Will Keir
Well-known member
Auto Motion Plus does such, makes expensivly shot films look like home videos. AMP is good for video games.
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
48fps The Hobbit - First Review
- Thread starter Felix K.
- Start date
Will Keir
Well-known member
Me too, I don't think 24p is going anywhere.
Will Keir
Well-known member
I've always been a 24p fan but that doesn't mean there isn't something better or that I will like more. I'd enjoy taking a look at some 48fps 3D films then decided. I can see the 3D world taking me into a whole new level of immersion with 48fps. Maybe it won't look so dreaded video/ auto motion plus.
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 HOBBITS" @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.
Ivan Kovax
Well-known member
I wonder in 5 years when we dig through the archives and read this thread what we will all think about our comments on this topic then?
I have shot several commercial projects in S3D and what I personally found was that given the right touch it was beautiful in a reflective sort of way. I think given the right hands 3D can be made to look stunning. It is a complete shift in mindset to narrative filmmaking from lighting, to editing, and especially your choice in convergence... whether to keep it in the box, on the edge, or popping out.
Facts:
-Right now many audience members feel like S3D is a fad being forced onto them by companies trying to figure out new ways to generate revenue in theaters.
-People still get sick from S3D. I am assuming that higher FPS will help this significantly, but not entirely.
-People loathe having to wear goggles. People want to enjoy 3D glasses free, from many angles in the room. Not just from the sweet spot.
-As a very vague generalisation, all new technology initially takes off with sports and the porn industries. When we see them adopt it en masse, then we know it is here to stay.
I will watch tis all unfold in great curiosity. I find it fantastic that people have such passion here for both sides, which means to me that we are all so passionate about our art.
A new form is useless without debate, and yes, even insults as we have seen here serve their purpose.
There will clearly be some great art produced from S3D technology, and there will also be a lot of junk produced too. And many of us, I am sure will end up being involved in both the greatest art, and the junk, just like 2D, and silent movies before that...
Cheers,
Ivan
I have shot several commercial projects in S3D and what I personally found was that given the right touch it was beautiful in a reflective sort of way. I think given the right hands 3D can be made to look stunning. It is a complete shift in mindset to narrative filmmaking from lighting, to editing, and especially your choice in convergence... whether to keep it in the box, on the edge, or popping out.
Facts:
-Right now many audience members feel like S3D is a fad being forced onto them by companies trying to figure out new ways to generate revenue in theaters.
-People still get sick from S3D. I am assuming that higher FPS will help this significantly, but not entirely.
-People loathe having to wear goggles. People want to enjoy 3D glasses free, from many angles in the room. Not just from the sweet spot.
-As a very vague generalisation, all new technology initially takes off with sports and the porn industries. When we see them adopt it en masse, then we know it is here to stay.
I will watch tis all unfold in great curiosity. I find it fantastic that people have such passion here for both sides, which means to me that we are all so passionate about our art.
A new form is useless without debate, and yes, even insults as we have seen here serve their purpose.
There will clearly be some great art produced from S3D technology, and there will also be a lot of junk produced too. And many of us, I am sure will end up being involved in both the greatest art, and the junk, just like 2D, and silent movies before that...
Cheers,
Ivan
Mark Toia
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 4,142
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
QUOTE: Jim Vejvoda is the Executive Editor in charge of IGN Movies.
Warner Bros. screened roughly 10 minutes of footage from The Hobbit today at their CinemaCon presentation in Las Vegas. The footage was projected in 3D at 48 frames per second for theater owners and press attending the conference.
A taped intro from director Peter Jackson preceded the footage. There is no honest discussion that can be had about this Hobbit footage without emphasizing the 48fps presentation. The film was shot this way and will be digitally projected this way, as well as presented in 3D. So what does 48fps movie footage look like as opposed to your usual 24fps theatrical movie experience? In this reporter's opinion, it looks like live television or hi-def video. And it didn't look particularly good. Yes, this is shocking, but I was actually let down by the Hobbit footage, as were a number of the other journalists that I spoke with afterward.
Please note: The above trailer is in 24fps -- not 48fps.
It looked like an old Doctor Who episode, or a videotaped BBC TV production. It was as shocking as when The Twilight Zone made the boneheaded decision to switch from film to tape one season, and where perfectly good stories were ruined by that aesthetic. Here, there were incredibly sharp, realistic images where colors seem more vivid and brighter than on film, but the darker scenes were especially murky (and the 3D only dims that image even more). Frankly, it was jarring to see Gandalf, Bilbo or the dwarves in action against CG-created characters or even to move quickly down a rocky passage. The whipping of a camera pan or the blur of movement was unsettling.
While 48fps may create a more realistic, "you are there" picture quality, it actually works against The Hobbit from the 10 minutes of footage we saw. This undeniable "reality" kept pulling me out of the movie rather than immersing me fully into its world as the Lord of the Rings films did; the very fantasy element, the artifice of it all (whether it's the wigs, fake beards or CG monsters) was plainly, at times painfully, evident. There was none of the painterly gentleness that film offers a fantasy film, as was so beautifully the case with the original (shot on film) LOTR trilogy. I fully expect the 48fps issue to become the much-talked about "mumbling Bane" flap to come out of CinemaCon.
The best sequence shown was one between Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and Gollum (once again played by Andy Serkis). The latter is his old, split personality self as he debates between killing Bilbo or helping him out. Bilbo finally agrees to play a game of riddles with Gollum. If he wins, Gollum will show Bilbo the way to Bilbo's destination. If Gollum wins? Well, it makes you wonder if Hobbit tastes like chicken. One reason why the 48fps wasn't as distracting here was that it was an extended sequence, the longest by far of the clips shown from An Unexpected Journey today. The CG-ness of Gollum was more evident in this digital format than it was on film back in the LOTR trilogy, but you'd be hard-pressed not to feel goosebumps seeing Serkis back in deceitful action as Gollum.
Also back in action in the footage screened today? Orlando Bloom's archer Legolas and Elijah Wood's Frodo Baggins, although we only got a few glimpses of those two characters. There were also scenes shown between Gandalf the Grey and Radagast the Brown, as well as an action-oriented one seeing Bilbo imperiled by three giant troll-like monsters before Thorin Oakenshield and the dwarves come to his rescue. There were some moments of Ian Holm as the elder Bilbo, life in the Shire, and the heroes' journeys across the snow-capped mountaintops of New Zealand, er, Middle-earth. Jackson stressed in his intro that the footage was unfinished, and this was evident in many of the green screen backdrop scenes we saw, such as the Rivendell one between Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel.
I didn't go into CinemaCon expecting to write anything less than great things about The Hobbit, but the very aesthetic chosen by Peter Jackson has made me very nervous about this film. It just looked ... cheap, like a videotaped or live TV version of Lord of the Rings and not the epic return to Tolkien that we have all so long been waiting for. I still have hope for The Hobbit, but I'd be lying if I didn't say my expectations for the film have now been greatly diminished.
Thats sad...
I'm going to see this film, but lucky for me, I doubt my theatre will have a 48FPS 3d projector. So Ill see it in 24 FPS regardless.
I shot with a 360 shutter the other day... for a bit of fun, which is sort of like 48 FPS.... I didnt like the look at all. Looked so wrong. Very old school video
Warner Bros. screened roughly 10 minutes of footage from The Hobbit today at their CinemaCon presentation in Las Vegas. The footage was projected in 3D at 48 frames per second for theater owners and press attending the conference.
A taped intro from director Peter Jackson preceded the footage. There is no honest discussion that can be had about this Hobbit footage without emphasizing the 48fps presentation. The film was shot this way and will be digitally projected this way, as well as presented in 3D. So what does 48fps movie footage look like as opposed to your usual 24fps theatrical movie experience? In this reporter's opinion, it looks like live television or hi-def video. And it didn't look particularly good. Yes, this is shocking, but I was actually let down by the Hobbit footage, as were a number of the other journalists that I spoke with afterward.
Please note: The above trailer is in 24fps -- not 48fps.
It looked like an old Doctor Who episode, or a videotaped BBC TV production. It was as shocking as when The Twilight Zone made the boneheaded decision to switch from film to tape one season, and where perfectly good stories were ruined by that aesthetic. Here, there were incredibly sharp, realistic images where colors seem more vivid and brighter than on film, but the darker scenes were especially murky (and the 3D only dims that image even more). Frankly, it was jarring to see Gandalf, Bilbo or the dwarves in action against CG-created characters or even to move quickly down a rocky passage. The whipping of a camera pan or the blur of movement was unsettling.
While 48fps may create a more realistic, "you are there" picture quality, it actually works against The Hobbit from the 10 minutes of footage we saw. This undeniable "reality" kept pulling me out of the movie rather than immersing me fully into its world as the Lord of the Rings films did; the very fantasy element, the artifice of it all (whether it's the wigs, fake beards or CG monsters) was plainly, at times painfully, evident. There was none of the painterly gentleness that film offers a fantasy film, as was so beautifully the case with the original (shot on film) LOTR trilogy. I fully expect the 48fps issue to become the much-talked about "mumbling Bane" flap to come out of CinemaCon.
- New Line
The best sequence shown was one between Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and Gollum (once again played by Andy Serkis). The latter is his old, split personality self as he debates between killing Bilbo or helping him out. Bilbo finally agrees to play a game of riddles with Gollum. If he wins, Gollum will show Bilbo the way to Bilbo's destination. If Gollum wins? Well, it makes you wonder if Hobbit tastes like chicken. One reason why the 48fps wasn't as distracting here was that it was an extended sequence, the longest by far of the clips shown from An Unexpected Journey today. The CG-ness of Gollum was more evident in this digital format than it was on film back in the LOTR trilogy, but you'd be hard-pressed not to feel goosebumps seeing Serkis back in deceitful action as Gollum.
Also back in action in the footage screened today? Orlando Bloom's archer Legolas and Elijah Wood's Frodo Baggins, although we only got a few glimpses of those two characters. There were also scenes shown between Gandalf the Grey and Radagast the Brown, as well as an action-oriented one seeing Bilbo imperiled by three giant troll-like monsters before Thorin Oakenshield and the dwarves come to his rescue. There were some moments of Ian Holm as the elder Bilbo, life in the Shire, and the heroes' journeys across the snow-capped mountaintops of New Zealand, er, Middle-earth. Jackson stressed in his intro that the footage was unfinished, and this was evident in many of the green screen backdrop scenes we saw, such as the Rivendell one between Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel.
- New Line
I didn't go into CinemaCon expecting to write anything less than great things about The Hobbit, but the very aesthetic chosen by Peter Jackson has made me very nervous about this film. It just looked ... cheap, like a videotaped or live TV version of Lord of the Rings and not the epic return to Tolkien that we have all so long been waiting for. I still have hope for The Hobbit, but I'd be lying if I didn't say my expectations for the film have now been greatly diminished.
Thats sad...
I'm going to see this film, but lucky for me, I doubt my theatre will have a 48FPS 3d projector. So Ill see it in 24 FPS regardless.
I shot with a 360 shutter the other day... for a bit of fun, which is sort of like 48 FPS.... I didnt like the look at all. Looked so wrong. Very old school video
Petri Teittinen
Well-known member
Mark, I don't think you wrote all that. How about crediting the original writer/reporter?
Mark Toia
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 4,142
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I did.. the very first line
... Ill make it bigger for you. My bits in white at the bottom.
Ketch Rossi
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,041
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Sardinia, Italy
- Website
- www.afroditefilms.com
Wow, Mark, for a second there I tough you were Sanjin, so much yellow... he he
New Line, they are just pissed to themselves they could't afford half Billion budget and had to give most of it to WB, MGM and company, but as I said, and Peter Jackson's confirmed in his Phone interview days after, this was an Unfinished showing, which even more so made the evidence of the "VIDEO" look on some of the scenes.
Expect to be different no doubt, that is the idea, to give clarity and more life like realism, some will like it some will not.
New Line, they are just pissed to themselves they could't afford half Billion budget and had to give most of it to WB, MGM and company, but as I said, and Peter Jackson's confirmed in his Phone interview days after, this was an Unfinished showing, which even more so made the evidence of the "VIDEO" look on some of the scenes.
Expect to be different no doubt, that is the idea, to give clarity and more life like realism, some will like it some will not.
Mark Toia
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 4,142
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Im far from worried Ketch, Peter jackson isnt a mug... he has some very good people working with him. (quite a few friends of mine as well)
Even they are not so thrilled about the look of it at 48fps. im sure they are going to do something to make it feel right.
Remember when Michael MANN did Miami Vice on the SonyHDCAM with the 360 degree shutter... Had to be the worst film I watched that year. I liked the content (huge Michael Mann fan) , but the smooth video look killed it for me.
Even they are not so thrilled about the look of it at 48fps. im sure they are going to do something to make it feel right.
Remember when Michael MANN did Miami Vice on the SonyHDCAM with the 360 degree shutter... Had to be the worst film I watched that year. I liked the content (huge Michael Mann fan) , but the smooth video look killed it for me.
Ketch Rossi
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,041
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Sardinia, Italy
- Website
- www.afroditefilms.com
I know Mark, and there should be more like you... BTW, Michael, shot MIami Vice also using the Viper, I know, I was there, and in fact was about to buy the Viper, when in those days chatting on Cinematography.com with David Mullen, thank God for RED... 
But yeah, I give people a chance till I see the final product, and if I don't like it, I watch it again, just to be sure, then I watched onwce more just to really be sure, then I form an opinion about it, I hope that people will do the same with my work...
But yeah, I give people a chance till I see the final product, and if I don't like it, I watch it again, just to be sure, then I watched onwce more just to really be sure, then I form an opinion about it, I hope that people will do the same with my work...
Petri Teittinen
Well-known member
Sorry mate. I could have sworn that first bit was not there when I read your postI did.. the very first line
Will Keir
Well-known member
Missed the Miami Vice film all together but an example of a potentially good film turned bad was "Apocalypto." 360 degree shutter ruins it for me. Are there any 360 degree shutter films visually appealing? Gotta love Dr. Who but that's a 25fps vs 24fps issue I believe.
Last edited:
Chris Parker
REDuser Sponsor
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,932
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
48fps is lame. i don't like it. for all i know, this is just me showing my age, and the kids will flock to it and it will become the new norm. but i don't like it. digital has come a long way in achieving that 'film look' but without the grain, etc. i think this is a step backwards. all i can think of is seeing the ARRI projection of film shot and projected at 48fps two years ago at Cinegear, and how much i hated the look of it.
Mark Toia
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 4,142
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
dito....
Ryan Farnes
Well-known member
Important to note that the big names (Jackson, Cameron) are shooting these rates because of 3D.
I wonder what Jackson would shoot at if he makes another 2D film.
I wonder what Jackson would shoot at if he makes another 2D film.