Wednesday, January 2, 2013

My "The Hobbit" High Frame Rate Review

This has absolutely nothing to do with comedy, but this'll take longer than a Tweet or Facebook post. There are minor spoilers mixed throughout, so proceed with some caution.

There are other articles out there, that will go more in depth about the history/differences/benefits of using 48 frames per second (fps), and you should google them. So very briefly, if you didn't know, Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" was the first big studio movie filmed not only in 3D, but at 48fps. Movies have been filmed at 24fps ever since sound was introduced, so that's what we've seen, and what we're used to.

We've actually seen plenty of movies at higher frame rates, albeit artificially. Most modern tvs have a "feature" that can convert anything it's showing to 120hz, or in a (kind of) manner, 120 frames per second. For gamers this is a must have feature, and it's visually easily apparent, so these manufacturers are eager to show it off. Go to Best Buy and see clips of Avatar. You may have noticed that it looks a little "wierd", that it moves strangely, at the very least not like you remember seeing it in the theater. This is the tv's video processor at work, some companies call it SmoothScan, some call it MotionPlus, etc. I absolutely hate it. I think it makes movies look terrible and cheap.

But, these movies were all shot in 24fps and converted after the fact. Like colorizing black and white movies, maybe it's a nifty gimmick, but not what the filmmaker intended, and never an improvement.  That's why I was very curious to see the Hobbit in both 2D "regular" and 3D High Frame Rate. How does it look when it's controlled by the director and presented in the way he intended? Does one version definitely look worse than the other?

    -First, the bad things I noticed in the 24fps version-
1) This is something that has always annoyed the heck out of me: moderate speed horizontal pans. There's motion judder that occurs with panning, and vertical panning never bothered me nearly as much as horizontal panning, not sure why. This stuttering/judder is something I noticed when I was in high school, and I wish I never had, because I can't watch a movie in the theater that has a horizontal pan without looking away from the screen. This is something I'm hoping that 48fps will address.

2) There's a glimpse of Smaug's tail as it enters the gates, partially obscured by smoke. In the 24 fps version, it jerks around slightly in a way that makes it look fake. It pops off the screen looking like it was almost hand drawn animation over the film, a la Roger Rabbit or Pete's Dragon.

3) Similarly, soon after that there's a shot of elves going over a hill. It seems a little jerky also.

4) The group meets the Great Goblin, a big gross bad guy. There are certain up close shots where I missed some detail in his design that I would have liked better if I were able to take it all in. He's well animated, but I felt like I was missing something. Something was preventing me from fully appreciating this character (more on this later).

In the prior three examples, the common element was that they were all CGI. Since this movie was filmed in 48fps, it's very possible that the animated elements were rendered/mastered to look best with that version. Certainly CGI can look good and convincing at 24fps, look at the prior trilogy, Avatar, heck, even the original Jurassic Park still holds up. Point is, I'm not faulting the lower frame rate.

    -Now, the bad things I noticed in the 48 fps version-
1) Fire. At 48fps fire looks almost too smooth, and therefore seems animated even when it's not. When we see fire in person, a flame near the top flickers, and does it so quickly that we only see a glimpse of the tip before it's replaced by a new tip of fire. In the HFR version, that flicker is less pronounced since the film is capturing more of the action. All fires looked weird in the movie. Another example was the pine cones near the end of the movie. In that scene, it wasn't until slow motion came into play that it was less offensive, because slow motion already captures more frames per second of reality (not running time). So the smoother look of fire is something that isn't unusual in the context of slow motion.

2) Small quick motions. To expand on the fire example above; go see Bruce Lee videos demonstrating his speed. He's so fast that if you look at two frames, his fist will jump from one spot to the next. This is because his punch was so fast that the camera had difficulty capturing the motion. We've been trained by watching 24fps that a jump like that means that the action is very fast. The natural world has a similar phenomenon. Look straight ahead, then quickly look to the right. Even though your eyes are taking in everything in between, your brain doesn't start to really process what you're seeing during your eye darting motion until your eyes have settled on their new point of focus. Fast quick movements work similarly in movies. At a higher frame rate, however, everything is captured, but the camera doesn't have the ability to filter out those in-between movements. So your brain is processing visual information that it normally doesn't do. It seems weird and unnatural. In "The Hobbit" this can be seen very early on in the movie. Bilbo moves a sheet of paper. This small quick movement is captured so well, that our brains are forced to process everything in between the the beginning of the movement to the settling of the paper. This momentarily took me out of the movie.

3) There's a shot of hundreds of humans and dwarves moving across the plains early on in the movie. This is an example where the loss of motion judder hurts. In this shot, the panning is so smooth that it's far easier to see that all the people are actually CGI, because their movement has that controlled look that makes non-motion-captured CGI so easy to spot. People don't generally move like smooth graceful ballerinas. That's why CGI people always stick out to me. I had no prior knowledge of the fact that every storm trooper (or clone warrior) in the Star Wars prequels was animated. Yet, when I watched Attack of the Clones, I immediately noticed that they were fake because of their too smooth movements. Then later, it was "revealed" that they were animated, and I was like, yeah, I know, it was obvious. This is my only example of the HFR truly hurting the CGI, there's a mixed example later.

4) That "TV" look. I am only mentioning it because it was noticeable. However, I have to say that overall, it wasn't as terrible as I'd anticipated. It wasn't as much as seeming more "real", as proponents have argued. It also wasn't as bad as completely removing the suspension of disbelief because you feel like you're on a movie set instead of watching a movie, as critics have argued. I'd say that it was more like a new reality. It wasn't as bad as a soap opera, like so many have claimed, at least not for me. It's more about getting used to  a different normal. Some scenes might have to be shot differently, some actors might have to change their style a little, but it's because something's now different, not better or worse.

    -What was good about the 48fps-
1) Motion judder almost completely gone! Thank the Lord, it actually worked. And except for the 3) above about the CGI, I was very pleased to see this work. A good mixed example of this is a shot of Radagast the Brown using his rabbit sled at high speeds across the plain. With the HFR, it was less headache inducing to watch as the camera pans to keep up with him. And while the rabbits are clearly CGI, because of that capturing of the "in between" movements, they seem a little cartoony. However, being able to present the shot without judder makes for a more engaging scene, and it becomes a matter of refinement to ease up on the cartoony look. This is why I view even this mixed example as an overall positive.

2) Water. In Rivendell, there's a lovely gazebo-ish area that has a waterfall over its edge. I can't tell if it's CGI or not but it's beautiful. Water flows smoothly, and we're used to seeing it that way, so having it rendered more closely to reality was gratifying.

3) Where the CGI problems happened at 24fps for the earlier examples, I found them to be greatly reduced or eliminated at the higher frame rate. The best example was the Great Goblin. Some people have criticized the HFR as providing too much information, and therefore distracting the audience, but it's only distracting because you're not used to it. Otherwise, you could argue against HDTV, color, or even sound being used in movies, since all provide more information to the audience. I was able to study his pustules and crooked stained teeth, and I loved it. I love detailed character design, which is why I prefer Aughra the witch from Dark Crystal over Yoda. This gives the texture nerd in me more stuff to admire, and that's a positive thing. Gollum is also beautifully refined and rendered, but that was a house with an already very solid foundation.
Finally, the giant eagles' feet and the final shot of Smaug's eye were also fantastic at the higher frame rates, the former for the details in the skin, and the latter for the details as well as some of the subtle quick movements that were captured. It may seem like I'm contradicting my subtle quick movement criticism, but not all movements are created equally. In this case, it was a benefit.

4) Hair blowing in the wind. Don't ask me why, but the ability to see individual strands moving due to wind gave a sense of realism to me that actually sucked me into the movie further. The best example was Gandalf's beard, and while you're more easily able to pick out the fake hair and wigs, it didn't bother me at all. Maybe it's because after watching so many sketch shows, plays, etc. fake hair doesn't bother me as much when seeing a performance. Within reason, however. Nic Cage's hair in Next is a little distracting.

To put numbers on it, I'd say that 70% was different, but in neither a bad or good way, in that at worst it would just take getting used to, but that shouldn't mean it's not worth doing.  The trolls were an example of this. You could see that the troll scene was different in both versions, but one wasn't clearly better or worse. Like the two Darrens on Bewitched. 20% was actually an improvement, and 10% was a big detriment. Like 3D, however, it's a tool that can be used in good way, or as cheap gimmick to draw people in. I've always thought that morons using a tool badly shouldn't necessarily negate the tool. For 3D, ignore the Clash of the Titans watch Hugo. For CGI, ignore Twilight and watch Prometheus's landscapes. For HFR, this was just the first foray, so who knows if it'll lead anywhere worthwhile, but I came in skeptical, and left a little less so.

It makes me wonder, if with digital projection making it possible, that it might be worthwhile to see what a variable frame rate movie would look like. Bump it up when you need it and take it back when you don't. That might be the dumbest idea ever, but so was killer yogurt, and The Stuff is an unmitigated classic.

No comments:

Post a Comment