48fps The Hobbit - First Review

[Ryan Farnes]

70% of Transformers 3 opening weekend came from 3D, so now what? This chart is outdated and irrelevant to be posting now.

Lion King redux. If there are a finite number of showings each weekend, and X percentage are 3D screenings.....a film will make about X percentage in 3D revenue.

Hunger Games will make more than either of those films and was 2D. Trying to extrapolate data from anecdotal numbers and specs doesn't tell the whole story.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Sure, Ketch. To believe that the death of film has already come and gone requires suspension of disbelief (because it's fiction). I'm not denying the writing on the wall, but to say it's dead is premature. My post was meant to reflect that sentiment and to reference the 3D argument/discussion about whether or not 3D is distracting to the viewer and breaks their suspension of disbelief. I was just poking fun. Sorry if I was too subtle. ;)

As for the topic at hand, I'll reserve judgement until I've seen the complete film.

Okay got it Mike, thanks for explaining it... ;)

Now let me explain...

Many have said film is dead since oh I say RED ONE? 5 years ago?

I say this today because it is so, and I do have the knowledge and proof to back it up, production of Film (Celluloid) has decreased so exponentially so that several factories have shot their doors down forever, and with less then 30% the stock produced, Film has come to is dead, there is no doubt about it that Film is today just a Vintage choice of shooting for the very few, even the biggest ones have agree on it and now Shooting Epic, Sony 65 and even Alexa has replaced Film, also of course other Digital cameras are been used, fact is that Shoots on Film, are now so very few, that this is clearly then end fore it.



Now, going back to TOPIC...

You do right not to voice your opinion especially in a negative way, till you personally see "THE HOBBIT" @48fps in 3D, as you might indeed be surprise of the results, I trust immensely Peter's choice, and I have supported the format immediately as it was approached by James Cameron, as I did see in our tests that 24fps in 3D was causing some unlikable blur effects and other artifacts in fast moving action and beauty shots, that I immediately started testing as to find an alternative frame rate shutter combination and exposures to get me what I wanted out of the image play.

[hans de vries]

I'm sure I'm not adding something new here, but really wanted to get it of my chest; also, I should see the whole film first; but, when I saw the trailer, it immediately struck me that I had never seen something as fake looking as this. I thought it had to do with the lighting, that it had been done so smoothly and perfectly that it looked like a 3d video game.
Further, it may take time for people to get used to it, but if it means that they have to get used to something that's worse, they'll find that out too.
On the other hand: maybe it will set off a revolution in set design! They will have to do something about the whole thing looking like a set, and like actors having been dressed up. Coming to think of this, I'm all for trying things out; I'm glad this is being tried at least

[KETCH ROSSi]

I'm sure I'm not adding something new here, but really wanted to get it of my chest; also, I should see the whole film first; but, when I saw the trailer, it immediately struck me that I had never seen something as fake looking as this. I thought it had to do with the lighting, that it had been done so smoothly and perfectly that it looked like a 3d video game.
Further, it may take time for people to get used to it, but if it means that they have to get used to something that's worse, they'll find that out too.
On the other hand: maybe it will set off a revolution in set design! They will have to do something about the whole thing looking like a set, and like actors having been dressed up. Coming to think of this, I'm all for trying things out; I'm glad this is being tried at least

In partial agreement with your statement Hans,

I say this again, UNFINISHED material can indeed give the wrong impression, I'm sure Peter's intention was to show how the 48fps played, but it is my firm believe that as usual anything shown to any one that is not the finished product, will most certainly achieve the wrong results.


I don't consider myself a Photoshop Evangelist, yet I hold my very own with Photoshop after several years of studying and use of the program and a dozen Plug ins to go with it, yet while discussing a particular image with a Photoshop Evangelist, image which was in its Raw state, I was trying to explain the various passes that I would take this image thru in order to have it the way I wanted, yet He could not see it...


I finished the image, and BAM... He love it, He understood only then where I was going with it, why? Because I was already there with it, and He could see it... For this I wish Peter did not showed Unfinished material...

Grading of an image has such a HUGE power and effect on the finished image is just too great to ignore, and people just don't, can't understand and should never been shown anything but completely finished material.

[Scott Crawley]

I say this again, UNFINISHED material can indeed give the wrong impression,

Yes.

Any other time we get the opportunity to view a work in progress we understand that due to it's nature there will be blemishes present that call attention to the film making and consequently pull us from the moment. We understand that suspension of disbelief in that case will require substantial effort on our part. We understand that those things will not be present in the finished film.

We expect the CinemaCon audience was sophisticated enough to take these things into account. Instead their criticism was focused on the fact that their illusion was broken and speculated as to why that was true, pointing the finger of blame at the technology that was on display.

In retrospect it appears that this kind of technology demo should have been done with finished material in order to achieve it's goals.

[KETCH ROSSi]

And hope now this validates in off what I have been saying since my first post in this thread, and when I say it was mostly do to the "UNFINISHED" product, is because I know what I'm talking about it.




Peter Jackson Responds to 'Hobbit' Footage Critics, Explains 48-Frames Strategy


Because the film clips shown at Cinemacon were not finished, he adds, “People haven’t experienced it yet in the way it should be experienced.”


"Jackson also explained the footage presented at Cinemacon would look different once it goes through the post-production process."


READ ARTICLE HERE: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...nemacon-317755

[Ryan Farnes]

Yeah Ketch, Jackson's comments have calmed some of my fears. I'm curious to see this film finished...

“It does take you a while to get used to. Ten minutes is sort of marginal, it probably needed a little bit more. Another thing that I think is a factor is it’s different to look at a bunch of clips and some were fast-cutting, montage-style clips. This is different experience than watching a character and story unfold… I personally wouldn’t advocate a 48-frame trailer because the 48 frames is something you should experience with the entire film. A 2 1/2 minute trailer isn’t enough time to adjust to the immersive quality.”

“We have obviously seen cuts of our movie at 48 and in a relatively short amount of time you have forgotten (the frame rate change). It is a more immersive and in 3D a gentler way to see the film. We are certainly going to experiment with different finishing techniques to give the 48 frames a look that is more organic. But that work isn’t due to start until we wrap photography in July”

[KETCH ROSSi]

Yeah Ketch, Jackson's comments have calmed some of my fears. I'm curious to see this film finished...

Good Ryan,

all I say is give Peter's work and others which are advocating 48fps as I am myself, for 3D work a chance!!

Peter himself said it will not be for all 3D work, and I say is the perfect match for my first 3D movie, but I also agree that some time too realistic and lifelike might not bee a good idea, however criticizing an UNFINISHED product is as bad of an idea as much as showing an unfinished product... ;)

[Marc Wielage]

“It does take you a while to get used to. Ten minutes is sort of marginal, it probably needed a little bit more. Another thing that I think is a factor is it’s different to look at a bunch of clips and some were fast-cutting, montage-style clips. This is different experience than watching a character and story unfold… I personally wouldn’t advocate a 48-frame trailer because the 48 frames is something you should experience with the entire film. A 2 1/2 minute trailer isn’t enough time to adjust to the immersive quality.”

A film critic friend of mine reminded me in email on Friday that this was our exact same reaction to a SMPTE Showscan demo back in 1981. Same deal. Everybody kind of freaked out at the 60fps "video" nature of the screening. And this was 70mm film. It took us a good 10 minutes just to stop cringing at the real/unreality of the image, but we could eventually kind of settle down and enjoy it.

I think people are kind of gunning for Jackson, just trying to slam the films long before they're released, partly because of the success of the first three films, which is not very fair. Let's wait and see how the final looks at the end of the year.

[Steve G]

For Brits, mostly.
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfre...e&type=article