Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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... I've converted.

Yep paradigmas are shifting today,like it or not :D

Btw did you know that part of Slumdog milionare where shot at 12fps? Does anybody care or moaning about it? No, we are pretty used to it, from editing, from music or action videos. Everything is possible when its properly used. 48fps is too much in focus now, 24fps purism is overated. I must thanks to Peter Jackson for all this fuss and stir, Im ready for any experiments. Great times.
But I hate that Hobbit is only in 2K and not in 4K!
 
Petr Dvorak said:
But I hate that Hobbit is only in 2K and not in 4K!
Click to expand...

I think it might be worth noting that this picture could easily have been distributed and shown in 4K if they hadn't insisted on 3D and 48fps.
 
I am afraid that watching feature length 3d projection gives me migraines, so I will be seeing this in 2d.
are there 48fps screenings in 2d scheduled in this release?
 
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/201...-expected-masterpiece-in-a-distracting-frame/

In fact, I was very excited to see this new technology and experience the ‘future of film.’ I was ready for it! Even with the uproar from those crusty cinema owners last year, I figured that was a bunch of old fogeys who simply didn’t want to update their equipment. I was fully expecting to be blown away and fall in love with this next evolution in film. I felt this way right up until the opening scenes of the movie.

Then it happened…I told myself: ‘Oh Chris, your eyes will get used to it… just a bit longer.‘

Nope — never got used to it. I couldn’t help but think, ‘Why does this look like some highly produced BBC TV drama?‘ In fact, about every 10 minutes or so (or maybe whenever something was particularly bright on screen) I found myself being literally drawn out of Middle-earth and back into the present — the theater. And therein lies the issue. I was constantly taken out of the story and performance because my brain was distracted by the ‘bells and whistles’ on screen. I was jolted out of the content of the film and noticed the tech behind it. That is unfortunate.
Click to expand...
 
no-hfr-277x300.jpg


Just thought that was amusing.
 
Christopher Mills said:
I am afraid that watching feature length 3d projection gives me migraines, so I will be seeing this in 2d.
are there 48fps screenings in 2d scheduled in this release?
Click to expand...

Simply, No. Even the most ardent ptoponents of HFR at the moment concede that it's only suited to 3D at the moment, as in 2D its advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages.

Depending on tha cause of your headaches from 3D, HFR may help, as one of the common causes of headaches relating to 3D is eyestrain, and Higher framerates is one way to reduce this.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-48-fps_b_2233959.html

Granted, this could be related to my own attention-deficit issues, but I was often taken out of the story because I just wanted to look at things. There's a scene that takes place in Rivendell in which Gandalf (McKellen) and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) are having an important conversation near a waterfall -- but all I could do was stare at the waterfall. It was so pretty. I mean, I could see each and every droplet of water coming out of this waterfall. All I wanted in the world was to drink from this waterfall. Of course, with all of my attention drawn to this waterfall, I missed most of what Gandalf and Galadriel were talking about.
Click to expand...
 
Any time you push something to another level there will be skepticism - tons of it.
The zipper took FORTY YEARS to become mainstream. Tesla was never given his due, etc.

And then there's RED. Actually it is astounding that RED has done as well as it has, which
really says a lot - as in a huge complement to the RED team.
 
Last edited:
There's a whole collection of (very negative) critical comments on Studio Daily today:

http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/12/the-hobbits-hfr-reviews-are-in-and-theyre-not-so-good/

Still, I'm reminded of the scene in Singin' in the Rain, where they show one of the first sound movies, and one of the silent stars exits the studio and snarls "It's vulgar!" So there is some truth that some people will always be turned off to new technological changes, sometimes just because they're different from what they're used to.

I'd be very curious to see what the heavyweight critics like Roger Ebert have to say, pro and con.
 
Comparing reactions today to reactions to previous technology introductions seems to miss a major point. The advent of motion pictures or the addition of sound were previously non-existent technologies. Whether it is people scattering from their seats as a train approaches on screen or people denouncing sound in movies, it isn't analogous to people reacting to a higher frame rate today. Everyone today is already familiar with these frame rates. Many don't like them in narrative films. The indie filmmaking community chased 24p for years for a reason.

It sounds like 48fps does a lot to help ease the strain of 3D and adds a level of realism that is desirable at times. It also sounds like there are some serious downsides that audiences are starting to voice 10 days before The Hobbit even hits theaters in the US.

Stu Maschwitz makes perhaps the best comments on frame rate in film I have ever heard.

http://www.macvideo.tv/camera-technology/interviews/?articleId=3213230
 
I think everyone is missing the issues with the critical comments that I have seen.

If a film makes you sick, then no matter what, people will not embrace it. A friend of mine suffers from motion sickness and will not see ANY movies that were shot handheld or 3D. I suffer from the same fate and will not see any movie that was shot primarily handheld.

I plan to see the Hobbit in 48fps, but if it makes me sick, that will be the last movie I ever see in 48fps, period. Most 3D movies make me sick and I tend to never watch them.
 
That was brilliant!

I am a feature editor and I cannot stand 3D or higher frame rates/hertz for anything narrative. thats the key word, narrative...the whole point of narrative features is to take the audience away into a world, a perspective, the LAST thing you want is your story feeling like youre on a set. and thats exactly what HFR does to narrative.

Stu when he said narrative is about what youre taking away to tell your story is so dead on and such a great way to explain why HFR is bad in this situation. Adding more information (frames), takes away the illusion of the movie and is bad. ANYTHING, that ever takes away from the illusion is bad.

HFR works great with sports, live events and probably action sequences. But for narrative Ill stick to illusion.

Ryan Farnes said:
Comparing reactions today to reactions to previous technology introductions seems to miss a major point. The advent of motion pictures or the addition of sound were previously non-existent technologies. Whether it is people scattering from their seats as a train approaches on screen or people denouncing sound in movies, it isn't analogous to people reacting to a higher frame rate today. Everyone today is already familiar with these frame rates. Many don't like them in narrative films. The indie filmmaking community chased 24p for years for a reason.

It sounds like 48fps does a lot to help ease the strain of 3D and adds a level of realism that is desirable at times. It also sounds like there are some serious downsides that audiences are starting to voice 10 days before The Hobbit even hits theaters in the US.

Stu Maschwitz makes perhaps the best comments on frame rate in film I have ever heard.

http://www.macvideo.tv/camera-technology/interviews/?articleId=3213230
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Paul Harb said:
HFR works great with sports, live events and probably action sequences. But for narrative I'll stick to illusion.
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to agree with that. But there may well be films for which 3D and HFR are perfectly appropriate. My reluctance on The Hobbit is that it's a period costume fantasy that takes place thousands of years ago; I'm not sure hyper-reality and crystal-clarity is appropriate for this kind of fantasy. Maybe a "dreamy" 24fps look is more appropriate for a film like this, vs. a contemporary action film with lots of explosions and spaceships.

I'm very curious to see how the mainstream critics weigh in with their opinions on 48fps. As Variety put it:

More disconcerting is the introduction of the film's 48-frames-per-second digital cinematography, which solves the inherent stuttering effect of celluloid that occurs whenever a camera pans or horizontal movement crosses the frame -- but at too great a cost. Consequently, everything takes on an overblown, artificial quality in which the phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious, while well-lit areas bleed into their surroundings, like watching a high-end homemovie. (A standard 24fps projection seems to correct this effect in the alternate version of the film being offered to some theaters, but sacrifices the smoother motion seen in action scenes and flyover landscape shots.)

Me personally, I think Peter Jackson should be admired just for making the gamble and trying to go into uncharted waters. It's always a risk to try this kind of thing, but at least he's trying something new and pushing the envelope.
 
Red is again setting the industry standard

Red is again setting the industry standard

At every turn, growing pains are there, but Red is defining the state of the art in Cinema. Prometheus was really a game changer for 3D workflow and now The Hobbit is changing theatrical presentation. I have watched websites like Cinema5D continuously bash Red and proclaim the death of Red, only to see this company prove them all wrong. Sebastian Wober even puts "defeats Red" avatars on new forum subscribers whether they want it or not, this guy hates Red publicly more than anyone on the web and his site Cinema5D is dedicated to bashing Red cinema. The Hobbit is truly a game changer and I am glad to see the haters in so much pain over this, Peter Jackson wins, Red wins, the dinosaurs die in the end.
 
Saw the flick, good but bloated. I didn't have the eye fatigue I normally get with 3D, but the 48fps aesthetic just doesn't work for me.
 
I was bit scared about nausea or sickness when I putted my glasses in IMAX preparing to watch Avatar, but during the movie I realized I want to watch it forever and at the end I was very unhappy that I must go home, becase all that amazing 3Dworld was just switch off. Movie itself was just wery well made storytale but I just realized that I want more of it. But definitely in higher resolution than only HD.
 
I will not judge it before I see it, but I AM sceptical to it. I don't know how much different it is from when I've shot 50 fps myself, but the "motion" looks like a sports event, it looks like 50i home video, it looks like the awful conversion that consumer televisions does to regular video etc. I cannot see how much different it will be seeing a film like the Hobbit and shooting something myself in 50p.

I don't know if Peter Jackson or James Cameron has become so used to seeing real 24fps for so long that they forgot that 48fps isn't new?

As I said, I will not judge it, at least not the 3D 48fps, because it might be that it makes 3D better and that it's just that, it's an improvment to 3D. But for 2D, no way, there's not a chance in the world in my opinion that it looks better. I remember the old days of amateur filmmaking when we struggled to get a hold of 25p just to get the aesthetic look of films, we struggled to get rid of the high frame rate look because it looked like shit.

I cannot believe how so many people compare this to when sound was introduced to film, THAT was a shock to most people, this is not. Anyone who has any knowledge about film technology and who has worked with cameras and post production should know what 48fps looks like, it's nothing new.

For all who never seen it or doesn't have a Red camera, just shoot 720 50p with a 7D and look at it... there you go, love it or hate it. I personally don't like it. I will see how I feel about it watching 3D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top