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 The Hobbit - First Review

Jon Landau was at a talk a few weeks ago here in Miami and he talked for a while about really wanting to push higher frame rates, notably 48p to becoming the norm. Lots of respect to him and Cameron but I dont know. I think its the guys doing huge 3D epics that this really appeals to. I hate the look of 25p and 30p/60p, I can imagine I wouldnt like 48p either. There's just something about motion blur
 
Maybe 48fps is not the main problem at all in the first place. I think we are forgetting something mentioned long ago during the making of this movie,that its not shot on a 180 degree shutter angle but a 270 degree shutter angle, even 24fps shot on weird shutter angles look like bts footage(remember Public Enemies). They shot on this 270 degree shutter because they were shooting for both the 24fps stream and the 48fps one at the same time, keeping the motion characteristics of both frame rates in mind they chose 270 degree shutter, they said it gives a smooth silky look to 48fps and the 24fps extraction is also good. Maybe 48fps shot on a proper 180 degree shutter angle will truly enhance the quality and clarity at the same time keeping the cinematic aesthetic look intact.....
 
Andrew Rieger said:
Nope. Have you?
Click to expand...

no and thats why I havnt had too much to say one way or another about it...might try it, you may actually be pleasantly suprized that the masters are where they are because of expierience. We used to do alot of Frame manipulation years ago in the music Video heyday and I expect the 48 fps
will only enhance the color depth space and feel better than 24fps...but as i said ill wait and see what the BIGBOYS do...
 
1335424979628.jpg


That's all I wanted to say here.
 
Tobias Ashenheim said:
I think these higher frame rates will forever split people and productions, just like 3D.. one wont win out and replace the other..
Click to expand...

Yea and HD will never be accepted because it is too sharp. Oops, I meant to say 4k... Oops

People evolve, tastes evolve. You can't measure dynamics in forever.
 
The first conclusion I arrive at while reading through this thread is that clearly we all see the world differently, and I mean that mostly in the literal sense. Our eyes are not all the same, and to add another layer to that, our experience with motion pictures is not all the same. So if you add up the physical differences with eyesight and what technology (formats, framerates, etc) you were brought up on, these can equate to completely different perceptions amongst us, hence what I believe is at the heart of discussion here.

For me, this is very simple. I can't form a judgement until I see The Hobbit. Seeing a trailer on my laptop does very little to aid in that judgement. Also, the movie is not complete, the final look not established. I need to sit in the theater, watching the movie in a way that Peter jackson intended me to see it, and then at that point go entirely based on what my experience was like watching the movie. Quite frankly I am not being influenced by anything anyone says here. If people hate high framerates, that's their business. I know Lucas Wilson, he's a really good guy and I respect his knowledge, his hard work, and his dedication to advancing technology and storytelling. But even then, he can only provide information up to a certain point because I still have to sit in a theater and watch the movie and see if I enjoy it.

Now, let's say hypothetically I do enjoy the movie, can I expect that everyone else will or should enjoy it as much as me. Of course not because this gets back to vision and what our vision system has been trained on. No two systems are exactly alike. The greatest challenge that Peter Jackson, James Cameron, and our very own Lucas Wilson have in front of them is whether or not a large majority of people have a vision system that is attracted to the presentation methods they are employing. Also, another consideration here is the people who may not necessarily be in that group that likes the technology but does enjoy the story in spite of the technology. As long as those numbers add up, I think they will have success.

In my own little world, I'm hoping for a great story where the technology is as invisible as possible while it immerses me deep into the world of these fantastic characters. If I am too aware of the technology, or the individual components of the filmmaking process (set design, makeup, CG, etc.) then there is a great chance this will be a disappointment for me. But I am going into it with great optimism because I want them to succeed and I want to be entertained by a great filmmaker. Prometheus is the other movie I have very high hopes for and the same criteria applies.
 
Scott Crawley said:
Yea and HD will never be accepted because it is too sharp. Oops, I meant to say 4k... Oops

People evolve, tastes evolve. You can't measure dynamics in forever.
Click to expand...


Just to clarify, you think 3D is going to supersede 2D across the board?
1080p + 4k were measured against/ competing with, the sharpness of time tested and accepted 35mm film... so its not a perfect metaphor.

and if corrination street becomes the new cinematic standard ill eat my scarlet.
 
Soap operas and the "soap opera look" have been around for a long time, and no filmmaker has ever tried to mimic the look of them. If the "soap opera look" was a going to catch on, it would have happened a long time ago. The fact that the "soap opera look" is a negative description should tell you something right there. It looks bad. It looks fake. it looks "video-ish". The "soap opera look" will never be accepted.
 
I couldn't really say if 3D will come to dominate one day. I would wager that if the perseverance exists to get it right... Right as in easily enjoyed by the majority of the audience without any discomfort or even effort, then yes I believe it could, but that was not the point. I wasn't using resolution as a metaphor, but pointing out just one area where people prognosticated about the acceptance of new tech in cinema using words like never only to look foolish when said tech matured.

As others have said in these Hobbit debates, young people do not share the biases that come with the experiences of older folks. We older folks will one day be gone and many of our biases will go with us. Forever never dies. When you say forever in a definitive way as you did you will most assuredly be wrong.

Tobias Ashenheim said:
Just to clarify, you think 3D is going to supersede 2D across the board?
1080p + 4k were measured against/ competing with, the sharpness of time tested and accepted 35mm film... so its not a perfect metaphor.

and if corrination street becomes the new cinematic standard ill eat my scarlet.
Click to expand...
 
I agree with your larger point, but I wouldn't say that the "soap opera look" is inherently bad or negative. It is just used as a common point of reference to describe a complex thing; the look of drama as it appears on daytime TV. Whether that is a good or bad thing is left to individual taste and context.

Carey Lee Coffey said:
Soap operas and the "soap opera look" have been around for a long time, and no filmmaker has ever tried to mimic the look of them. If the "soap opera look" was a going to catch on, it would have happened a long time ago. The fact that the "soap opera look" is a negative description should tell you something right there. It looks bad. It looks fake. it looks "video-ish". The "soap opera look" will never be accepted.
Click to expand...
 
I trust that Peter Jackson is a talented film maker. But I also think King Kong was lousy. Nobody is perfect. Everybody has time/money/talent limitations. I also think we can have a differing of opinions on what we like best.

The problem I see though is that yes Ketch it can "make you feel like you're really there". But the problem is that the "really there" is a film set not "really there". VFX work is a lot simpler when you are delivering 480p. The added resolution exponentially increases the level of quality you have to achieve. I suspect 48p is doing the same thing. Yes you feel like you're there but the increased framerate is increasing the audiences expectations for set quality, acting and lighting.

Could 48p be a case of the "Uncanny Valley" but applied to locations and actors? Maybe imperfect acting is being forgiven due to the stuttery framerate. Micro-emotions aren't coming through when they need to be. I have no idea if that's true but it could explain why just smoother video has such a viscerally bad reaction.
 
“A film in which the speech and sound effects are perfectly synchronized and coincide with their visual image on the screen is absolutely contrary to the aims of cinema. It is a degenerate and misguided attempt to destroy the real use of the film and cannot be accepted as coming within the true boundaries of the cinema.”
— Paul Rotha, 1930

48 fps and higher could be like Smell-O-Vision. Or it could be like colour. We'll have to wait and see.
 
Chuck Z said:
Everyone said Showscan looked too real and it went nowhere in 30 years.
Click to expand...
No, the problem there was that it chewed up 10 times the film negative per second as regular 24fps 35mm. It made no sense economically if the negative and processing budget goes from $200,000 to $1,000,000 per feature. (And that was back in 1981.) Not a problem if you have unlimited time and money.

The Showscan cameras also made a ton of noise, as do the Imax cameras. They don't work well for quiet, intimate interiors. For that reason the recent Dark Knight Returns Imax production used normal 35mm for interior dialog scenes, according to DP Wally Pfister. No way to easily blimp the big Imax cameras (yet).
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
I trust that Peter Jackson is a talented film maker. But I also think King Kong was lousy. Nobody is perfect. Everybody has time/money/talent limitations. I also think we can have a differing of opinions on what we like best.

The problem I see though is that yes Ketch it can "make you feel like you're really there". But the problem is that the "really there" is a film set not "really there". VFX work is a lot simpler when you are delivering 480p. The added resolution exponentially increases the level of quality you have to achieve. I suspect 48p is doing the same thing. Yes you feel like you're there but the increased framerate is increasing the audiences expectations for set quality, acting and lighting.

Could 48p be a case of the "Uncanny Valley" but applied to locations and actors? Maybe imperfect acting is being forgiven due to the stuttery framerate. Micro-emotions aren't coming through when they need to be. I have no idea if that's true but it could explain why just smoother video has such a viscerally bad reaction.
Click to expand...


Gavin,

at the end is all about what you are used to see.

It tucked myself some getting used to HD, and then 4K was an absolute wanting IT kind of thing, once I got hooked on to higher resolution Motion viewing, same as in Still Photography.


Same experiences I had when I had restaurants, and people would tell me my Lasagna and Tirami Sù was not as good as that they were used to eat from other Shitty places, which had no clue on how to make a Lasagna or Tirami Sù and not because they were not Italian and their Chef was Mexican, but just because they were using none of the proper ingredients, and only after coming to my place for awhile, then and only then they could never see themselves going back to the other place, as of course they had now tasted what REAL Lasagna and Tiurami Sù should taste like... ;)

A bit of food analogy here, but that is my point, it will take time as with everything, including the Death of Film no one wanted to admit it was coming, well, it came and gone now.

But I also agree that not all have the same taste, and some might like it some might not, also for 48fps, there are some things that will show off better then others, I know my film is a perfect candidate for it, The Hobbits.... I need to review further before making final decision, but I do TRUST Peter Jackson... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top