Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

48fps The Hobbit - First Review

Lot of mixed press:

TheWrap.com

Deadline Hollywood

Hollywood Reporter

I'm very surprised to hear some showgoers say it looked like a soap opera! Obviously, people are going to have to get used to the frame rate so they can judge the film for what it is -- dramatically and technically.
 
Well, they can always fix it in post if they decide so (or the studio makes them to).

Honestly, I'm not surprised to see this kind of reaction, even watching something in 30p makes me fell that it looks like video, not to mention 48fps.

It'll take time for people to adjust to this new format and ultimately the audience will decide if it's good enough or not, in other words if they want to see it on screen.
 
Last edited:
If anyone owns a samsung HD tv with Auto motion plus, im sure this is what its like. I HATE when auto motion plus is on. makes it have that soap opera feel to it. great for sports when you wanna see the action, but for anything else its total crap. I like the motion blur from 24fps. it gives me that fantasy feeling. I dont want to feel like its real. i hope it doesnt end up looking like that samsung tv. keeping my fingers crossed.
 
Domenic Barbero said:
If anyone owns a samsung HD tv with Auto motion plus, im sure this is what its like. I HATE when auto motion plus is on.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, Domenic. Every time I go into a TV section of a tech store there are tens of LCD TVs and for some reason this mode is enabled on all of them.

And they usually show big Hollywood blockbusters that look like they were shot on Sony DVCam. It just freaks me out.
 
At NAB Christie was showing a high fps test James Cameron shot. It showed 3D at 24, 48, and 60 side by side. It was awesome to see this in person. High fps is definitely the way to go on a 3D film. I don't care too much for 3D, but when presented like this you forget you are watching stereo and can watch the film. They also showed footage acquired at 48 and 60 projected at 24 and I couldn't see a difference with the footage shot at 24.

3D should be high fps. 2D should be 24
 
Sean McAllister said:
At NAB Christie was showing a high fps test James Cameron shot. It showed 3D at 24, 48, and 60 side by side. It was awesome to see this in person. High fps is definitely the way to go on a 3D film. I don't care too much for 3D, but when presented like this you forget you are watching stereo and can watch the film. They also showed footage acquired at 48 and 60 projected at 24 and I couldn't see a difference with the footage shot at 24.

3D should be high fps. 2D should be 24
Click to expand...

I think this is one of the most interesting things I've read on REDUSER in a while. Didn't realize that the frame rate jump in 3D could make such a difference. Very, very interesting...

I wonder why? Is it because your eye splits it in two? So 48fps divided by 2 is essentially 24frames for each eye? Kind of like how interlacing is blending two fields at once, is 3D sterescopic the blending of two streams of data, and in this case you need to double the frame rate in order replicate the "feel" of 24?

Hmm..

Does that mean the shutter speed is going up to? To 96? That wouldn't give you the motion blur we're used to in 24. I wonder if they "add" motion blur when they down-convert the 3D back to 2D.
 
Sean McAllister said:
At NAB Christie was showing a high fps test James Cameron shot. It showed 3D at 24, 48, and 60 side by side. It was awesome to see this in person. High fps is definitely the way to go on a 3D film. I don't care too much for 3D, but when presented like this you forget you are watching stereo and can watch the film. They also showed footage acquired at 48 and 60 projected at 24 and I couldn't see a difference with the footage shot at 24.

3D should be high fps. 2D should be 24
Click to expand...

Its just another tool available to us for use where it suits the film 3D or 2D ? Peter is quite right theres no reason to stay with 24fps, whilst it suits some films others can benefit from higher frame rates loosing the motion problems of 24P.
 
Sean McAllister said:
At NAB Christie was showing a high fps test James Cameron shot. It showed 3D at 24, 48, and 60 side by side. It was awesome to see this in person.
Click to expand...
Note that the legendary Mike Todd -- one of the original people behind Cinerama, later the creator of Todd-AO in the 1950s -- was one of the first to actually shoot movies at higher frame rates, including 30fps for Oklahoma.

And Doug Trumbull should be recognized for doing a demo of 24fps, 48fps, and 60fps for a SMPTE convention here in LA right around 1981 (prior to the release of his 1983 film Brainstorm). Sometimes, everything old is new again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan
 
I always knew this was a bad idea. Yes, he can still show it at 24fps but the whole 48fps thing is going to flop big time. I just know that people are going to complain about the movie looking cheap. Let's face it, high frame rates are good for sports and live TV, but it is horrible for narrative work. A friend of mine saw the footage and he said the same thing. He said it was just like watching a movie with the motion flow setting turned on a plasma screen, a little better but still super distracting and ugly, he said it made everything look like it was made out of plastic. Sometimes it pays to stick with what works. I'm glad that Peter shot on Red but he needed to drop the 3D and the high frame rate. It looks like it's going to be a 24fps showing for me. I'm really bummed about this, I was hoping this would turn out well but I have a feeling I am really going to hate it. Peter, this is not an enhancement, this is a distraction. There is a reason why I hated Public Enemies and it is not because the movie sucked. Sometimes, bad imagery can really harm your enjoyment of a film.

I am seriously worried that Peter Jackson is heading down the long dark path that ruined James Cameron and George Lucas. All three of these men were at one point the leading forces in the industry. Unfortunately, they caught the tech bug and thought that they would cement their legacy by fundamentally changing the way we watch and experience movies. They began to focus more on the experience than the quality of the film itself. Peter, please do not become like these two men.

I'm not saying that innovation is bad but there is such a thing as putting a lot of effort to go in the wring direction. Jackson, Cameron and Lucas have invested all of their efforts to "enhance" the theatrical experience but it is a distraction, not a benefit.

If a movie looks odd to me, it takes me out of the story and ruins me enjoyment of the film.

Here is a great example:

Today, apple released the trailer for John Hillcoat's new film Lawless. The film was shot digitally on the Alexa. Compare it to the trailer for Public Enemies which was also shot digitally but uses that awful 360 degree shutter effect.



One looks normal, the other looks odd even though the use they same technology.
 
Last edited:
Devin Faraci at CinemaCon
“The 48fps footage I saw looked terrible. It looked completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets. I’ve been on sets of movies on the scale of The Hobbit, and sets don’t even look like sets when you’re on them live… but these looked like sets. The other comparison I kept coming to, as I was watching the footage, was that it all looked like behind the scenes video. The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely.
Click to expand...

Was I the only one who already noticed this in the trailer?
 
Okay, this is coming from some one that is actually shooting his first MOVIE in 3D at 48fps....

I agree with all that has been said, and I know a few more that you guys might not... ;)

When I first purchased a HDTV, I was both upset and blown away of the new look I found in watching movies, and I tough, wow, this is crap!!

They made this movie like a SOAP OPERA, never watched them, but many times seen it at friends homes when stopped by and their mother would be watching it.

Then at home I watched movies previously viewed on regular TV, and seen the huge difference, yes a Soap Opera look, but also a possibility of actually see scenes which were missed before or too dark to see.


So any ways at first I just didn't like the look, too sharp, too crisp, too revealing, too life like, it wasn't the movies... ;)


Well, now I can't go to the movies, and fill like (what the hell is going on? Why is all out of focus, ever soft, so dark?) So I now love HDTV, and in fact LOVE seen material in 4K that now HDTV is the one that at times seems soft or not in off detailed and crisp to my eyes.

So I understand completely the comments made here, and they are all correct, it will take getting used to it.

In out tests at 48fps in 3D is amazing what you really see, and this is what prompted the final decision to make my first move "RAPE of a BEAUTY" which story has evolved to become the Prequel to "PERSEVERANCE" is host in 3D at 48fps.

The added realism and super crisp true to life experience made me believe that this was perfect for my Movie, in fact I think that it might even be better for my movie then for The Hobbits, but I absolutely agree and support Peter Jackson on his decision.


OH...

DON'T FORGET...

NEVER SHOW ANY ONE YOUR UNFINISHED MATERIAL...

THEY JUST WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND IS NOT FINISHED!!

GRADING IS SUCH A POWERFUL LAST TOUCH IT CHANGES EVERYTHING!!


Don't take a RAW SNAKE to a TABLE, they will puke or screaming run away form your restaurant, but if you served to them in little pieces in a white wine garlic sauce, hmmm gnammy.... They will literally think is CHICKEN... I HAVE DONE IT.. ;)
 
I'm essentially torn. My experience until now tells me I don't need 3D (although it seldomly can be fun) and that anything beyond 25 fps (even 30fps, as it is often 59,98i) is less enjoyable and draws attention to the fact that it was shot on a digital device. I do not in anyway analyze the reasons or religions behind it, it's just my personal observation. I'm open to the fact that it is just about getting accustomed to the new look and feel of motion but I'm still sceptical about things like 48 fps. I often wonder if things like that haven't been tested by the studios way back just to see if they could improve and sell a "new kind of cinema" and then been abandoned because of the evaluations of some test audiences.
An article like that one above tells me that my scepticism is not solitary.
 
+1 to what Ketch said. People are used to 24, it'll take them a while to get used to 48. People who are used to watching films on their home plasmas and LCDs with motion interpolation won't notice anything.
 
Nick Morrison said:
Hmm..

Does that mean the shutter speed is going up to? To 96? That wouldn't give you the motion blur we're used to in 24. I wonder if they "add" motion blur when they down-convert the 3D back to 2D.
Click to expand...

No, you wouldn't have to. Because EPIC uses an electronic shutter, you can shoot at 48fps but still maintain very close to a "standard" 1/48th sec exposure time. So, if you then chose to drop every other frame at film out you will have a 24 fps 1/48th sec motion blur product....


Jaakko Rinne said:
+1 to what Ketch said. People are used to 24, it'll take them a while to get used to 48. People who are used to watching films on their home plasmas and LCDs with motion interpolation won't notice anything.
Click to expand...

This technique is NOT the same as LCD TV motion interpolation though. I totally agree that is a terrible idea.
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
Okay, this is coming from some one that is actually shooting his first MOVIE in 3D at 48fps....

I agree with all that has been said, and I know a few more that you guys might not... ;)

When I first purchased a HDTV, I was both upset and blown away of the new look I found in watching movies, and I tough, wow, this is crap!!

They made this movie like a SOAP OPERA, never watched them, but many times seen it at friends homes when stopped by and their mother would be watching it.

Then at home I watched movies previously viewed on regular TV, and seen the huge difference, yes a Soap Opera look, but also a possibility of actually see scenes which were missed before or too dark to see.


So any ways at first I just didn't like the look, too sharp, too crisp, too revealing, too life like, it wasn't the movies... ;)


Well, now I can't go to the movies, and fill like (what the hell is going on? Why is all out of focus, ever soft, so dark?) So I now love HDTV, and in fact LOVE seen material in 4K that now HDTV is the one that at times seems soft or not in off detailed and crisp to my eyes.

So I understand completely the comments made here, and they are all correct, it will take getting used to it.

In out tests at 48fps in 3D is amazing what you really see, and this is what prompted the final decision to make my first move "RAPE of a BEAUTY" which story has evolved to become the Prequel to "PERSEVERANCE" is host in 3D at 48fps.

The added realism and super crisp true to life experience made me believe that this was perfect for my Movie, in fact I think that it might even be better for my movie then for The Hobbits, but I absolutely agree and support Peter Jackson on his decision.


OH...

DON'T FORGET...

NEVER SHOW ANY ONE YOUR UNFINISHED MATERIAL...

THEY JUST WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND IS NOT FINISHED!!

GRADING IS SUCH A POWERFUL LAST TOUCH IT CHANGES EVERYTHING!!


Don't take a RAW SNAKE to a TABLE, they will puke or screaming run away form your restaurant, but if you served to them in little pieces in a white wine garlic sauce, hmmm gnammy.... They will literally think is CHICKEN... I HAVE DONE IT.. ;)
Click to expand...



well said!!! im not sure i get half the comments on this thread. I have to say lets remember these commenters because we know who Peter is and what his finished work will be...Didnt you guys read that what he displayed wasnt CC and CG wasnt completed versions. Now that said, I personall
have more doubts about the future of 3D than the future of 48fps at least on set 3d aquisition, hey but thats just me...
 
Andrew Rieger said:
Compare it to the trailer for Public Enemies which was also shot digitally but uses that awful 360 degree shutter effect.
Click to expand...

What's the 360 degree shutter supposed to do, exactly? I'm going to plead ignorance here and ask for a bit of help.

The Public Enemies footage certainly looks more like video. I caught it on cable once and couldn't bring myself to watch it, the footage was too distracting. Good to know "why". I figured it was their "documentary" approach, but didn't realize it was also more technical and involved the shutter.

A really heplful comparison. Thx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top