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...

paulherrin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe I made my point, whilst yours is?

Because you sound like you know something I don't and it would be great to know what that is. lets have a more substancial contribution from your argument, rather than just hyperbole.
 
David Rasberry said:
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.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I personally have nothing against 3D as paul seems to sugest, as opposed to most people, I rather enjoyed seeing some movies in 3D, but in the long run I just don't think its that big of a deal compared to normal 2D presentation, because appart from it being 'the new thing' it looses its 'magic' pretty quickly. If its a niche technology as you say, as it may well be, then my point still stands, its not that big of a deal for the overall industry and the same old 24 fps...
 
one think i realized about the 3d in hobbit and perhaps with all 3d . if you tilt your head sideways. The image goes double vision. Not very good for cozy couples in cinema!!!
 
charles lim yi yong said:
one think i realized about the 3d in hobbit and perhaps with all 3d . if you tilt your head sideways. The image goes double vision. Not very good for cozy couples in cinema!!!
Click to expand...
This only happens with the vertical/horizontal polarized glasses like they use at the IMAX. Cinemas that use circular polarization (RealD), wavelength multiplex visualization (Dolby3D) or active shutter (Xpand) do not have this problem.
 
I saw it in 48fps and 3D.

I didn't like it at all, so I will not be using it as my standard frame rate. I'm not discounting it as an option for certain projects in the future, but I much prefer the classic cinematic look. When I see something I like, and feel my audience will like more in the future, I'll use that.
 
paulherrin said:
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.

haha, are you just saying that cause i made a point in 3 sentences instead of 3 paragraphs? ;)
Click to expand...

I'm so annoyed with this thread now. It was interesting seeing many people's takes on their experience in this film before you monopolized it with your own agenda. I tried to be kind to you before but your lack of respect for anyone else's opinion that isn't in parallel with your own is rude and obnoxious. We've heard your opinion, way too much on this thread. So, mods, please, either shut the whole thing down or PAUL, let others have there words without jumping down there throats. If you feel the need to post every five minutes or less, GO OPEN YOUR OWN THREAD.
 
Just saw the Hobbit in 3D in 48 fps. It was amazing. Best 3D experience I've ever had. I didn't feel the stuttering image, it was flowing images, that neither felt like TV. I don't think I'll ever want to watch a 3D movie with less then 48 fps. Didn't see how thing became too 'real' and I can't see how people think practitcal effects suddenly looks fake. Neither can I see why people would say the image is too sharp. It's really not, at least not the version I saw.
 
mikeburton said:
I'm so annoyed with this thread now. It was interesting seeing many people's takes on their experience in this film before you monopolized it with your own agenda. I tried to be kind to you before but your lack of respect for anyone else's opinion that isn't in parallel with your own is rude and obnoxious. We've heard your opinion, way too much on this thread. So, mods, please, either shut the whole thing down or PAUL, let others have there words without jumping down there throats. If you feel the need to post every five minutes or less, GO OPEN YOUR OWN THREAD.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. I was also enjoying people posting their opinions on their experience of watching this film at 48fps...
 
Come on now guys. I didn't see anything particularly rude. He is just trying to engage on a deeper level and seems more interested than most others to kick it around.
 
+1.
mikeburton said:
I'm so annoyed with this thread now. It was interesting seeing many people's takes on their experience in this film before you monopolized it with your own agenda. I tried to be kind to you before but your lack of respect for anyone else's opinion that isn't in parallel with your own is rude and obnoxious. We've heard your opinion, way too much on this thread. So, mods, please, either shut the whole thing down or PAUL, let others have there words without jumping down there throats. If you feel the need to post every five minutes or less, GO OPEN YOUR OWN THREAD.
Click to expand...
 
sorry to monopolize the thread and/or if i rubbed anybody the wrong way, really just trying to be helpful by offering every single insight i have in order to facilitate legitimate discussion here. looks like the votes are in, so i'll shut up. in the future, if something i'm doing is bothering you, send me a private message and i'll be happy to hear about it. my preference is to get along with and learn from everyone's perspective. antonio - i've made a lot of very clear and detailed posts in this thread, perhaps you - or anyone else that wants to think about this in a creative/critical manner - will find something useful within those. see you around. :)
 
One thing i don't like is a non-180 degree shutter at 48 fps. I'd really like a option in the epic so i could drop a frame at 96 fps, that way I could have a 180 degree shutter at both 24 and 48 fps. I think part of this discussion is a bit off, since it's mixing peoples opinions on 48fps with a 270 degree shutter. I think when a lot of people are commenting on the "TV" like appearance, they are commenting on the shutter as much as the fps. For me personally, i like both 24 fps and 48 fps, depending on the delivery mechanism. What I don't like is the 270 degree shutter, which can be easily "fixed" by having a drop frame mode on the epic(the 96 fps at 360 is just too much data for me).

edit: ... oh ... and with a 1 drop frame at 96 fps, would really be nice to have a rc8 instead of the current rc10
 
Last edited:
Just saw it 48...mixed emotions....

In my opinion...the scenes shot in real sets looked horrid(motion wise)....like I was watching a well done History Channel re-enactment.
The shots with CG backgrounds looked amazing.

So it was a little of both...

The 3D was definitely 10 times better experience.

I can see a lot of good uses for 48....but I think cinematography has to adapt to it...for instance in the first half of the movie, the camera moves seemed to fast, as well as the pace of the editing....
It really looked as though if the moves were 50% slower it would have been way more enjoyable....for the first half....which was predominately in the shire...in real sets...or in nature.
I really feel this is an effect of the 48, and the pace of the editing and speed of the moves would have been fine at 24

It really seems that 48fps helps scenes that are CG based....but can hurt the look in real world settings.

I think this will be an evolving art form that definitely has it positives and negatives....
 
Dan Frenkel said:
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.
Click to expand...
I suspect from a studio point of view, theexperiment didn't fail, because The Hobbit is making huge money. I think the vast number of audience members don't care and don't notice the high frame rate, good or bad. There will always be a portion of the audience (like critics) who do notice and do care, but I don't think they affect the bottom line very much.

What concerns me is that Peter Jackson is trying to solve very real problems with 3D -- motion blurring, ghosting, judder, and so on -- but while he's fixed those, he's created new problems. I think there are better solutions out there that just have yet to be discovered.

One local wag told me, "I think Jackson did this to force the crazy fans to see the movie twice: once in 48fps, and once in 24fps, which guarantees they'll make tons of money." I've heard nothing but bad reviews from all the DPs and post people I know, so I'm bracing myself for the worst. But I do look forward to hearing the 64-track Atmos mix.
 
PatrickFaith said:
One thing i don't like is a non-180 degree shutter at 48 fps. I'd really like a option in the epic so i could drop a frame at 96 fps, that way I could have a 180 degree shutter at both 24 and 48 fps. I think part of this discussion is a bit off, since it's mixing peoples opinions on 48fps with a 270 degree shutter. I think when a lot of people are commenting on the "TV" like appearance, they are commenting on the shutter as much as the fps. For me personally, i like both 24 fps and 48 fps, depending on the delivery mechanism. What I don't like is the 270 degree shutter, which can be easily "fixed" by having a drop frame mode on the epic(the 96 fps at 360 is just too much data for me).

edit: ... oh ... and with a 1 drop frame at 96 fps, would really be nice to have a rc8 instead of the current rc10
Click to expand...

sorry Patrick...
could you expand on the drop frame thing a little more....I can see how 96 @ 360 gets you 48 @ 180 by dropping every other frame....I just don't see how it gets you 24@180 as that would be 1/48 second whereas 96@360 would give you 1/96 of a second....unless I'm missing something

I agree with you on the shutter speed being a huge part.....just not understanding how that would work
 
Mike Harrington said:
sorry Patrick...
I agree with you on the shutter speed being a huge part.....just not understanding how that would work
Click to expand...

How i think of it ... is shooting 96 fps at 360 shutter ... so i'd get a 1/96+1/96+1/96+1/96 = 1/24 for a 24 fps at 360 ... so by dropping in post the last two frames I'd get a 1/96+1/96 +0+0 = 24 fps at 180.
For 48 fps i'd drop every other frame in post ... so 1/96+0+0+0 = 1/96 for the first frame of 48 fps at 180 , then 0+0+1/96+0 = for the 2nd frame.
You can see for both the 48 fps and 24 fps, the last 1/96 is never used ... so is really recording 1/96+1/96+1/96+drop . So by "drop" frame i mean dropping the last frame in a cycle while shooting to save space.
 
I get it...I think

With 96+96+0+0....you are actually playing 48, but with the cadence of 24...

Thanks for explaining...
 
I walked out after 15 minutes of 48fps 3Dness. While the 3D aspect at 48 made me less tired and nauseous than 24fps usually does, I thoroughly disliked its jarring effects on my viewing (and not to mention the image looked very soft and every scene seemed overly lit, thoguh not sure if this was just due to the 48fps)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top