Image: Erjkprunczýk/Flickr
Director Peter Jackson is always inventive — from creating fantastical imagery that portrays madness in "Heavenly Creatures" to pioneering artificial intelligence that animates swarms of computer-generated orcs in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy.
In "The Hobbit," Jackson pushes technology further, with eye-popping 3D. He also uses "high frame rate" (HFR) video that flashes twice as fast as a standard film — 48 instead of 24 frames per second — to portray movement fluidly. While the technologies are brilliant in some parts of the film, for most of it they fit no better than sneakers on a furry-footed hobbit.
Although 3D isn't so new, Jackson takes it to the extreme — with disconcerting effect as objects and even people come flying out of the screen.
In the first meeting between hobbit Bilbo Baggins and wizard Gandalf, the camera alternates from character to character as each speaks — pretty standard technique. When the camera is on Gandalf, however, he not only fills the screen but protrudes out of it — a King Kong-sized wizard floating in a movie theater. While there are many giants in the movie, Gandalf is not supposed to be one of them, and he looks far more fake than in a 2D or much subtler 3D movie. [See also Cheaper 3D Boasts Titanic Entertainment]
For much of the film, the camera focus and 3D effect tug the mind in opposite directions. In a flash-forward scene, the elderly Bilbo stands at the front of a room when his nephew Frodo, standing far behind, calls to him. The camera focuses first on Bilbo as he speaks, then on Frodo as he replies — another common effect in regular films that's baffling in 3D. Whatever is closer to the eye is more likely to be in focus. So why is Bilbo, who is popping out of the screen, suddenly a blur?
This happens throughout the movie, with furniture, tree branches and all manner of fuzzy objects pointing at the audience.
The 3D is brilliant, however, in the giant battle scenes, when it feels like being within the melee. But these parts, such as a battle with thousands of orcs in an underground kingdom, are mostly computer generated. And 3D has always looked good in animated flicks. It's fine in "Up" and "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs."
Computer imagery poses a problem with the HFR video, though. By eliminating the blur of film, HFR shows fluid motion, more like that in real life. But Middle-earth is not real life, it's largely a computer model. The way that high definition removed the blur of low-res television to reveal cheap studio props, high frame rate removes the blur of slow-moving film to reveal the flaws in digital props.
Love 'em or hate 'em (or a little of both), the 3D and HFR effects make "The Hobbit" trilogy a very different set of films than "The Lord of the Rings" — even though so much of the cast, props and scenery are the same.
Copyright 2012 TechNewsDaily, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentParts of this review are questionable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, the complaint that "the camera focus and 3D effect tug the mind in opposite directions" doesn't seem scientifically accurate. "The camera focuses first on Bilbo as he speaks, then on Frodo as he replies — another common effect in regular films that's baffling in 3D. Whatever is closer to the eye is more likely to be in focus. So why is Bilbo, who is popping out of the screen, suddenly a blur?" That sounds perfectly accurate - the way the human eye and brain actually work.
It's simply not true - in movies or in real life - that "whatever is closer to the eye is more likely to be in focus". Your eyes selectively focus on whatever object is of interest to you, throughout your visual field. When that object is far away, near objects are out of focus. (Try it: stand where you can see something relatively near, but look beyond it to an object in the distance. The near object will be blurry.) Cameras reflect this fact when their depth of field is set to a small or medium distance (though the can also be adjusted to give clarity over a deep depth, unlike the human eye). 3D imagery that does the same is more natural, not less.
If Bilbo is out of focus in the foreground of a given scene, it is because the director chose to focus the camera (or animation) on the figure further away. If you did that with your eyes, Bilbo would still be in 3D, apparently closer, and blurry. The director got it right.
[1/2]
Furthermore, as for "the way that high definition removed the blur of low-res television to reveal cheap studio props, high frame rate removes the blur of slow-moving film," this compares two completely different optical phenomena.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe blurriness of standard-def TV images is the result of their low definition - their low pixel count. An HD TV set displays more pixels per area than a traditional (digital or analog) TV, and when showing HD content simply has a sharper, more detailed picture. But, as the article above hints at but doesn't make quite clear, the difference between HFR and traditional movies is a matter not of picture definition but of the way motion is captured by the frames.
Any camera - film or digital - exposes its imaging surface (film or digital sensor) to light for a certain period of time as it images each frame; when shooting moving objects, those objects are moving in the scene during the time image is being captured, and therefore create a blurry image within each frame. A faster frame rate uses smaller exposure times for each frame, capturing less motion of the object during that smaller time, and hence shows less blur. But that has nothing to do with the definition of the image itself. An HD and a standard camera, shooting a moving object at the same frame rate, will show exactly the same amount of blur in the moving image, but with greater clarity and definition in the HD one.
So HFR technology does nothing to "reveal the flaws in digital props". What could that even mean? First, again, HFR only addresses motion blur, not image definition. Second, digital animation doesn't actually have real "motion blur" in frames of moving objects, because the objects aren't really moving (the "objects" don't really exist). Any blur in animated images is deliberately programmed in to recreate the look of traditional film. If there's anything visible on a digital frame, it's because the director and animators/programmers deliberately put it there - that's the only way it can get in.
So HFR doesn't "reveal" anything the director doesn't want to show, and - because the programming is calculated to match the playback speed - any apparent motion in the images is the way it has to be to look realistic at that speed. "Blur" in digital images is a deliberate artistic effect, not a flaw.
2/2
ktkeith shoulda wrote the article... seriously.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this+2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the end, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but with a background in visual perception and computer science, I can say that ktkeith got it spot on.
@ktkeith, you're right that HFR is not increasing pixel count but the end result is similar - greater perceived clarity. you can perceive more detail (especially in motion) because you have more samples in time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand imo, that will be the problem in the long run and the reason why pushing for hfr is, imo, misguided.
they keep talking about how HFR makes you feel like "you're really there". problem is, this doesn't pull us into middle earth, it pulls us into the sound stage where you see that set, props and make up are all fake... as they would be if you were there in person.
it's misguided to pursue "absolute fidelity" when the underlying reality is itself a facade! :)
in the long run, i feel like we're going to come to agree that the "beer goggles" of 24fps with film grain was just the right amount of haze to make that which is really fake seem real.
sure, we could see the actress more "clearly" if we took the diffusion filter off the camera.
but it wouldn't make her look "better".
BUT... i do think HFR (i'm waiting for 100+ fps) will be great for things that were previously the purview of imax documentaries. HFR space shuttle missions and everest climbs will be fantastic. and HFR + 3D will be great for ride films.
also @ktkeith,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe author may have expressed it problematically - you're right that that which is closest is not that which is always in focus - but his sentiment is common among people who have trouble with stereoscopic movies (especially as it pertains to shallow depth of field).
in "real life" yeah, everything's in 3d so 3d does make the experience more "life-like" to some people. but in real life, we also have control over our own focus mechanisms. we ourselves choose to focus on this or that.
i think the author's issue is that "yes, it makes me feel like it's more "real" but that evokes a problem for me in that i can't focus on what i want to." whereas in 2d, since everything is flattened out onto a "canvas" anyway, we more naturally cede control to moderator or artist behind the lens.
it doesn't afflict me personally but it's a valid and reasonable objection to have.
------------------------------
and personally, i don't like subtle 3d. for me, subtle 3d is like a subtle roller coaster - what's the point?
and i actually like the aesthetic where the shoulder in an over-the-shoulder shot pushes into audience space.
but that's because for me, i perceive the effect to be artificial anyway - such that i can handover focus control to the director too.
but not everyone experiences 3d that way. for people to whom it evokes the most "real" experience, they're probably literally seeing a 30 foot person pushing into audience space and that's pretty jarring and pretty far, actually, from reality.
@jinchoung Thank you. You actually understand it. It's the reason why a 3D videogame at 60fps works better than in a movie. The perspective is generally set.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen watching a movie and the visuals act like "real life" while at the same time, the metaphorical "Eyes", fast viewing angle changes, and focus are not like real life. (because it's a movie) The contrast can be jarring.
Perhaps this shows how the experience can differ depending on who is viewing the film. A movie critic is actively critiquing the viewing experience and may be more likely to notice subtle visual effects where a more passive viewer is not. Sort of like a casual diner pronouncing a dish absolutely delicious as opposed to a food critic who may find the same dish average because of the "muddled flavors and a bit too much acid"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed this is why a lot of people do not like to read reviews of a movie before they watch it as they tend to look for the flaws pointed out by the critic.
I'm just happy that the new effects will look good on the TV, once the movie comes out on DVD/BluRay/whatnot. Effects that look great on film tend to look terribly fake on the television, but since these have been designed for a higher frame rate, they should, theoretically, look much better on the small screen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really don't care how "real" something that makes me puke looks. 3D movies make me puke. Sad but true. I'm part of that tiny percentage that can't watch them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope everyone who can watch 3D movies really enjoys The Hobbit but I won't watch until it is available in 2D in my area, which it currently isn't.