Jump to content

Hobbit sharpness


jgharding
 Share

Recommended Posts

I watched about half of the Hobbit last night in 1080p.

 

I was with my girl, I said "what do you think about the look of this film compared to Lord Of The Rings?"

 

She said "It looks like a kind of BBC TV version of the other films! What's different?"

 

I explained the very high-resolution  digital Hobbit vs Kodak 200T and 500T film for the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, plus the whole double frame-rate shooting thing (even though this version was 24/25p).

 

I couldn't have put it better than her though. Everything's just so sharp that I found myself watching the edges of hair instead of faces.

 

Imagine how bad that'd be in 4K! I remember watching 4K at NAB and ignoring the characters because the gravel roads were so detailed...

 

It's grainless, unflinchingly sharp and rather stark... 

 

In the cinema though, the whole thing was really enjoyable (and nice and soft on the eyes) even in 3D, but on home monitor it looks rather brittle...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to see the Hobbit with my two friends. I didn't say anything to them about the HFR or any other technical details of the movie. After the movie, I asked them what they thought. Their first words were that there was something different about the movie that made it disturbing to watch. For them and as well as for me, the movie was too much "real like". I recognise that it might require some time to get used to it but for me it wasn't really a enjoyable experience. May be it will change in time. We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bruno @jgharding The compromised shutter speed did have a negative impact on visual quality but whether there was "more" or "less" motion blur depends on whether you are thinking of it as a 24 fps or 48 fps film.

I agree, it's less than 180 degree for 24 fps but for 48 fps there was actually too much motion blur for the framerate (since it was greater than 180 degrees).

Honestly, though, having seen it in theatres in 4K HFR 3D, part of it in 4K 24 fps 2D and part of it in 2K 24fps 3D, I would have to say that I really thought the look improved at the lower framerates, even accounting for the shutter speed compromise (which was somewhat unfortunate). My personal favorite version was probably 4K 24 FPS 2D but 24 FPS 3D wasn't as far behind as I expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this has anything to do with the 48fps. Honestly it didn't look any different from other digital movies coming out these days. This is more of a film vs digital topic. And one thing I want to say is that medium format film (65/70mm/IMAX) has very high resolution but doesn't look overly sharp. In fact, it looks amazingly cinematic, even more so than 35mm. When digital matches that resolution, it tends to look overly sharp and TV-ish. But I think it's something we just have to get used to. Everyone's shooting digital now. And I've seen some movies shot on digital that looked pretty impressive (Skyfall, Hugo). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bruno @jgharding The compromised shutter speed did have a negative impact on visual quality but whether there was "more" or "less" motion blur depends on whether you are thinking of it as a 24 fps or 48 fps film.

 

Yes, but we were talking about the 24fps 2D 1080p home version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...