While I think "The Hobbit" was a great movie and I enjoyed it more than the Lord of the Rings movies on a first viewing, this is not a regular review of the movie's creative content but more about my thoughts on the new High Frame Rate (HFR) technology that it introduced. I have now seen the movie twice, once at the Standard Frame Rate in 3D so I could watch the movie without being distracted by the new format and then again to experience the HFR 3D. I think I made the right choice.
Since the introduction of sound, film has been shot at 24 frames per second, while HFR has doubled that to 48 fps. As long as the frame rate is over 14 fps, the human eye can not see the individual frames. The higher the number, the smoother the motion becomes with less visible motion blur. Like flipping a picture book at a faster and faster rate.
My first impression is that HFR 3D is much better than the motion-smoothing settings on HDTVs which I hate and turn off. Since the HDTV setting adds extra frames to movies/TV shows that were originally shot at 24 fps, the extra clarity can expose flaws in the makeup, costumes and sets that the director didn't expect the audience to see. But since "The Hobbit" was originally planned for 48 fps, Peter Jackson was able to make sure the level of detail on the makeup, costumes and sets was high enough that the added clarity did not expose these seams. (I still noticed Gandalf's contact lens in one close up though. Ha!)
While Jackson solved that first basic problem of higher frame rates, it created another that I am not so sure I will get used to. The biggest change is that the motion is so smooth and clear, that it feels like you are watching the most expensive, lavish theatrical production ever instead of a movie. If you love a theater experience, you may find this to be amazing but to me it made this epic fantasy film set in Middle-Earth seem like I following along with a talented, well-costumed group of LARPers (Live Action Role Players) running around New Zealand. Instead of being swept up in the movie, I felt like I was the cameraman, actually riding along the dolly track or on the crane near the actors. (This effect lessens the farther the camera moves away from the actors, restoring the filmic look in mid-to-far shots.)
The upside of this clarity is that while actual humans and sets looked too real in HFR, the computer-generated-graphics (CGI) felt just right since the motion blur at the standard frame rate causes problems for CGI characters placed in a real environment. For example, while the sled chase in "The Hobbit" looked cartoonish at 24 fps, it looked like the wizard, Radagast, and his rabbits were actually running across the real landscape and dodging rocks at 48 fps. Matte paintings in the background looked faker though at 48 fps, but that might be from the 3D effect instead of HFR. In one shot, it looked like Bilbo and the dwarves in the foreground were looking at an obvious painting of Rivendale in the background.
For the future, I can see HFR working great for documentaries, nature films, and pure CGI movies like Pixar's, but I don't know if it is the right tool for fictional story-telling where I am trying to suspend my belief with a little movie magic. James Cameron mentioned that he wanted to film his "Avatar" sequels even higher at 60 fps and I can see it looking amazing in that 90% CGI environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment