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...

went with a few friends (girls and guys) and all felt we were watching a video game.... :-/
 
Maz Mawlawi said:
went with a few friends (girls and guys) and all felt we were watching a video game.... :-/
Click to expand...

I defy anyone to watch the escape from the goblin king sequence and not see a video game in it's design. That doesn't make it a bad movie. :-)
 
Scott Crawley said:
I defy anyone to watch the escape from the goblin king sequence and not see a video game in it's design. That doesn't make it a bad movie. :-)
Click to expand...

The movie was good. Just did not like the the feel/motion Of it. I think it's ok for 3D...but I certainly would not want to see it 48fps in 2D...
 
Häakon said:
What a great summation, thanks for sharing that. It was nice to hear some expanded thought on the subject beyond just "well it's what we've been used to seeing forever so that's why we like it." Obviously this subject is a matter of opinion and no one is more "right" or "wrong" than another. But especially after having seen the Hobbit in 48p, I do agree with him very strongly that higher framerate is just not something I'm interested in for narrative work.
Click to expand...

haakon, can you respond to my response about his concept of 'taking away', as that's the philosophical basis for his entire theory? ^see above. am i missing something?
 
Scott Crawley said:
I defy anyone to watch the escape from the goblin king sequence and not see a video game in it's design. That doesn't make it a bad movie. :-)
Click to expand...

when is the video game release date? i don't usually play, but i may have to check it out...
 
paulherrin said:
did you read the article he linked to? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/can-science-explain-the-s_b_675107.html
published study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10677593

)
Click to expand...

Yes I did read the article, and am deeply familiar with the work of Roger Penrose having read most of his books. (It took me a year and a half to work through "The Road to Reality" and I don't pretned to understand much of it.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Physics_and_consciousness

James Kerwin: “Studies seem to show that most humans see about 66 frames per second — that’s how we see reality through our eyes, and our brains. So you would think that 48 frames per second is sufficiently below that — that it would look very different from reality. But what people aren’t taking into account is the fact that although we see 66 frames per second, neuroscientists and consciousness researchers are starting to realize that we’re only consciously aware of 40 moments per second.”

Setting aside any reference to brainwave synchronicity for a moment, we essentially construct a concious "frame" of reference to reality every 40th of a second based on our brain integrating all of the sensory input it has received since the last frame.
The most common single projector digital 3D at 24fps is refreshed at 96fps and presents alternating left and right eye images every 48th of a second. Since our concious frame is not synchronous with the 3D frame, it is possible for our brain to be tasked with integrating left and right eye images from different projected frames. Some of the discomfort people experience with 3d could be the result of something like this, especially during fast action sequences.
Presenting the left and right eye images simultaneously or at least sequentially at a faster than "concious frame" rate makes the task of integration easier for the brain.
In any case I found the 48fps 3D much less fatiguing to watch than 24fps.
 
I still haven't seen the movie (I will tomorrow by the way), but by seeing the reactions to the hfr doesn't seem like it is a big deal to the overall experience of the film. And if that's the case, I also fail to see how will hfr be a success, if the general public seems to be quite uninterested and even unaware of it, whilst more film knowledgable people also don't seem to be all that impressed, it seems like a failed experiment. Changing something that works just for the sake of changing...

I also don't understand how is this hfr suppose to turn the industry upside down, as Mr. Jackson and Mr. Cameron were so convinced it would. Seems more like a technical exercise rather than bringing anything of true value to the experience. But maybe I will have a better opinion once I see it, but I'm just forming an opinion based on the overall reaction from the audience. It's not really the same as color or sound kind of revolution, is it? Not even close it seems...

Also trying to psycho analyze our perception of reality to justify showing a film at hf rates just seems like trying too hard to go in a direction that is the wrong direction. Suddenly movies are supposed to be hyper sharp and hyper real? Who actually decided that? Not the public for sure...

last night I watched a wonderful movie shot by the late Harris Savides and it was the exact opposite of all of this, and it was so wonderful to look at. It was truly mesmerizing imagery. So I wonder, how on earth is this suddenly a problem? Who's tired of this? Not the public. Not me. And not Harris pears for sure. Having said that, I also believe that it's great to have different visions and different presentations, but forcing it onto the industry like Mr. Cameron seems to be doing seems too much of a fanatic attitude.
 
Last edited:
All I have to same it I loved the move!!! Enjoyed it at 48FPS in 3D :)
 
Gunleik Groven said:
It can feel "too clean".
Click to expand...

When DSLRs offered high ISO values with low noise, wildlife photographers started to stop motion of flying birds and running animals. At the first place those images appeared like plastic. "Too clean" as Gunleik say. But now after seeing a lot of such still images people are used to them, and the old still images took on film have started to feel "bit dirty" as if they needed to be cleaned. So, it's interesting to see, whether this will be the case with digital cinema images.
 
António Fagundes said:
I still haven't seen the movie (I will tomorrow by the way), but by seeing the reactions to the hfr doesn't seem like it is a big deal to the overall experience of the film. And if that's the case, I also fail to see how will hfr be a success, if the general public seems to be quite uninterested and even unaware of it, whilst more film knowledgable people also don't seem to be all that impressed, it seems like a failed experiment. Changing something that works just for the sake of changing...

I also don't understand how is this hfr suppose to turn the industry upside down, as Mr. Jackson and Mr. Cameron were so convinced it would. Seems more like a technical exercise rather than bringing anything of true value to the experience. But maybe I will have a better opinion once I see it, but I'm just forming an opinion based on the overall reaction from the audience. It's not really the same as color or sound kind of revolution, is it? Not even close it seems...

Also trying to psycho analyze our perception of reality to justify showing a film at hf rates just seems like trying too hard to go in a direction that is the wrong direction. Suddenly movies are supposed to be hyper sharp and hyper real? Who actually decided that? Not the public for sure...

last night I watched a wonderful movie shot by the late Harris Savides and it was the exact opposite of all of this, and it was so wonderful to look at. It was truly mesmerizing imagery. So I wonder, how on earth is this suddenly a problem? Who's tired of this? Not the public. Not me. And not Harris pears for sure. It's great to have different visions and different presentations, but forcing it onto the industry seems too much of a bigotry attitude.
Click to expand...

I don't think its a failed experiment...the fact that the high frame rate did away with the flicker effect you get in 24fps only made the 3D experience more enjoyable and realistic. I don't think I would want to see 48fps in 2D though as stated above.
 
Sure, and someone else stated here before that shooting a film with variable frame rates seems at the moment to be a much more sensible approach.

Nevertheless, even the 3D experience, is not what most people think it is in terms of box office. Last year alone, the 10 most profitable movies were in 2D! And there were at least another 10 3D movies released, but weren't as profitable, including animated family films! 3D is really not that special for the public. So, again, I ask, why is shooting a whole film at 50f all that big of a deal?
 
António Fagundes said:
Sure, and someone else stated here before that shooting a film with variable frame rates seems at the moment to be a much more sensible approach.

Nevertheless, even the 3D experience, is not what most people think it is in terms of box office. Last year alone, the 10 most profitable movies were in 2D! And there were at least another 10 3D movies released, but weren't as profitable, including animated family films! 3D is really not that special for the public. So, again, I ask, why is shooting a whole film at 50f all that big of a deal?
Click to expand...

it shouldn't be. (not to downplay the technical achievements) it's the natural progression of cinematic technology. the resistance has made it a big deal.
 
paulherrin said:
it shouldn't be. (not to downplay the technical achievements) it's the natural progression of cinematic technology. the resistance has made it a big deal.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!!!!! PERFECTLY MADE POINT PAUL
 
But what resistance? Who's resisting exactly? The Hobbit cost 180 million, how's that for resistance? Is the public resisting? If that's the case, then most probably its us who are resisting the notion that we're giving them what they don't want or need... so we better come up with something else, right?

I don't think the public could care less about hfr and 3D, they just want to enjoy their experience, and what the majority of the public is saying is 3D doesn't really add that much to their enjoyment, much less hfr. This is not me saying, its the facts, backed by numbers. When color and sound came in, it was an instant success, that's why 80 years later its still here and its still a success, but calling 3D and hfr a natural progression is pushing it a little. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for progression, but all I'm wondering is, aren't we all looking in the wrong direction just because a few of us are so enamored with the technical possibilities available to us? But hasn't the public given their verdict? Shouldn't we just bite the bullet and move on?
 
Last edited:
António Fagundes said:
But what resistance? Who's resisting exactly? The Hobbit cost 180 million, how's that for resistance? Is the public resisting? If that's the case, then most probably its us who are resisting the notion that we're giving them what they don't want or need... so we better come up with something else, right?

I don't think the public could care less about hfr and 3D, they just want to enjoy their experience, and what the majority of the public is saying is 3D doesn't really add that much to their enjoyment, much less hfr. This is not me saying, its the facts, backed by numbers. When color and sound came in, it was an instant success, that's why 80 years later its still here and its still a success, but calling 3D and hfr a natural progression is pushing it a little. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for progression, but all I'm wondering is, aren't we all looking in the wrong direction? Just because a few of us are so enamored with the technical possibilities available to us? But hasn't the public given their verdict? Shouldn't we just bite the bullitt and move on?
Click to expand...

As your points relate to 3D you may be right. 3d has been around for almost half a century and it has yet to gain any real traction. OTOH, it still hasn't been done convincingly, so I see no good reason to quit trying. HFR... it's way too soon to even know what the public's verdict is I think.
 
António Fagundes said:
But what resistance? Who's resisting exactly? The Hobbit cost 180 million, how's that for resistance? Is the public resisting? If that's the case, then most probably its us who are resisting the notion that we're giving them what they don't want or need... so we better come up with something else, right?

I don't think the public could care less about hfr and 3D, they just want to enjoy their experience, and what the majority of the public is saying is 3D doesn't really add that much to their enjoyment, much less hfr. This is not me saying, its the facts, backed by numbers. When color and sound came in, it was an instant success, that's why 80 years later its still here and its still a success, but calling 3D and hfr a natural progression is pushing it a little. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for progression, but all I'm wondering is, aren't we all looking in the wrong direction just because a few of us are so enamored with the technical possibilities available to us? But hasn't the public given their verdict? Shouldn't we just bite the bullet and move on?
Click to expand...

if you want to find out who's resisting, here's what you do: find a mirror. :)

check your history, math, and the contradiction between your two paragraphs and then yes, let's.

what we should be talking about at this point is the visual storytelling.
 
I can only say art is subjective, I believe one should watch material as the director intended you to see it. Whether you like it or not that is completely up to you to decide, the only thing that concerns me is that ppl like Peter Jackson & James Cameron are trying to make 48fps/60fps the new standard for all, as opposed to just keeping it as a tool for each director to decide to use for themselves like aspect ratio,3D ,hfr,color, black & white, 35mm film, digital etc..tools to decide how to paint you picture not tools to be forced upon, if that makes any sense.
 
Scott Crawley said:
As your points relate to 3D you may be right. 3d has been around for almost half a century and it has yet to gain any real traction. OTOH, it still hasn't been done convincingly, so I see no good reason to quit trying. HFR... it's way too soon to even know what the public's verdict is I think.
Click to expand...

3D has been much more successful in the digital projection era. In this economy I think high ticket prices hurt the box office potential relative to 2D more than the technology itself. I don't think it will ever become the predominant medium for watching movies, but it will remain sucessful as a rare treat when the subject warrants it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top