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

Andrew Rieger said:
not higher frame rates which represent motion in an odd and distracting manner
Click to expand...
24 fps represents motion in an odd and distracting manner - but it just happens to be an odd and distracting manner that most people are used to. 48 fps is more natural. 96 fps would be even more natural. And 120 fps even more than that. If all you had ever seen were films at 120fps and were presented with one at 24 you'd be just as distracted by the way it looks - maybe even more so.

I look forward to seeing high-resolution high-framerate movies that actually feel like you're looking through a real window into an alternate world. And I have no doubt that they are coming.
 
Jaakko Rinne said:
24 fps represents motion in an odd and distracting manner - but it just happens to be an odd and distracting manner that most people are used to. 48 fps is more natural. 96 fps would be even more natural. And 120 fps even more than that. If all you had ever seen were films at 120fps and were presented with one at 24 you'd be just as distracted by the way it looks - maybe even more so.

I look forward to seeing high-resolution high-framerate movies that actually feel like you're looking through a real window into an alternate world. And I have no doubt that they are coming.
Click to expand...

And for the 100 billionth time, I understand that it is "technically" better and that the only reason I like 24 fps is because I'm more accustomed to it. I have no problem with that, it is what I am used to, everything else looks strange and when things look strange, they distract me, drawing me away from the plot and the performances. I don't want movies to look like real life, especially when real life makes make up and sets look bad. 24p works because it looks different from the way our eyes see, when we go to the movies were are transported into another world. 24 fps looks cinematic, anything higher does not. In 20 years, people may think 48 fps looks cinematic but they certainly won't think that way now. I could be just me but from the press reactions to the Hobbit screening, many others feel the same way.
 
Andrew Rieger said:
Cameron is not a filmmaker anymore, he is a deep sea explorer and a tech salesman. Hell, someone needs to rent all those Pace Cameron rigs he built so he hast to hit the road to push this 3D crap on theater owners to get them to drop boatloads of cash on new projectors so they can project films at higher frame rates. When recently asked if he was going to still make Battle Angel (a crazy movie about fighting robots), he said he was going to stick with Avatar because he thought it would have more of an impact on saving the planet. Yawn, he is starting to sound like a broken record and I really hope theater owner don't buckle under the pressure just so he can get what he want when it comes time to bring out Avatar 2.

This is just my opinion but my distaste for James Cameron is based on legitimate criticisms. I hope Jackson avoids becoming another tech salesman like Lucas and Cameron who probably have the two biggest egos in Hollywood. At least Jackson seems like a nice guy. The other two just come off as smug.
Click to expand...

I'd recommend backing off a bit here, Andrew. It's always tempting to hurl arrows and insults at visible figures based on what you see in the press. But he is a filmmaker to the core... and an explorer... and a salesman. Those are not mutually exclusive. The Deepsea Challenge exploration was visually recorded as part of a filmmaking and storytelling adventure that, as a concept, was sold to a variety of people that helped make it a reality. And I'd venture to say that any successful Director is a master salesman. You sure as hell can't get a movie made if you can't sell your ideas and turn that into money.

And as far as the "Pace Cameron rigs" - the next time you're in Burbank, give me a call. I just finished a tour for a recent AFI grad who we are trying to help tell a story, and we have a extremely successful A-list crew in here tomorrow for an HFR test for their upcoming feature. We have projects prepping on our floor right now and the building is full of creative professionals that want to use "this 3D crap" to tell their stories.

You certainly have a right to your opinion. But I'd be much more tempted to take you seriously if you had actually done some 3D work yourself and done some high framerate work yourself and spoke from personal experience instead of being the guy in the heavy metal t-shirt who says "Rap sucks, man..." without owning any rap albums. (wow... that just gave away my age... yikes...)

Lucas
 
Lucas Wilson said:
I'd recommend backing off a bit here, Andrew. It's always tempting to hurl arrows and insults at visible figures based on what you see in the press. But he is a filmmaker to the core... and an explorer... and a salesman. Those are not mutually exclusive. The Deepsea Challenge exploration was visually recorded as part of a filmmaking and storytelling adventure that, as a concept, was sold to a variety of people that helped make it a reality. And I'd venture to say that any successful Director is a master salesman. You sure as hell can't get a movie made if you can't sell your ideas and turn that into money.

And as far as the "Pace Cameron rigs" - the next time you're in Burbank, give me a call. I just finished a tour for a recent AFI grad who we are trying to help tell a story, and we have a extremely successful A-list crew in here tomorrow for an HFR test for their upcoming feature. We have projects prepping on our floor right now and the building is full of creative professionals that want to use "this 3D crap" to tell their stories.

You certainly have a right to your opinion. But I'd be much more tempted to take you seriously if you had actually done some 3D work yourself and done some high framerate work yourself and spoke from personal experience instead of being the guy in the heavy metal t-shirt who says "Rap sucks, man..." without owning any rap albums. (wow... that just gave away my age... yikes...)

Lucas
Click to expand...

Sorry Lucas, I was not aware that one of his employees was on this thread. Not trying to insult you or anything. I'm sure you have a great gig down at Pace and to be honest, I would probably work for Cameron if I got the call. You have to understand that I am also a bit of a film critic and have had a number of problems with Cameron post Titanic. Don't get me wrong, no one does epic better than Cameron but I guess I miss the R rated edgy sci fi he used to make with films like The Terminator, Aliens and T2. The Abyss still blows me away in terms of the underwater photography and set design. I guess I am just a little let down by all the sterile green screen productions that seem to be the norm today. I remember when Cameron was wearing a wet suit and was miserable on the set of the Abyss or when he fought with the British crew on the set of Aliens or when he built a whole ship set in Mexico for Titanic. I remember when Lucas had to camp out in the desert to make Star Wars. Now it seems like blockbusters are all made in an a climate controlled vacuum filled with green walls.

I'm sorry if I came off as a bit harsh but I feel that after Titanic, the success went to his head and now he feels like he needs to fundamentally change the way movies are shot and presented. I don't actually hate 3D but I don't think it is worth the extra ticket price. I'm sure it will improve over time just like anything else but I can't help shake the feeling that it is just designed to get a few more bucks out of my pocket.

Yes, I never shot in 3D or 48fps so I don't know from experience but I have seen high frame rate footage and I personally think that it is not a good fit for narrative films because it is so different from what we commonly associate with cinematic imagery. Not worse, just different. Sometimes that difference draws too much attention to itself and harms the film as a whole.

Anyways, I don't actually hate your boss but I just wish that he didn't come across as so preechy. He seems like a passionate individual but he does not have all of the answers to the future of cinema and I just wish he didn't act like he did.

Others feel the same way: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2012/04/22/its-good-to-be-the-king-of-the-world/

Anyways, good luck with you job at Pace. Sorry if I came off as too harsh. I would probably sell my soul for his level of success. He could probably make anything he wanted to at this point I just wish it wasn't another Avatar sequel. James, please, please, please make Battle Angel instead.
 
Last edited:
I have seen my share of 3D @ 24fps and and not a fan whatsoever. I preferred the 2d versions. Maybe it's because I wear contacts to correct my vision, but I find the 3D effect exhausting. And after the first 25 minutes I don't even notice that its 3D honestly. It seems like a tech demo in the end because I don't leave the theater with any different feelings about what I had seen.

I am not a fan of the 48 and up frame rates in film or any medium for that matter. Long story short, while it may be more 'realistic' and akin to what our eyes see...that's not what I want. I go to the movies to be taken away somewhere that ISN'T real life...just like the lighting is not how things look in our everyday life. it sounds cheesy, but to me, and many others apparently that there is something magical about 24 that gives the illusion of motion but deep down we all know that it isn't really happening. For TV maybe 48 or 60 or 96 will be the next frontier. Or another fps option for cinema, but I hope there isn't a push to force higher frame rates to be successful like studios putting pressure for big IP's to go 3D. Leave it up to the creative people.

That said, I am looking forward to my first 3D @ 48fps viewing. No idea what it will be like. Cheers to anyone attempting something new.
 
See and this is why I completely and outerly respectfully disagree with a PASSION with you Joe, Andrew, and all others here and elsewhere which say that they want to be taken away, and for this don't like the realism of 48fps...


You see, I'm shooting "RAPE of a BEAUTY" in 3D at 48fps, exactly because I want to take every one away...


Away inside the lives of my characters in the Story, I want the viewers to fill as if their were there, inside those situations in that City, in that grand gala event, in that room were that girl is getting Raped, and fill the passion, the beauty, and the horror, of all that happens in the story from beginning to end, and not been able to just called, oh its fiction... NO IT IS NOT, its a STORY that wants you to FILL IT ALL!

And I agree with James Cameron, and Peter Jackson decisions not only because are two of the most respected names in Filmmaking history of which I absolutely love their work, but because in my own testing I came to my OWN conclusions that this is PERFECT reasoning, at list for my story, and I'm sure when I'll see pre-screeing of "The Hobbits" and Cameron's material in 48fps, I'll like it too.


PS: Joe, sorry about you eye problem, I to have serious problems with my vision, but I guess with the years of 3D, my Cortex Muscles are now well trained and can see 3D content without any issues for hours, and been able to truly appreciated.
 
you know how when its really really cold out, all you can do is say "Fuck, its cold as balls out!" either out loud or internal every 5 minutes. Thats how i feel when watching anything narrative with less motion blur. Every 5 mins, I'm like "Fuck this looks terrible" which at that moment makes me wish i was viewing a different version, which takes me out of the story, because then i start thinking about why it looks so different and then leads me to other thoughts, then i have to rewind to watch what i just missed while i was too busy thinking about the image. Maybe 48 looks different in 3d and brings us in more. i havent seen it, so i cant judge, but i like others want the feeling of fiction. also something about the way it looks seems very low budget which seems really counter productive. i would say though that for documentaries this might be a whole different ball game. But for fiction i want my damn motion blur. lol
 
Andrew Rieger said:
Others feel the same way: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2012/04/22/its-good-to-be-the-king-of-the-world/
Click to expand...

Bordwell and Thompson are academics and film historians and aren't really in the know about the current business of contemporary filmmaking. Their job is looking backwards, not forwards, and they do that very, very well.

Cheers to Peter Jackson and James Cameron. They both have done much to pioneer filmmaking on a grand scale, in every respect. Any filmmaker who has an extensive body of work, such as these men do, are bound to make some hits, some misses, in service to innovation. Let's just wait and see the whole film before we evaluate the work, shall we? I just don't see that a trailer of several minutes gives you much time to habituate your vision to a new viewing practice.

In the history of film, new tech has always required perceptual shifts - to a non-stationary camera, to sound, to color, etc etc....this won't be any different. I am excited to see someone take on a huge challenge like this, with such an internationally popular tale.

From the guy who made one of my favorite films, FORGOTTEN SILVER - if you don't think you'll like The Hobbit - you might want to rent this instead, Jackson's homage to early film, if you prefer backwards thinking to forward thinking. He can do it all....
 
Meryem Ersoz said:
Bordwell and Thompson are academics and film historians and aren't really in the know about the current business of contemporary filmmaking. Their job is looking backwards, not forwards, and they do that very, very well.

Cheers to Peter Jackson and James Cameron. They both have done much to pioneer filmmaking on a grand scale, in every respect. Any filmmaker who has an extensive body of work, such as these men do, are bound to make some hits, some misses, in service to innovation. Let's just wait and see the whole film before we evaluate the work, shall we? I just don't see that a trailer of several minutes gives you much time to habituate your vision to a new viewing practice.

In the history of film, new tech has always required perceptual shifts - to a non-stationary camera, to sound, to color, etc etc....this won't be any different. I am excited to see someone take on a huge challenge like this, with such an internationally popular tale.

From the guy who made one of my favorite films, FORGOTTEN SILVER - if you don't think you'll like The Hobbit - you might want to rent this instead, Jackson's homage to early film, if you prefer backwards thinking to forward thinking. He can do it all....
Click to expand...

Bordwell is actually quite tech savvy when it comes to filmmaking technology. I follow movie tech religiously and would like to think that I am very forward thinking. Still, my idea of forward thinking is making quality films based on story rather than bleeding edge technology. If the technology enhances the story then by all means, go for it. I can't help but think that this frame rate jump will in no way shape or form be a benefit to the film as a whole. Would The Lord Of The Rings have been any better if it was in 3D at 48 fps? Probably not. I guess I am also a bit pessimistic cause I was really looking forward to seeing Del Toro's original version and I have a feeling he would have passed on the high frame rate 3D thing. Oh well.
 
For millennia, the strongest and most immersive, and enduring works of art are probably the ones that created a glimpse of something beautiful, whilst keeping the viewer's imagination active.
24fps is a kind of Impressionism - a sketch.
Soap opera- filmed stage play... I can relate to the reactions.
I'm not convinced teenagers will embrace the aesthetic any more eagerly than older generations.
The imagery of high-frame rate video game animations still leaves a lot to the imagination.
I'm not sure shots of The Hobbit actors will.
I suppose there will be much public test screening at both 24 and 48... And results will be interesting, and affect what exhibitors want.
 
Andrew Rieger said:
Bordwell is actually quite tech savvy when it comes to filmmaking technology.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to Bordwell's knowledge about film technology - he is one of the great historians of film technology. But he's an historian and a theoretician, not a filmmaker. He doesn't have a hand in the actual business of filmmaking, like Jackson or Cameron - he can afford the luxury of nostalgia in the face of the deflationary facts of the industry. He has no personal motives to condone or to experiment with innovations in film, unlike people such as James Cameraon or Peter Jackson. He looks backward--that is his job-- in an an industry which is being pushed forward by a swelling tsunami of change, like it or not.

In any case, since none of us has seen the actual film or even the trailer, the entire discussion is somewhat pointless and based on assumptions.
 
Meryem Ersoz said:
I wasn't referring to Bordwell's knowledge about film technology - he is one of the great historians of film technology. But he's an historian and a theoretician, not a filmmaker. He doesn't have a hand in the actual business of filmmaking, like Jackson or Cameron - he can afford the luxury of nostalgia in the face of the deflationary facts of the industry. He has no personal motives to condone or to experiment with innovations in film, unlike people such as James Cameraon or Peter Jackson. He looks backward--that is his job-- in an an industry which is being pushed forward by a swelling tsunami of change, like it or not.

In any case, since none of us has seen the actual film or even the trailer, the entire discussion is somewhat pointless and based on assumptions.
Click to expand...

Well in any case, the day I'm told that I need to shoot in 3D at 48 fps is the day I take up film criticism instead of filmmaking. I'm sure everyone thinks I'm just an old man who hates change and this is probably true. I get way more excited when I hear that a filmmaker is using miniatures, practical effects, sets and prosthetics. That is why I like Del Toro and Nolan so much. They combine the old school with the new. Jackson was that way with the original trilogy but I think he is drifting away from that. Does anyone know if he used any forced perspective in The Hobbit?
 
Hey let's watch the insults here, as Lucas mentioned. Saying that some is "not a filmmaker anymore" and trying to degrade them as a "salesman" is not something that should be done here, especially not when that person is, by almost any measure, one of the most successful filmmakers in the history of the world, with a fireplace mantel full of Oscars to boot. Not to mention that Cameron is one of Red's top customers! Why do people need to be so contentious on a thread about technical display issues? Let's keep the attitude and tone more productive here. You're entitled to say you don't like someone's movies, but please don't engage in trying to personally degrade people here.
 
Even film shot at 48fps looks like video. Terrible terrible terrible idea for narrative motion pictures!!!!!
 
I am sure that I am the least one here to have anything constructive to contribute, but personally, I think I will wait to see this before making a judgment on it. I cannot imagine P.J. and co. not fully testing this before making the decision to spend millions on it. Surely there have been epic fails before, but I will wait till it is finished. No offense to anyone intended.
 
It's funny how the "grass is greener effect" works.
For so long motion picture has been in 24fps, and now some aspire to high frame rates.
I used to live for many years in Brazil, long time ago, where all the soap operas where shot it the regular broadcast format, high frame rates. I just heard recently about some of the soaps going to 24fps and being commended for the higher production value look and cinematic look.
 
To be fair, only a relative few factions are pushing for high frame rates. The rest seem to be bucking it.

Say what you like about the mavericks most of us still admire those who fly in the face of the norm. I do.

Daniel Stilling said:
It's funny how the "grass is greener effect" works.
For so long motion picture has been in 24fps, and now some aspire to high frame rates.
I used to live for many years in Brazil, long time ago, where all the soap operas where shot it the regular broadcast format, high frame rates. I just heard recently about some of the soaps going to 24fps and being commended for the higher production value look and cinematic look.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top