MBay has a thing for upgraded tech - he shot the first film fairly normally, he shot ROTF in IMAX and he shot DOTM in 3D. So it's fair to say he might shoot TF4 in HFR, or Higher Frame Rate (normally films are shot at 24 frames/second, HFR doubles it and makes it 48 frames per second, for a clearer picture). This technique was popularized by Peter Jackson in the making of THE HOBBIT films, and the improved picture does look appealing. Personally, none of this fancy film tech appeals to me. IMAX is as far as I'll go; I loved DOTM's 3D sequences but I have the nagging feeling that some scenes were set up only to make use of the 3D (Birdmen, the Driller in the tower). But do you think he'll try HFR? Or SHOULD he try HFR?
I've never seen HFR in action so I can't say. Are the Hobbit trailers using HFR already? If so, I don't really see a difference.
Human eye can only register a certain number of fps. Personally the Hobbit film is not appealing visually to me... instead the much more realistic looking 'life of Pi' seems to have a much better more realistic look to it. The hobbit on the other hand just looks similar to Beowulf in terms of the effect that the increased frame rate has. It just makes everything seem false and fake and CGI in nature. HFR i am guessing requires a larger camera - especially if recording in 3D which Transformers 4 will likely be... personally i dont think Bay should be given stuff like that. Most of his action is hard to follow due to the CGI moving too quickly, increasing the FPS (not sure how it would improve clarity) would simply make it more difficult to follow the scene - especially in Bay's style of shooting as evident from the ROTF fight scene. In short; I really hope he doesnt use it - however he will likely end up using it for the fifth or sixth film while the fourth will just be in 3D again.
Yes but it's more than 48fps Beowulf was in 24fps No You would be able to follow things much easier due to the action being smoother. More like in a 60fps videogame. Actually he would have to get cameras which could shoot twice as slow as the ones he's currently using since the normal action has twice as many frames in it.
Unlikely. I'm unsure of exactly what's involved in having theaters screen HFR, but it will take some doing. Just doing that for one 3 minute trailer seems very unlikely (especially since HFR won't even be available at all in some areas- and even where it is they plan on offering the film both ways). Personally I have very little interest in seeing it in HFR (at least the first time). I dislike what true HD does to movies/tv. It's likely this will create a similar effect. If I have time when I'm in Denver early next year I may see it a second time in HFR just to see the difference though (it's always possible I could be pleasantly surprised).
It would likely depend on the logistics of playing a film in the majority of theatres. If modifications or special equipment and procedures would be necessary (or if the HFR process is substantially more expensive), I could see Bay declining to use it.
"Yes but it's more than 48fps" Unconsciously, we’re used to 30 fps and above content being “made for TV,” and are accustomed to feature films showing at the lower 24 fps rate. Early viewers of the 48fps hobbit testing scenes actually complained about the higher fps being too detailed during the action scenes making it harder to focus on the main character. "Beowulf was in 24fps" I know that, it was not the point i was making. My point was about the higher fps looking 'ultra real' meaning it looked more CGI and altered rather than the 24fps of most films which looks gritty. "No" Then likely more expensive? "You would be able to follow things much easier due to the action being smoother. More like in a 60fps videogame." The forest fight in Revenge of the fallen and the final fight in Revenge of the fallen look crap in 24fps... changing it to 48fps would not improve the badly made film - my point here was that the higher fps would not make Bay's film good. "Actually he would have to get cameras which could shoot twice as slow as the ones he's currently using since the normal action has twice as many frames in it" '48 fps also allows for the creation of very smooth slow-motion scenes, simply by double-printing each frame to yield a 24 fps half-speed version'
Slow mo: If the final film is 24fps you can do that but if the film is in 48fps then you can't double print each frame, unless you change from 48 to 24 for the slow motion scenes, though usually slow motion in films is less than half speed. Cost of camera: It probably would be more expensive but can't imagine it being that much more. I actually really liked the forest fight and final battle but whether it is easier to follow or more fluid has nothing to do with whether the film will be any good. I never said it would be good.
Reviews Are In For THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY! See What the Critics Think Okay, according to this link the HFR did not help out the film at all: "What the 48 frame-per-second projection actually means is flat lighting, a plastic look, and, worst of all, a strange sped-up effect that makes perfectly normal actions—say, Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins placing a napkin on his lap—look like meth-head hallucinations. Jackson seems enamored of 48 fps, but I can't imagine why. To me, it turned the film into a 166-minute long projectionist's error. I wanted to ask the projectionist to double-check the equipment, but really, I should just ask Jackson why he wanted his $270 million blockbuster to look like a TV movie."
That's pretty much the main issue, people are very used to seeing cinema or high quality tv shows in 24fps, and low quality tv shows in 30-60fps. So it's difficult to get over those preconceptions. I'll be interested to see it myself when it comes out next thursday
Its more along the lines of if you shoot real stuff with a still camera then it looks good, if you shoot CGI (seeing as the CGI images wont match the detail level - it would make the CGI more evident
