El Hobbit: ¿queremos 48fps?

Pero es que yo creo que la clave está en el cambio de estética que provocan los tiempos de obturación necesarios para un mayor frame rate. Como bien apunta Kokotxo, esa enfatización de detalles que no pretendían ser enfatizados, esos cambios de la profundidad de campo, todos esos efectos colaterales en la imagen suponen un cambio de paradigma a todos los niveles. Si se pudiera aumentar el frame rate sin que el lenguaje cinematográfico sufriera cambios trascendentales esta no sería una cuestión tan peliaguda. El problema es que no se puede y hay que elegir.

Es posible que las nuevas generaciones de espectadores estén mejor dispuestas a aceptar un cambio de corolario en cuanto a narración cinematográfica que implique mayor realismo a costa de los parámetros habituales que hacen funcionar la ilusión, pero sin duda una importante parte del público se siente extraña ante unas imágenes así. Un exceso de realismo en el cine no nos resulta narrativamente verosímil, porque cada medio tiene sus características.

Un ejemplo de esto es la radio FM vs la radio digital a través de la TDT (dejando al margen la malograda radio DAB). La FM está llena de limitaciones, suena a 32 khz, los procesadores estéreo y los limitadores/compresores de emisión alteran notablemente la "realidad" y sé muy bien de lo que hablo. Sin embargo, ese característico sonido FM cuando está bien hecho tiene una pegada y una pátina "dreamy" que nos encanta psicoacústicamente.

Supongo que al final la decisión de los estudios se basará en la respuesta del público y las expectativas de negocio, y mientras tanto irán ofreciendo las diversas opciones. Siempre va a haber división con este tema. A mí me gusta la imagen del plasma y odio a muerte el efecto telenovela, me saca por completo de la historia. Imagináos las conversaciones que tengo al respecto con un colega que es elecedero a saco al que le gusta la interpolación de frames al máximo cuando voy a su casa a ver una peli

Me parece muy interesante este pasaje de este link que ha puesto Pablopi

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Masterclass in Why HFR fails, and a reaffirmation of what makes cinema magical « Vincent Laforet's Blog

What was the most important thing lost?

I had absolutely NO CONNECTION with the story.

I didn’t identify with the characters at all. I didn’t care about them. I didn’t listen as carefully to they were saying or how they felt.

And more importantly I didn’t feel ANYTHING.

I was just too visually engaged to worry about that "stuff." And I think that’s why people weren’t laughing as they watched the dinning scene – not laughing at all. They weren’t connecting to the characters or paying attention to the dialogue as much. They weren’t being allowed to. Needless to say this was FAR from a controlled study of course (two different audiences of the same size is all I can claim as a fact) - but the difference was palpable.

It also felt like there was far too much depth of field… all "appeared" in focus. The depth was overwhelming. I can honestly say I found it visually repugnant at times (harsh words I know – but you have to realize I almost RAN out of the theater within the first 5 minutes.)

Yet when I saw the exact same scene in 2D guess what? I loved the lighting. The depth of field wasn’t there anymore. The image was cinematic. And this was with the exact same scenes… shot with the exact same lenses, camera moves, lighting, and f/stop. These were the IDENTICAL takes shown without the 3D HFR!

And guess what else? I connected with the actors. I was left to let my eyes wander and tunnel vision if you will to the detail or actor that I wanted to "listen" to or see. I caught every joke and chuckled. I became immersed. And I found this absolutely fascinating – even stunning to the point that I had to ask myself (even though I knew the answer) whether the same scene had been re-light and re-shot in 2D (it wasn’t – they simply used only one of the 2 cameras they shot with.) And this is coming from someone who has been studying lighting and the visual medium for 22 years. I had two polar opposite reactions to the lighting and visuals of the EXACT SAME MATERIAL.


1. Film is just as much about what you DON’T show the audience as with what you DO. Shallow depth of field, motion blur, lack of sharpness, and movement all help to create movie magic. If images are too sharp and you see too much detail… that’s not always a good thing. The Canon 5D MKII showed us that in many ways – it’s large sensor and resulting lack depth of field combined with what was a relatively "soft" image (relative to video cameras) made it what it was when I shot "Reverie."

2. High frame rates belong on bad TV shows and perhaps sports. 24 fps is here to stay in my opinion – at least for cinema. That is unless this next generation of video game players change the rules on us of course. I can see this working for animation, sports and nature films though. I’d also like to see it used on only certain moves (fast ones) in a film perhaps and not the entirety of a film.

3. 3D combined with HFR is a total non starter for me. It highlights the weaknesses of both techniques exponentially. It’s far too real and it’s almost impossible to hide makeup / sets / VFX etc. In fact just yesterday afternoon a VFX friend of mine said, verbatim: "Motion blur is extremely important to what I do… that’s how I hide all of my mistakes and make VFX/CGI look more real."

4. This latest technological "advance’ reaffirms one of my key beliefs: We’re far too focused on technology these days we are creating a lot distractions to what can make a film truly powerful. So many of these new technologies threaten the magic of film by making the experience a little too "hyper real" if you will. Having only one of 8 characters in focus during an important soliloquy, or another person crossing frame out of focus and motion blurred can be a good thing to make the audience become more immersed in the film… they don’t need to see EVERYTHING to become "immersed" in my opinion… Something to think about.

5. I can honestly say I had a harder time hearing some of the dialogue in the 3D HFR version than in the 2D… I wonder if this a combination of not being able to focus my eyes on the lips when things were tough to hear in the 3D version, or if I was just being overwhelmed visually and couldn’t refocus my mind on paying attention to the dialogue… I notice this on the scene with Gollum pretty acutely as he was hard to understand at times.

Si alguna vez se hace el cambio sin duda no va a ser de la noche a la mañana y no sin una enorme polémica. El propio Cameron se está pensando tres veces lo de usar frame rate alto para las secuelas de Avatar viendo la tremendamente desigual y polarizadora acogida del Hobbit a 48 fps.

Si el cine del futuro se va a ver como el trailer ese, espero que me den la opción de verlo como siempre, o que no cuenten conmigo. De todos modos esto sólo está empezando y quien sabe los avances que veremos dentro de unos años. Parecía impensable lograr una textura plenamente cinematográfica con cámaras digitales y a dia de hoy se está enormemente cerca ("Skyfall" por ejemplo). Quizá algún día podamos contar con una tecnología que permita tener lo mejor de todos los mundos en perfecta armonía. O probablemente veamos a los directores tomar cada vez más decisiones técnicas radicalmente distintas en función del tipo de historia a contar, o convivir formatos y frame rates distintos en la misma película. Lo preocupante es que el cine cada vez más parece encaminado al espectáculo circense y a la pirotecnia CGI vacua en lugar de hacer precisamente eso, contar buenas historias. Y cuanto más aparente es el truco, menor es la magia.