of ways of treating a movie just as there are with audio. Certain lenses have certain effects for example or a more flickering slower frame rate could be seen as an effect. I'm pretty sure lots of movies have a lot of colour editing. It doesn't always look like the natural colour. The more real the end movie can look the more options we have because less high definition effects could be used deliberately. People usually think these old looks are no good anymore. Some black and white movies are still made. When colour took off it was probably presumed that nobody would ever use black and white again. Sin City is a cool movie that uses an unreal look to good effect. That's because they realized that they could create a better effect by being closer to how the comic looked.

And the "problem" continues, despite explanation from the film makers: http://www.celebuzz.com/2012-12-05/the-hobbit-vfx-supervisor-joe-letteri-defends-high-frame-rate-filmmaking-you-now-see-any-motion-more-clearly-exclusive-video/

- Oshyan

He only discusses the effect of high frame rate in a 3D context. Frankly it sounds good to me. I always get a headache behind my eyes from 3D movies.
I am sure I will see this movie twice overtime anyway, so I will be sure to see both the standard and 3D versions so I can at least satisfy my curiosity on this subject.

It will be very interesting to hear from more people in the community once the film is released and we have all had the same experience.

to me it seems, that after the film has been released, mostly experts that "knew" about the problem before are still complaining. Most reviews from "regular" people seem to be like "wow, looks great" (in contrast to story and the like, which seems to receive mixed feelings).
I wait until I can see it on my own ;-)

Maybe it' my lack of english language understanding but, seriously, I don't get it. How can we have "too much information" with 48 fps? And how can we consider 48 fps as a hight framerate (HFS™, haha, this joke)? It's a very poor framerate. 85 frames per second (and per eye, if you're making 3D content) will be a passable frame rate. 100 is good.

I've played to a lot of multiplayer first person shooters since Quake (Hmmm, Doom in fact), and under a 85 frames per second value you just can't perform well... Because you just don't have enough visual information when you do, for example, a fast rotation. A 180° rotation, in 1/10 second (wich, in gaming context, is slow, very slow), with 24 frame per second = 2.4 poor images (one each 75°, I hope my math are good): Not so much if you looking for Tutu75, an enemy sniper, in the jungle.

You'll say gaming is not cinema, it's an active media, but that's exactly the same problem if you give Stanley a steadicam to film "The Shining", if you want to film StarWar 7, or a new american crappy licence like "Transfomers vs robocop vs Marvel Super heros vs Godzipredator". Fast action, and fast camera mouvements, need a fast frame rate, period. And don't get me wrong, I prefer good cinema.

Does Kurosawa's movies would be better with 100 frames per second? I doubt that. Does it be damaged? I doubt that to. In fact until you don't colorize it, don't change the ratio, don't put some noisy sound effect, and stay in original langage version, I'm good with it. Give me "Apocalypse Now" or " Heaven's Gate" with a 200 fps framerate and I'll push pause button on each frame.

The only real issue I see here is picture editing: Okay, a 85 fps format need more postwork. Calculate CG background is longer. It cost dollars. Others ("press") comments are just new school (young people) vs old school (older people) same old bullshit.

Now, I didn't see the film, maybe it's horrible, but, in this case, I'm pretty sure it's not because of the 48 fps, but because the merge technic of these 48 frames. Also it can be a silly movie. Hoping I'm not too much off topic. :D

Chinaski, the problem is you are confusing technical superiority with *perceptual* superiority. Perception does not always align with what is "right" or logical. In this case, because we are used to 70+ years of 24fps film and the experience that goes with it, and likewise we are used to 30+ years of "home video" with higher frame rates, we have psychological associations between the technical elements (e.g. screen size, frame rate, resolution) and the content (e.g. expensive, well-made film, with good effects vs. cheaply made TV show or home video). These associations bias our perceptions of the content based on expectations of the relationship between technical merit and content quality/production values. When we see 30+FPS full motion video, we generally think of *cheaper* production, because this is where most people have seen such frame rates. In time the perceptual bias will be corrected, but for now it is a potential issue, one which has little or nothing to do with the benefits of the technology, and almost everything to do with expectation bias.

- Oshyan

I like your take on this, Chinaski. I have always disliked 24 FPS in movies on the big screen, and wanted more. I hope I feel the same way after seeing the movie :)

Matt

I hope this list is incomplete because no 48 FPS for me for a while it seems ... >:(
http://www.48fpsmovies.com/48-fps-theater-list/

I very much want to see it in 48fps, having always disliked the strobyness of 24fps, yet I don't think I'm immune from the perceptual bias, despite that. Fortunately I have several 48fps theaters near me. I'll report back. :-D

- Oshyan

Thanks Kadri! I had not even thought of it. I just figured that if a movie house was showing it, then they must be showing it in the correct format. I'm so spoiled!

But thankfully I see from your link that there is ONE theater that has the right equipment. I will call ahead to make sure I get tickets to the correct showing!

I just saw (again) "Lawrence of Arabia", after lunch, on a big TV screen.

The first part of the movie, with mesas and canyons and dark rocks in the desert, and dust in atmosphere, and lights, and crazy point of views and image composition, and the carracters scale, is absolutely fantastic. And could be even better with 100 frames per second, and an insane resolution. It's a classic movie, good old fashion, perfect on all aspects... Strangely it's also very close in the spirit of what filmmakers try to visualy do with modern video formats and computers (see Prometeus tread). They just forgot to have a good story.

I'm thinking that nothing is preventing (technologically speaking) a "Lawrence of Arabia" modern equivalent... It could even have TG2 backgrounds. But is there still an audience for big intelligent movies?

@Oshyan: Point taken. I just didn't think to that. I now must be immune from this perceptual bias. Too much good tv series, too much bad movies... My brain is corrupted. ;)

I've seen the Hobbit trailer at 48 fps. It looks good and I think it's good that Peter Jackson has done that. For this movie it's definitely better. This movie will probably be better than most. However, a major problem is that there are virtually no really good big budget movies. I often watch low budget non English language movies that are superior and more intelligent than anything Hollywood puts out. Movies have rarely reached the quality of high art forms from the past such as paintings, music and books. Most likely because there is so much difficult expensive tech used, so many people involved and so many compromises made. In this sense, tech that makes it easier to make better looking movies should in theory be a huge benefit. I say in theory because we have yet to really see this happen with music because people have got caught up in the tech rather than the content. I believe it eventually will happen though.

It's insane. There are 6 versions of this movie.

-24fps 2D

-24fps RealD 3D

- 24fps IMAX

- 48fps 2D

- 48fps RealD 3D

- 48fps IMAX

I guess therefore the reviews will be hard to compare unless you know what version is reviewed. I plan on seeing it in 48fps RealD 3D with XD (basically bigger screen and better sound), but the number of theaters with 48 fps capability is shockingly small, compared to the total out there.

_{Tip for US fans: Target is selling extended edition Blu-ray LOTR sets for $10 each episode, each box comes with a $5 Hobbit coupon. Total is $30, with $15 worth of coupons. Coupons can be combined, which means you pretty much pay for your premium theater ticket by getting this (in-store only, in rack by the check outs).}

Quote...I believe it eventually will happen though.

Me too, efflux. Once the tech is all on the desktop, as it nearly is now, then the auteurs will return. One man/woman/other, one vision, one film.
Another big problem is that actors get to much say in the process. Acting is the least creative of all the big parts of movie making. Even Plato said they where at the bottom of the artistic ladder. Alfred Hitchcock called them all cattle. And he was not being nice about it.
But having said that, I really like Daniel day lewis ;D. He did a great line in "Lincoln" everyone in england should enjoy. ;)

The problem with new tech is that it's usually got a wow factor but then you begin to see what it's really good at and what it's not good at. Then there is all the effort to use it to begin with. You have to be able to quickly use the tools as a means to an end. It's only when you get to this stage that decent content comes out because that's what you are now concentrating on. TG2 is a major pain in this department. It takes ages to collect all the different methods together into some kind of library of uses. I'm also hesitant of new tech because it can become defunct. I go through stages of thinking I'm just going to junk this angle of graphics because you lose track of the end result. This is why people get frustrated with TG2. I'm sure lots of talented people have tried TG2 and ditched it in frustration. Artists just want to create work not spend all their time dealing with the tools. I've gained a bit more enthusiasm recently with TG2 but it's very slow and frustrating progress.

Well, I've seen several reviews of the new Hobbit movie now, and the reviewers consistantly paint the movie as a mediocre, overly-long mishmash. And they've not been thrilled with the 3D/48 FPS thingee either.

I've read the Hobbit and Lord Of The Rings. It was a long time ago but I can't see how they can pad The Hobbit out to several movies. Are they dong three?! The Lord Of The Rings was the opposite. That could have been six movies. They had to make incoherent jumps in time. I don't think they follow the books accurately at all. I understand this though. A movie is different. They also added a token female character in Lord Of The Rings just to be PC which is crazy.

Anyone of you here see this yet?!? Hope to this coming weekend... At some frame rate or another :-\

QuoteIt's insane. There are 6 versions of this movie.

-24fps 2D

-24fps RealD 3D

- 24fps IMAX

- 48fps 2D

- 48fps RealD 3D

- 48fps IMAX

Quote from: TheBadger on December 20, 2012, 05:36:36 AM
Anyone of you here see this yet?!? Hope to this coming weekend... At some frame rate or another :-\

Saturday is the day.... Will report back.

For me it is the next thursday, in 48fps i hope.
And yes, from what i have read they split up "The Hobbit" into 3 parts (and i´m not amused about that "just for the $!" strategy).

Just for your info: The German dubbing actor of Gandalf died a short while ago. His voice was a rly great one and gave Gandalf lots of emotion and believable soul.
We Germans have to face the old Gandalf now with a different voice, so i´m curious till anxious about the outcome..  :(

Quote from: Bjur on December 20, 2012, 02:31:36 PM
For me it is the next thursday, in 48fps i hope.
And yes, from what i have read they split up "The Hobbit" into 3 parts (and i´m not amused about that "just for the $!" strategy).

My gf wants to see it too, but she doesn't want to spend extra money on the 48fps. In a way she's right.
How on earth can you charge for 2x more frames being shown in the same time?
Cinemas and retailers who claim the software updates are costly are effing liars if you ask me. These 100's thousands dollars/euros costing projectors can do this natively.

On the other hand. From a tech side and because of this discussion I'm curious to see it in 48fps/3d.
Actually, for best comparison I'd need to see it in 2D as well. With my gf then probably.
Not sure whether I'll be able to go through 3 hours of extended/dragging story twice.

I agree the splitting of the story in 3 parts is a shame. To quote something I can't remember where I've seen it "The Hobbit, the only case where it takes more time to watch the movies than to read the book".
All for dollars, yuk.

Quote
Just for your info: The German dubbing actor of Gandalf died a short while ago. His voice was a rly great one and gave Gandalf lots of emotion and believable soul.
We Germans have to face the old Gandalf now with a different voice, so i´m curious till anxious about the outcome..  :(

Well, without meaning to sound like a dick, this seems to be a perfect opportunity for Germany to stop dubbing movies ;)
Use subtitles and enjoy the original sound of the voices :)
Dubbed voices miss the original depth created by the original location of shooting and audio mastering and although I admit that the voice actors aren't as crap as over a decade ago (they're actually quite good at transferring the characters emotion), it still isn't what it's supposed to be.

Quote from: Tangled-Universe on December 20, 2012, 02:54:50 PM

Quote
Just for your info: The German dubbing actor of Gandalf died a short while ago. His voice was a rly great one and gave Gandalf lots of emotion and believable soul.
We Germans have to face the old Gandalf now with a different voice, so i´m curious till anxious about the outcome..  :(

Well, without meaning to sound like a dick, this seems to be a perfect opportunity for Germany to stop dubbing movies ;)
Use subtitles and enjoy the original sound of the voices :)
Dubbed voices miss the original depth created by the original location of shooting and audio mastering and although I admit that the voice actors aren't as crap as over a decade ago (they're actually quite good at transferring the characters emotion), it still isn't what it's supposed to be.

Hehe, you are right - a bit.
But often, especially Hollywood-Blockbuster movies and their famous but often soulless speaking original actors, can get great benefit of being dubbed by high class dubbing actors nowadys.  ;)

To see a entertaining commercial movie in your native speech is often more "stressless", just for the joy - with your brain at low energy consumption. ^

Even lots of our native German actors should be dubbed with some pro dubbing artists! Unfortunately, the good voices often have no "cinematic faces" and the "beauties" and famous ones, often sound boring, in Hollywood too. God bless, not everytime..

Are there really 6 versions? Perhaps in theory but not in practice? I have only seen 4 playing locally in San Francisco and we're a fairly significant market: 2D, 3D, HFR 3D, IMAX 3D. I would really like to be able to see an HFR 2D version (to compare with the regular 2D version without the distraction of 3D further muddying the issue) but I'm not sure it exists, or at least is playing anywhere.

I did see the movie in 24fps 2D a few nights ago. I wanted my first experience with it to be untainted by the possible affects of 48fps/HFR, and I also normally hate 3D so 2D it was. I hope to see it in HFR 3D next, for comparison. As to the movie, I felt it was enjoyable overall, yes the first part is a bit "slow" but I really didn't mind, and I felt the 2nd half actually went fast enough to make up for it, such that by the end, I was actually surprised when it finished, expecting more (after all, it is 2h45m long). In comparison to the LotR movies I felt it went quickly overall, which is perhaps a good thing. The acting is decent, though I felt like the portrayal of Bilbo was a bit *too* matter-of-fact and "light" at times. Surprisingly, the make-up and prosthetics were a bit lacking in parts. The dwarfs were particularly over-the-top I felt (unnecessarily so), and varied so much in appearance as to seem like different species. But as I say, enjoyable overall, and some of my favorite moments (e.g. the rescue by giant eagles) were beautifully realized.

- Oshyan

Watched it last night. Version was HFR Real3D XD. Very impressed. Let me try to speak to each aspect individually.

1. 3D - it was something to get used to (seeing Middle Earth in 3D). I thought it was definitely progress, though there were a few scenes where the background looked too 2D in sharp contrast to the foreground. 3D makes you feel more inside the movie. I had no disorientation or dizziness issues. 3D was most beneficial in those fast action scenes with a big vertical component. I saw a small preview later that day in 2D at there was no comparison. It's perfectly fine in 2D, but you'll gain something going 3D.

2. HFR - I'd say everything was smooth and clear. This helps with the above (feeling as part of the movie) but also makes it harder to create a seamless experience. I thought I was able to identify fake rocks fairly easily and some textures as well, especially when a piece of real landscape was in the picture to compare.

3. The contents - I was terribly surprised when it was over. Though I could tell it was ending, I thought to myself that no way has so much time passed. To those doubters who say there can never be enough material for three movies I say you will be proven wrong. Now, if you prefer constant action and don't care who the characters are and where they come from, then you may be looking at your watch especially in the beginning. If you care about the story you will be hungry for more. I loved how Peter Jackson tied this movie to the beginning of the LOTR trilogy and how you immediately step into the familiar environment of Middle Earth and meet the characters we've embraced in the first 3 episodes. The scenery is as breathtaking as ever and the new crew is quite entertaining and endearing. This will be a long year to wait for the continuation of the story.

Finally, I wish I was able to shield myself from the countless blogs and previews, because quite a few moments were no surprise (no I did not read the book), as so much material has been revealed over time. I just couldn't help myself.

Go see it if only for the imagery :)

Seen the HRF 3D version just some hours ago and i went/got into the "look" inbehalf minutes and was some kind pleased.

I have red the Lord of the Rings trillogy and The Simarillion 17-20 years ago, but not The Hobbit.
Beside the plot was known to me, i knew very little about Tolkiens art of storytelling or the actions/strings in this book.
I loved LOTR but i dont wanted to read more about cute Hobbits after LOTR these days, especially i knew the book itself was written by Tolkien for his grandchilds, or better for kids in all.

So my opinions are more influenced by the movie and its storytelling itself, less by real book contents.

+ Good entertainment. Good use of FX technics and great integration/interaction of real footage and CGI, wonderful sets as expected.
Used HRF didnt looked like a "Daily HDTV Soap" as lots of ppl in the internets moan about. Fast actions you can "eye-catch" better with less motion blur.
If HFR will be a kind of cinematic future, the more the industrie will have to go to shoot stuff in real environments now, otherwise it will!! looking fake like in The Hobbit.
I forsee a new golden age for talented Set-Designers/Builders for studio shots.

- Storytelling and it´s rythmn. Poor till funny (involuntary) introductions of some of the main characters, even known ones from LOTR.
Peter Jackson was too lazy, to build up his new trillogy as a standalone series. Even he doesnt wanted to setup his new trillogy as standalone and as part oft LOTR, he failed hard to build good bridges for all kind of audiences i say.

The Hobbit feels just like a simple "Spin-off" for me..

** Spoiler Alert and particular critics**

- Jackson failed hard, to introduce nearly everyone and race specifics in a proper way.
Some Dwarfs are looking way too much human like, just to catch the "i will be with you" feelings of the audience
- The 1st movie was way too long for its content and the art of storytelling
- A movie for "Adults" and for "Kids"? George Lucas tried to catch all and failed hard in his newer STAR WARS episodes
- Jackson repeated some of Georges failures and tried a split to charm everyone out there and failed also in my opinion, just for the money..
- 3 parts of The Hobbit? Sry, you cant tell a story straight, or you just want to make some money!

Even Conan with Arnold Schwarzenegger had more dense like The Hobbit in my opinion.

- What Albino super Orc? Never felt someone was rly in danger..
- Introducing Elves in a terrible way again, omg!
- Galadriel: I expectected some kind of Striptease/Tabledance, when i have seen her the 1st time, spot on! Way to introcuce a important and well known character..
- Saruman: As the most powerful wizard this time, he was introduced as a clueless retard, without a need to question something his anti blabla.. just ignore him is the premisse?
- White Super Orc with pals are chasing our fellowship.. Bilbos Blade lights up facing degenerated Orcs, like Goblins, but not when real Orcs are facing them like in LOTR!?
- Giant mountain Gods smashing other giant mountain Gods just for the fun and eye-catch!?!? Oh my .. and why!? -.-
- Trolls can speak now, ok. Maybe its up on the book!? I dont know. But no need for useless speaking CGI Trolls, since CGI Trolls can transport information via mimic and actions nowadays like in LOTR.. 10 years before!

- So on and on...

Conclusion: VFX like, the movie is very good, rest is just commercial bullshit.

I saw this in 2d Saturday morning after a coffee. Was totally alert as I have about 3 coffees per year, but it was 10am and I was a bit hungover ;) It totally surprised me when it finished. I was convinced only an hour had passed!

I agree with Oshyan that the prostethics were lacking and that kinda ties in with my main crit that Bjur touches on... the pale orc. Why is he CG? Why is he about as terrifying an electric kettle? The model looks under-designed and unfinished. I saw this in a digital 4k cinema. It is possibly the sharpest cinema experience I've had but good god, the pale orc looked low res in some shots, especially his scars which look like an unfinished zbrush affair. The skin between the scarring was so smooth and translucent it could be in a Nivea commercial, the scars themselves having jagged edges similar to a low res proxy in zbrush. The orc's wolf creatures (I forget their names) looked a little underwhelming at times too, but the animation of the creatures and riders was impressive and overall better than in LOTR imo. They really did stick out as CG though.

With stereoscopic 48fps to deal with and thereby 4 times as many frames as were dealt with in LOTR, I expected the same high quality prosthetics as previously used for most of the characters. It would have been less effort for the cg and compositing guys for starters.

That's my only Hobbit-specific crit really. Otherwise it was the usual 'spot the 3d theme park ride' sequences that kinda stuck out unnecessarily. The brown wizard's chase sequence saw him moving around very unrealistically and with motion blur that appeared overcranked. I've seen similar issues in other 3d movies, whether viewing it in 3d or not. On this occasion, similar to Oshyan, I wanted to see The Hobbit in 2D first.

Overall I really really enjoyed the film. I read the book a few times as a kid.

Indeed, have we always had these "theme park ride" sequences? They're really irritating and I hope they go away soon. We can have spectacle and immersion without jumping the shark like that, I'm certain of it.

- Oshyan

The worst one I've seen so far is in Tintin. It's an excellent film , but the 3d in that is stunning enough without the chase sequence that's been shoehorned in. The rest of the film is fantasy yet somehow believable. It totally killed the belief once Tintin was riding a zip wire using a broken motorbike handlebar, chasing a tank that somehow moved a hotel to a convenient beach front location. That was beyond fantasy. It was something I'd expect in a zanier film like a Wallace & Gromit number :-\

Yes, I'm really not understanding the obsession with "rollercoaster" sequences. Ugh.

So I saw The Hobbit again just now, this time in HFR 3D. I really wanted to compare, though it's been a month since I first saw it, so not quite the direct comparison I wanted. It was also in a smaller theater and I don't think it was 4k as I saw it before (which was really clear, crisp, and awesome - frankly of more benefit than 3D, in my view!). So here are my thoughts now, both comparative notes, as well as just general comments.

First off, HFR unfortunately comes with 3D as a requirement. I have seen perhaps 5 movies in 3D in the theater, such a small number because I have very consciously avoided it after my first few experiences. I simply find it unconvincing, tacky, and a detriment to my immersion in and enjoyment of *any* film. Yes, even the poster child for 3D, Avatar, was I think cheapened and made even more gimmicky and fake-seeming by the addition of 3D. So if you like 3D, you can skip the next few paragraphs and/or take these comments with a big helping of salt. ;)

I have 3 major problems with 3D as it stands now, 2 are technology issues we'll just have to wait to be fixed, but 1 is a production/direction decision that should, in my view, be fixed *now*, and I don't get why it hasn't been. #1: I wear glasses (don't have contacts yet, I know I should get them), so the glasses aren't comfortable; they work, perhaps to the surprise of some, but they, along with the weight of my regular glasses, make my nose sore by the end. So, glasses-free 3D would be great. Even if I had contacts I'd much prefer this. 2: The 3D approach currently used causes significant and distracting dimming to the images on screen. So again, glasses-free 3D would be a lot better.

3: Perspective, distance, scale are all distorted, exaggerated, and just generally messed-up with at least some scenes, and often many scenes, and this really breaks my sense of immersion tremendously. It makes things look like a model, often-times, or  just clearly wrong. I think this is fixable, though, and I am guessing at least some of it comes down to the choice of depth separation for elements. Perhaps it is even technically realistic, but I don't think all the elements in the equation are being accounted for if that's the case, such as the variable size and distance of the screen. Perhaps it's not technically possible to make the effect work ideally for everyone all the time, but I think reducing the overall depth separation, i.e. making the effect more subtle, helps all around with this. Certainly there were a number of scenes in The Hobbit that were far less jarring and more natural-seeming, with just a hint of the 3D effect.

What makes it worse is that some directors, or whomever makes the decisions about 3D elements, seem to really buy-into the gimmicky aspect of it. I would have thought with a film-maker like Peter Jackson, someone who knows drama and spectacle like few others, would not stoop to cheap gimmicks like teeth flying at the screen when someone is hit in the face! And yet... there it is, tacky as hell. Completely ruining the ability to take the film as anything but slapstick and farce, at least for that moment, at best. Cheapening the entire film experience, at worst. At other times things that would work well in 2D with simple depth of field, such non-focal point birds flying across the camera on a landscape pull-out, instead look awkward and out of place in 3D, being so obviously separated from the background. I think DoF is often over-used or incorrectly used in CGI, sort of exaggerated almost to make a point (so to speak), and the same seems to be true of 3D right now.

The issue of combining 3D with Depth of Field has been commonly mentioned as well, and if the right directorial decisions are made I think it's less of an issue, but for example at the end of The Hobbit, on a pull-back in the treasure room, the foreground was fuzzy, but I found myself wanting to focus there, and indeed the eventual focal point ended up being there. It was only pushed into the background momentarily for dramatic effect. I feel like DoF works well to accomplish this goal, but 3D less so. I'm not sure how to necessarily reconcile the use of DoF with 3D, except to say I think it is probably less problematic in scenes with less depth, or less potential points of interest. In any case I certainly think there's room for improvement there.

I also think a lot of the compositing is made more difficult, complicated, or just more obvious with 3D. Especially with blurred elements (either by motion or depth of field) or lit elements (e.g. sparks). They just look incredibly obvious and awkward, like they're standing out from the screen, not fitting into what I'm watching at all. I don't know if this is just a problem of compositing, or (I think more likely) has to do with the higher-than-they-should-be distances/depths that are portrayed. I suspect if the 3D was overall more subtle, these things would stand out less. I'm sad to say I would guess the 3D effect is somewhat exaggerated deliberately so that audiences know they're getting the "3D Experience" and thus getting their money's worth. But it really does detract from most cinematic experiences for me.

OK, so with that out of the way, what about HFR? Well, sadly I feel like it was hard to separate the effect of HFR from the 3D, however I did notice everything being smoother. At first it did seem kind of like a soap opera or something, and some scenes even seemed to literally move a little too fast (like an old movie from the 1920's or something), but after the first 10-15 minutes I didn't see that anymore, except 1 scene toward the end. And after that I have to say it lost its strangeness fairly quickly. I feel like the 3D did a lot more to ruin my immersion or the effect of the CGI than the HFR, and I suspect (and hope) that I would get used to HFR in the cinema fairly easily, provided it didn't come with 3D as a requirement. I certainly hope that ends up being the case!

Now, on 2nd viewing I found the prosthetics actually less distracting. Some still not ideal (especially hobbit feet and ears, unfortunately), and the tremendous difference between dwarfs was kind of annoying and nonsensical, but somehow it all still worked a bit better for me. Maybe it was the HFR or 3D? Hard to say.

As Alex mentions, the pale orc really is rather lacking. I think I get what they were going for with his look, a sort of creepy, ethereal, ghostly creature, jarring in a way *because* he is smoother, less ragged and harsh than the other orcs, a sort of "savage refinement/beauty" or something. But it really just ends up looking simplistic and, well, unfinished. The scars in particular, as he points out, are just bad-looking. It seems like they're trying to depict some kind of ritual scarring since they're essentially symmetrical, but no other orcs seem to have them (sure, I get it, he's special, but then the orc king doesn't have them either), and the patterns themselves seem really simple and awkward. Then there's the look of the scarring itself, just very basic-looking, unrealistic, overly-smooth. Definitely a disappointment for such a major character, the central villain. In contrast I thought the orc king had grit, realism, subtlety and nuance, unique character, and everything else you'd want, yet he was on screen for all of 2 minutes. A shame.

Overall a pretty enjoyable film, and I once again found the time went by faster than I would expect, which is a good thing (and is in contrast to the previous 3 LotR films, which *felt* long). I will be looking forward to the next ones, but really hoping they choose to do HFR *without* 3D, and that they improve the prosthetics.

- Oshyan

Thanks you guys for sharing your thoughts in such detail. I will enjoy the film now regardless of if I like the movie for the movie. I definitely plan to scrutinize it now  ;D But yeah, still have not had the chance :-[

I agree with you guys whole heartedly about the "roller coster" thing in all the action movies lately. But for 3 exceptions...
1) Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark "bolder"
2)Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom "mine coster", which was a literal rolercoster (and would have made one of the best amusement park theme rides ever!)
3) The Last crusade There were like three of em' in that one.

I do not include the crystal skull in this list because that move was stupid regardless.

Yep, pretty sure Spielberg started it, at least for my viewing experience.

Good points about the "rollercoaster" scenes Badger. You know what I think it may be is how modern computer graphics and the resulting lack of need to actually perform this crazy stuff as stunts, means that directors/writers/whatever can choose to make things *way more crazy* and hence unrealistic. It's like how in the movie Stealth, even though the CGI landscapes were pretty well done and realistic, they were made very unrealistic-looking and obviously CGI because of the really huge, fast camera moves the director chose to make. Obviously no real-world camera is moving at 10,000 miles an hour from above the clouds to the surface in 3 seconds, and it just highlighted how fake it was. In e.g. The Hobbit, the incredibly smooth, essentially perfect motion of the camera as it follows the crazy run through the goblin caves is so clearly detached from reality, it takes a crazy idea in concept alone, and makes it seem all too perfect, almost pedestrian despite how crazy the coincidences and whatnot are, and I think that really cheapens it. Also I just touched on another thing that I think really has gotten worse and worse and that is the coincidences that happen, that align just perfectly so everything works out at the end of the sequence. This was pretty bad in e.g. Pirates of the Caribbean movies, but has gotten even worse I think.

- Oshyan

Hi guys, long time no see..

Back again and you should be prepared to face lots of newbie questions in the near future!  ;D

"Rollercoaster Scenes". It´s a funny term but it fits perfect for things Jackson have done to The Hobbit.
I think the nice old Indiana Jones movies were supposed to be a kind of rollercoaster adventures. Unfortunately for Tolkiens universe it doesnt work well and Tolkien would be really pissed i bet, if he would be still alive with an eye on the productions and its contents.

Even in LOTR where some rollercoaster "light" foul play scenes Jackson never should have brought in for the credibility of some main characters/plot.
Anyone remembers the "OMG!" scene of Legolas in the Helms Deep battle in The Two Towers movie?
He was jumping on a buckler and during surfing down a long stairway, he is shooting several Orcs with his bow.. OMG!

I hope Jackson pulls back in the future and let the VFX work again just for supporting content and the story of a movie and dont use a story and characters/contents just for starring his VFX-Studio (WETA) possibilitys like George Lucas did with ILM in the last years = no clear visions and good content/script anymore, just a trust that "lots" VFX will do it (next Star Wars 7 will be directed by J.J. Abrams btw., dont know it´s good or bad)..

I loved the Indy series btw., but dont liked the last one too. If you have the time and a beer, try this review of Indy 4 from Mr. Plinkett from redlettermedia.com   :) :

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull/ (http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull/)

But his style is a bit, err, kinda individually as a fake, creepy old movie freak. But i hope he will make also a review about "The Hobbit" soon. ^

Oshyan,
I think you are absolutely right about the problem being a lack of realism based on a lack of real action. Consider the first in the new Bond trilogy (BEST Bond ever, by the way). In the first film they start out with a sequence like we have been talking about (where Bond chases the bomb maker through the construction site).
Its just like the other roller coster scenes, but the camera is grounded to the actors and to real physics. Of course nothing in that sequence is real, or rather I should say, nothing in that sense really happened. But because the actors are real and not animated, the camera had to stick to floating and moving likewise in a real way. The result was a very real looking sequence that lots of the fantasy movies loose out on. The scene from bond though, was really crazy like you described crazy in your post. But it works.

This is a good lesson for me. I do love the grand camera flybys. But now I see why, in a more analytical way, why this kind of stuff will and will not work for realism.

Bjur
When you mentioned the elf surfing/shooting part of the LTOR movies I knew right away to what you were referring. I absolutely hated those scenes. There was one in the last film too, where the elf slid down the elephants trunk. Those scenes nearly ruined the movies for me. I really had to make a deliberate effort to pretend that they did not happen in order to keep enjoying the movies. That kind of stuff in the movies really harms suspension of disbelief.

Also

Quotecreepy old movie freak

is a great term! I just decided this is what I want to be when I grow up ;D

By the way guys. If you look in Hannes' thread of his new animation project, there is a link I posted to a software plug-in that might be of some help with the high frame rate issues we were talking about.
people mentioned doing motion blur to control the effects. So there is a software for you to do that with.

Good example from Casino Royale (first Daniel Craig Bond film). I agree with all your points. We *can* have these wild "ride" sequences, have them be fun and cool, but *also* be realistic enough to not lose the audience. You can see a similar comparison with the older Indiana Jones movies (e.g. mine car sequence) vs. Indy 4, Plinkett points out a lot of this in his review of Indy 4. The mine car sequence, while also largely in miniature, still had to deal with normal camera limitations and movement (albeit on a smaller scale). It's exaggerated, but not impossible.

I had forgotten about the shield-surfing scene in LotR! Perhaps just willful amnesia. ;) Somehow I thought The Hobbit was the first of Jackson's Tolkien world imaginings to feature this abomination. But I realize now that's not the case. So, at the least, I guess I had no good reason to expect better from Jackson. ;)

In any case, really a shame that this trend is continuing. I hope at some point we'll rebound back to reality once directors have gotten the "Woah, I can do anything I want!" out of their systems and they come down to Earth and realize that hey, yes, you still need to tell a good story, *visually* as well as otherwise, and just like you don't want your actors stage-shouting their lines, you don't want the camera doing loop-de-loops around a goblin fight.

- Oshyan

The shield surfing scene by Legolas in LotR was beyond ridiculous, so was the giant elephant take down scene by Legolas.
Definitely agree with your there Oshyan and others.

I'm afraid this negative fashion you describe here is not really completely in the hands of the directors though.
If we look at 3D; the vast majority of directors isn't keen on having their movie shot/converted into 3D, but the big studio bosses want it because it's a cash cow. I think there's some similarity here between the two.

Fair point Martin. I wonder how much comes from the script writer, how much from the director, and how much from... the producer. Watch this story from Kevin Smith for more on that. :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYhLIThTvk

- Oshyan

Saw it last night.
Just the regular version.

I can say I really noticed the blur in every shot that there was a camera pan. It was really irritating, because there were so many grandiose camera shots; big establishing shots and the like. And in every shot where the camera paned, regardless of scene scale, there was a dreadful amount of blur. The entire film was basically a blur.

So from that perspective I am sure I would have preferred to see it in the HFR. None of the issues in HFR could possibly be as bad as the blur in standard frame rates, that thanks to this thread, I am now painfully aware of.

All in all, I liked the movie. It is so far mostly a kids movie series. But I had fun anyway. There were things I did not like about the film, but over all its a pretty fun movie. I will look forward to seeing it on BluRay.

I think in the end, I really have developed a preference for seeing movies on the big screen at home.

Quote from: Tangled-Universe on April 20, 2011, 02:26:15 AM
60fps = 2,5 x 24fps...I guess that makes more sense than 50fps Oshyan ;)

I have heard somewhere that the human eye's ability to detect flicker is somewhere between 50 and 60 Hz. This would mean the Europeans are barely perceiving flicker while watching TV and Americans are not. I heard from my brother who took a EE course that the professor claimed that 60 Hz line frequencies have less energy loss through power transmission than with 50 Hz. Both of these arguments favor 60 Hz over 50 Hz. However, I can't verify either of these two reasons to use 60 over 50.

Just saw the movie recently at an imax theater, just in time I guess as the DVD's are hitting the shelves in March. Seems I'm in the minority here as I really enjoy 3D. Admittedly the imax experience was less satisfactory to me then the Real3D movies I'm more accustomed to, haven't had a chance to compare the various versions and at this late point it probably won't happen.
I have a wonderful home entertainment center and it takes a BIG screen movie to lure me into a movie theater (think 3D). So Hollywood understands the need to pry people away from their 60" flat screens and surround sound systems in the comfort and convenience of their own home. That being said, I too thought the blurred pans and distorted peripheral views to be annoying (at least at the imax 3D in San Francisco). Also, as a lifelong Tolkien fan, the Jackson rape and pillage of the original concepts of Middle Earth are at the least disheartening. But, I still enjoy the movies. A willing suspension of disbelief and ability to put aside the memories of the beautiful arcane lore these movies are based on is a necessary prerequisite to viewing (IMO). Sadly it is not true to the book, but what is? Nor would a production aimed at the 'true believers' achieve the monetary and popular success that it has achieved. Christopher Tolkien, the guardian of the Tolkien Lore had this to say recently (his first public comments on the movies):

"Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."

That's from an interview in Le Monde late last year (translated here for the non-french speaking folks):
http://worldcrunch.com/culture-society/my-father-039-s-quot-eviscerated-quot-work-son-of-hobbit-scribe-j.r.r.-tolkien-finally-speaks-out/hobbit-silmarillion-lord-of-rings/c3s10299/#.USK1LKV4L2b

Yet. Yet, the movies and what Weta continues to create with digital technology is breathtaking. Put aside Peter Jackson's flamboyant exaggerations and script hacking; I really loved the great overblown scenes, the sheer over-the-top flight of the eagles, the great Maxfield Parrish like backdrops in Rivendel, the Rock Monsters in their cataclysmic duel, the Trolls (wow, the Trolls!). This is why I go to the big screen! And even more: wouldn't you love to have access to some of Weta's treasure chest (talk about Dragon's Gold!). I mean, take 'Lumberjack', the inhouse proprietary tree growing toolset that can configure it's 'growth' around the available light in the environment, 'Synapse' the solver software that made those wonderful waterfalls (co-developed by the Exotic Matter guys of Naiad fame), the eagle's feathers from Weta's 'Plummage' tools, and on and on. Sitting close-up to a huge demonstration of the most cutting edging 3D tools is a true thrill.

So in a few weeks I'll have a high res version on my blu-ray and then really look at the detail and gather my final thoughts on the movie itself, but for now I'm already starting to anticipate Part II!

Zaxxon, very well put.

On the Blu-Ray stuff... Absolutely agree. For example, I hated the last star trek movie when I saw it in the theater. I was really disappointed with what I thought was a campy take on what should have been a serious movie. But when I saw it again at home I really loved it!
I feel like Hobbit will go likewise.

The stuff you posted about the Tolkien's clan really made me sad. Basically what Christopher is describing is the rape of western culture. By a lazy, stupid, cheep population. Though perhaps not in so many words.

^^Ah well, its nothing that a good catastrophe can't cure  :-\

Quotethe rape of western culture. By a lazy, stupid, cheep money-driven media industry.

Fixed that for ya. ;) Honestly I think the media consumers deserve a good deal of blame for their really poor taste, but equal if not greater blame is on the dollar-above-all-else approach of the media producers/owners/conglomerates.

- Oshyan

I think you are right. But its the serpent eating its own tail.

Quotetheir really poor taste, but equal if not greater blame is on the dollar-above-all-else approach of the media producers/owners/conglomerates.

^^This is the part I don't get. Fantasy and syfy movies always do better when they are done in a more realist style. I don't mean the philosophical ideas of "Realism", but just in terms of gravity and physics and the like. For example, the new batman Vs. the Batmen of the 90's.

Avatar was a fun movie, but it would have been much better if they left the simple minded preaching out and done it like it was a true story. Conversely, the Hobbit and LOTR should have left more of the philosophy and worldview (judgments) in. They would not be popcorn movies then, they would be high art.

Nothing against popcorn movies, I love em'. Just thats all they make anymore, it feels.

When you say movies "do much better" when they're realistic, do you mean at the box office, or... in your mind? :D Box office for Avatar might have something to say about this idea...

- Oshyan

Im saying Avatar would have done even better. Because as it was, if you ignore the eye candy, it was a terrible movie. By contrast, even the animated version of the Hobbit, from way back, is a more deeply felt and better told story, than Avatar.

I'm pretty sure the animated version of The Hobbit was not a box office success though, and I'm also not sure I'd agree that Avatar would have done even better if it was more realistic... I agree that you and I would prefer it to be more realistic, but does that mean everyone does, or that it would have made more money? Questionable...

- Oshyan

We need someone with 200 million dollars and a script to test it. Im betting on quality to win. If not, than people are the problem, not the producers.

Michael, I think the realism aspect you just addressed isn't really about graphical realism, but rather being 'realistic' in terms of the characters, their behaviour/decisions, the events which happen and the setting they take place?
Basically these movies are often also supported by good CGI.

A good example might be comparing 'Blade Runner' to The original 3 'Star Wars' movies.  The difference at the box office was no contest, Blade Runner was a 'bust' both at the box office and with the critics.  Not to offend anyone's cherished memories, but rewatching the old Star Wars movies are acutely embarrassing for me. The poor dialogue, all the little creatures that Lucas was even then including, eyeing future revenues from toy manufacturers. Contrasted with Ridley Scott's atmospheric adaptation of Philip K. Dick's dark drama of emergent android sentience. Harrison Ford was able to create a character of 'gravitas' as Rik Decard, the hard boiled detective in a gritty future run by the oligarchs, and who can forget Rutger Hauer as the dying warrior android, Roy Blatty. The Disney Corp. just paid an enormous sum of money to continue the Star Wars franchise, yet at this point in time Blade Runner is clearly the better movie. Remember that it only grossed 1.2 million dollars US in it's initial release in 1982!  Graphically the Blade Runner environments had less 'Kapow!' then the Star Wars trio, but in the light of time and digital tech evolution Blade Runner still sits atop the lists as portraying a 'realistic' future environment, indeed that style has strongly influenced subsequent film makers in the genre.

I just ran in this fresh discussion on CGSociety where a guy posted a 25 vs 50fps animation:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=7526827&postcount=7

Perhaps the fact that he didn't use motion blur here allows you to see the difference.

@T-U
Thanks Martine! That test makes me think that at 30fps and no blur added, or in the render, and you could get pretty close to a HFR result. Someone may have suggested it already, but I will make sure to have motion blur turned off on my next render. Now that I know how to add it back in, in an amount I can more easily control in post, cant hurt to try.

On your question to me. I loved the graphics in the films we have been discussing! I am in awe of it all. So yes, i meant what you said or rather the way you asked it.

@ zaxxon
I agree with everything you said. But I also think its unfair to compare the movies that you do in your post. Just because star wars is a typical hollywood  good guy wins in the end film series. Nothing wrong with that at all, just I think that those types of films will always do better than dark dramas like blade runner. Blade Runner also has a much slower tempo, in terms of editing and everything else.

What I was imagining was a comparison between the Avatar we have, and the one that could have been made. Perhaps in 20 years someone will remake the LOTR movies in a more true to the books way, and then we can really have a comparison to discuss.
Don't know if that would solve mine and Oshyan's debate though. The culture will probably be different in 20 years, so that would not answer our questions about life now.

Anyway, this is one of the best conversations about media I have been apart of since college. Probably better than then too.

Thanks guys.