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 :)

The Hobbit at 48fps...

I guess I'm in the extreme minority that liked the 48fps (saw it at WB a few days ago). Personally, I don't think that 3D looks like film in the first place (it's always seemed a bit digital and artificial to me), so I wasn't bothered that 3D 48fps didn't look like film either. It corrected (for me) two general complaints I've had about most 3D I've seen -- that it was too dark and too juttery on motion.

But I'm not a cinematographer and I don't work with film, so maybe I'm not as hard-wired in that regard. I'm definitely curious to see the 2D version of The Hobbit to see how it compares.
 
Here's a very thoughtful essay about 3D and 48fps by a critic from the UK newspaper Globe & Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts...l-filmmaking-over-3-d-any-day/article6089739/

"The beauty of two-dimensional, celluloid film has never been higher, thanks to excellent production design, cinematography, lighting, and other elements of mise-en-scène. (Freeze any frame of The Good Wife or Boardwalk Empire, and the painterliness of it will make you swoon.) So it’s a cruel irony that, in trying to move forward too fast, filmmakers are going backward. They’re turning away from a form they’ve perfected, and turning out work that underwhelms; they’re throwing their energy, resources, and unthinkable amounts of money into movies that are less than the sum of their parts."

I haven't seen the film yet, but I believe with any technological change -- 3D, CGI, compositing, higher frame-rates, etc. -- there is a huge danger of emphasizing style over substance. One hopes The Hobbit​ will have both, but the risk is always paying too much attention to one at the expense of the other.
 
Marc Wielage said:
there is a huge danger of emphasizing style over substance.
Click to expand...

It can happen, true. The Web was awash with gimcrack like Shockwave and Flash and Power Goo for years. Now, the best websites have almost none of it. People realized that it was just a fad (sort of like ultra-narrow DOF in cinematography).
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
It can happen, true. The Web was awash with gimcrack like Shockwave and Flash and Power Goo for years. Now, the best websites have almost none of it. People realized that it was just a fad (sort of like ultra-narrow DOF in cinematography).
Click to expand...

True, but now it's all about ajax, all sorts of javascript and html5. Man I miss good ol' static interwebs :)
 
i think i would love to see a"PANU" movie shot and projected in 3d 48 fps. There the hyper realistic feel would look awesome and fantastic and would satisfy audiences beyond belief...
The very people complaining about it in a movie would love it and be beyond happy to see a "PANU" at 3d 48fps.................
 
Hi Mark -The Globe And Mail is actually the biggest Canadian newspaper...we are not British, nor do we aspire to be. And Joanna is definitely Canadian too.
 
No replies to my Panu comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats sad beyond belief.............................
 
Marc Wielage said:
I haven't seen the film yet, but I believe with any technological change -- 3D, CGI, compositing, higher frame-rates, etc. -- there is a huge danger of emphasizing style over substance. One hopes The Hobbit​ will have both, but the risk is always paying too much attention to one at the expense of the other.
Click to expand...


I would add that there's also a constant danger of emphasizing technology over craft. I see that done every day, here and elsewhere. And at all levels: consumer, professional, and studio.
 
M Most said:
I would add that there's also a constant danger of emphasizing technology over craft. I see that done every day, here and elsewhere. And at all levels: consumer, professional, and studio.
Click to expand...

No!!!

:-))

Agree


Sometimes things are more like weightlifting matches than... Well, you know... The other thing.

Watching Goldfever (the chaplin dubbed version) right now with my four year old daughter on a sub-hd 50" plasma.
Bliss couldn' t be closer...
 
The thing I've kept asking myself as I've seen people bring up the fact that 24 frames was a technical/commercial decision, is why did it endure for so long? Showscan was introduced a long time ago. Video has been shooting more frames for a long time. On the low end, indie filmmakers were running away from 30p as fast as they could and wanting less frames. Finally 24p is ubiquitous and even available on consumer camcorders. And yet, somehow, we were all wrong...dating back to the 1920s?

Decade after decade, directors and cinematographers (including all the great ones you admire) have adhered to 24 frames. Was everyone under the weight of some kind of distribution pipeline that allowed no deviance? If so, where was the schism or rift between people that really knew what good images needed and those that worshipped the dollars that 24 frames protected? I'm not talking the last 5 years with 3D around now, I'm talking the last 50 years.

Or is HFR really just all about 3D?
 
If there is "danger", it is not going to harm anyone but those short sighted enough to create it. As some of us tout the next best thing from here to eternity, others are out there innovating; some with the most basic of tools. The phenomenon was written about well before Gustave Le Gray made his first photograph.
Now that we can all afford to enter into filmmaking of one sort or another, everything from rank camera club enthusiasm, to sects entrenched in the technical, will abound.
 
Yes, yes it is. The whole reason PJ boosted the frame rate was to make 3D more immersive and more real. To make it less of a gimmick. I believe the statistic is somewhere around 30% of all people who watch 3D experience some kind of discomfort whether it be headaches or nausea or what have you. One of the big reasons people get sick is because of the motion blur of current 24 fps 3D which in life doesn't exist so your brain is trying for upwards of 2 hours to resolve that blur and it can't. Only time will tell but I bet you dollars to doughnuts that that statistic will decrease with HFR.

Another problem with 3D that makes people sick is the fact that in the real world you can focus on whatever you want, whereas in the film world you can only focus on what the director has in focus. So if you try to look at the background in 3D your brain will try to focus and resolve it and it can't. This one is less noticeable of an issue because our brains have been trained from years and years of film and tv to not really pay attention to what is out of focus but wouldn't it be interesting in the future to have HFR 3D with an added technology of something like a Lytro camera where the viewer gets to decide what is in focus?
 
M Most said:
I would add that there's also a constant danger of emphasizing technology over craft. I see that done every day, here and elsewhere. And at all levels: consumer, professional, and studio.
Click to expand...

On that note, more or less.
I grew up through an age when fine art photography was just beginning to be seriously considered an art form. Even then one could buy a Paul Strand photograph for $60. I bought an 8X10 camera, I thought it would make me a good photographer. I sweated over technical details, and when each photograph failed miserably, I would turn to alchemy to look for answers. That was futile. One day I decided to use polaroid instant materials as a means of checking my composition and exposure, in an attempt to get to the root of the problem. It took only sixty seconds to discover that the problem was really quite fundamental, I was lacking the insights necessary to engage with and understand what was in front of me, and no amount of darkroom wizardry or camera gear would help. Ouch. ( :
 
zak forrest said:
does anyone know some hard facts about how the movie was finished? I'm trying to figure out whether to see it in HFR IMAX 3D or non-IMAX HFR 3D. What resolution was the film finished in?
Click to expand...

All evidence and statements from those with ties to the production say it's a 2K finish. The HFR IMAX 3D is the same as the HFR3D presentation with a slightly larger screen area in the digital IMAX commercial venues.
 
L. Langer said:
All evidence and statements from those with ties to the production say it's a 2K finish. The HFR IMAX 3D is the same as the HFR3D presentation with a slightly larger screen area in the digital IMAX commercial venues.
Click to expand...
Oh, awesome. So after in the other thread everyone is bashing me when I suggest that 4K VFX may be hard to do and that in some cases it may still make sense to work at 2K... it turns out that Peter Jackson didn't even finish his film at 4K??!!

Of course, he already has a ton of pixels more to render compared to traditional 2K, what with double the frame rates, plus stereo :)

But damn it, I was really looking forward to this being at 4K 3D 48fps. To me that was half of the point of 48fps... because 4K at 24fps is often just a lot of nice 4K motion blur. 48fps 4K was going to be ze fun. And then 3D...

Those "this looks like video" comments make so much more sense now. At 48fps you will of course be more aware of the lack of spatial resolution. 4K is needed more at 48fps than it is at 24fps... my 2c.

Anyway, look forward to seeing it in the format the director intended, nonetheless.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top