Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
The Hobbit at 48fps...
- Thread starter Jannard
- Start date
Scott Crawley
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2009
- Messages
- 3,947
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Thanks Marc!
- Banned
- #563
António Fagundes
Banned
Scott, I didn't mention DSLRs, I mentioned photo apps and plastic cameras, none of which have depth of field. And I didn't mention film makers, I mentioned people that have nothing to do with film and that adhere to this aesthetic. It has nothing to do with nostalgia, it has to do with them liking the fucked up look of a photo rather than the pristine sharpness of a photo. The people of Lomo and Instagram are millionaires because of this. Its not a film makers thing its a cultural thing.
Scott Crawley
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2009
- Messages
- 3,947
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I would say that it isn't a cultural thing, it's a human nature thing. Don't you think?
We were citing different examples but I think the underlying cause is the same and I theorize that it is also the cause for the 48fps hoopla. People are nuts. They want what is familiar, but they want what is different, new and trendy and they want what the other guy has.
- Banned
- #565
António Fagundes
Banned
I just think its funny that there's such a mass hysteria for degraded images whilst Peter Jackson and James Cameron are doing the exact opposite. I wonder if its them that are out of touch with the times. They're not that young anymore... Not saying movies should look like Lomo pictures, but there is definitely something there worth analyzing. People have easier access to clean sharp photos than to degraded images that requires an app or a special camera, but people go out of their way to do just that.
I believe that they see a little of themselves in those fucked up pictures. Life is tough, hard and not pretty, just like those pictures. Also, a degraded photo leaves more room for interpretation, making it a more welcoming interaction with the photo. A clean picture, is just that. Clean. There's no mystery, no dirty edges. People gravitate towards mystery. At least that's just me trying to figure out why.
I myself love to Instagram, to take a picture and not knowing how it will look, to not have that control over it. To be surprised. And I think our movie experience navigates these same waters. So when a movie gives you exactly what you see times 100, there's no mystery, no creative interaction. You're just a passive observer. And you leave the theatre without the movie giving you a chance to immerse in it with your own interpretation. So, 500 people at the screening will experience it 500 times diferently. That's I think why the movies have been such a success all these years. But when a movie cuts that interaction, its something else. Is it something new? Or is it just a big public TV show? We'll have to wait and see...
I believe that they see a little of themselves in those fucked up pictures. Life is tough, hard and not pretty, just like those pictures. Also, a degraded photo leaves more room for interpretation, making it a more welcoming interaction with the photo. A clean picture, is just that. Clean. There's no mystery, no dirty edges. People gravitate towards mystery. At least that's just me trying to figure out why.
I myself love to Instagram, to take a picture and not knowing how it will look, to not have that control over it. To be surprised. And I think our movie experience navigates these same waters. So when a movie gives you exactly what you see times 100, there's no mystery, no creative interaction. You're just a passive observer. And you leave the theatre without the movie giving you a chance to immerse in it with your own interpretation. So, 500 people at the screening will experience it 500 times diferently. That's I think why the movies have been such a success all these years. But when a movie cuts that interaction, its something else. Is it something new? Or is it just a big public TV show? We'll have to wait and see...
Sergio Perez
Well-known member
Scott, I raise the question again. In a sea of TV commercials and TV content, why does the high end, more appealing drama shows and tv commercials are all shot in 25p or 24p and not in 50p, in a medium that supports and shows 50p or 60p content regularly? Wouldn't this look "worse", in this reasoning, to regular, higher spacial and temporal information frame rate?
You really have to go see the HFR. I think, in this case, its really "seeing is believing" (or not.)
paulherrin
Well-known member
Antonio, thank you for being respectful and I appreciate your thoughts on what art is and isn't, though i may disagree personally. I'll be interested to see what kind of work you make. My sense is we have some similar underlying ideas but different philosophies on application. As i've attempted to explain, i both wanted to give hfr a chance and i was drawn into the magical realism. I still don't feel like the majority of the counterpoints i've made have even seen an attempted critical response. Either we all have different, subjective experiences of movie magic and/or there are at least some objective (quantitative/qualitative) criteria that can be examined. I'm not saying there's no magic in traditional filmmaking, im saying there's a new and additional magic that we're not yet sure how to wield. Demystification can't ever strip away true magic, and i think it can actually amplify further mysteries.
Mark Pugh
Well-known member
I agree 100%.
Scott Crawley
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2009
- Messages
- 3,947
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Thanks for the push. I will likely see all three versions.
I have no idea which I will prefer, but I believe that 24 or 25 is chosen because it is what people prefer. They prefer it because they associate it with high end picture making, glamour, style and drama. It is what moving pictures have always been, it's the original. It is what we know and expect. People love to have their expectations fulfilled and despise it when they are not.
People hate change. They think they want something new, but they don't. We've been telling the same stories as long as we have been able to communicate. 48fps is familiar enough that people could go for it even if the film community so far has not.
I hope that doesn't sound preachy. Those are just my experiences, and people still surprise me. I know nothing.
Does that answer your question?
Bill Anderson
Well-known member
The issue lies in one's abilities. It's up to the image maker to provide the mystery, to plumb life's depths, and not to just rely on the camera to blur the fact that there is no mystery in the way he/she sees the world around them. For the seasoned image maker, a clear and precise point of departure is often desired. The potential of a "clean" image is far greater than the typical instagram look. But mastery will provide a means no matter what approach is used. If life is indeed tough, syrup is of little use.
Brian Boyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 0
I think all of Cushing's Doctor Who's were theatrical releases on film, before I was born. I've only partially seen one of them, once, and that was on TV in the '80s. I don't remember it that well but I think I liked the parts I did see.
I was introduced to the series during the Tom Baker years. I singled him out to distinguish how they shot the show in those days compared to how they shoot it now. Simply saying Doctor Who might make some think I was referring to the newer episodes, which started with Christopher Eccleston.
I never really saw many of the Pertwee episodes or anything before him. I really liked the Tom Baker Doctor + Leela + K-9 combo.
Maybe I've misrepresented myself a bit. I'm not incapable of enjoying things shot on video but, as far as aesthetics go, I've always been aware of video's look. Of course I can look past it and see the many other merits a good show has.
I don't gauge how much I like a show based on whether it was shot on film or how it looks in general. That would be silly. For instance, I've always really liked Dexter but never quite cared for the look up until this last season, which was shot on Alexa and a smattering of Epic.
I never said I didn't watch those cheesy-looking shot-on-video PBS/BBC dramas (that's why I'm so familiar with them) or that I didn't like a few of them, I've just always disliked the way they looked. I'd be lying if I said I didn't watch Prisoner: Cell Block H more than a few times before Benny Hill came on.
So, it doesn't have a bearing for me on a work as a whole. I would hope no one is that empirical about watching anything that's not a measurement chart. But, if you ask me which one looks better to me, I remember enough about the Cushing film to tell you it wins. I've only ever been talking about aesthetics.
It just occurred to me that a better candidate for 48fps would've been the remake of Dark Shadows, since the original was shot on video.
Häakon
Well-known member
That's certainly the way that RED has been spinning it since they've started, yes. I'll grab the definition on Wikipedia which is how I also view it: "Video is the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion." "Broadcast TV specs" are nice, but then where do you draw a line? How about a 60i NTSC camera that shoots to H.264 on solid state memory cards? What about a camera that will shoot in 24p but actually embeds that in a 60i stream? Pure 24p but on a 1/3" chip? What then defines a "digital cinema" camera? It's all semantics, of course, and really there's no point in going back and forth about it... I just made the comment because you had mentioned that cameras like Epic or Alexa at times show more similarities to traditional video cameras than film - even with their 24p, shallow depth of field, wide dynamic range, whatever. And that's because at their core, they're electronic image capture devices and not organic analogue exposures. Video, in other words.
Some have attached a negative connotation to "video" because there are plenty of crappy video cameras out there with an equally crappy history (and I'm sure that's why RED would love to rebrand themselves away from it), but I don't see it as a bad thing at all. Video has evolved just like any other technology and it's getting pretty damn good. Even better than the "gold standard" of film, many will now agree. But it doesn't share the same kind of inherent properties of a film image, nor will it ever. That's not necessarily a bad thing. We now have cleaner looking, and arguably wider range images than was ever possible before. I can't wait to see what Dragon brings. But enough of this rathole...
That might be a small part of it, but I don't feel that's the basis for most of us who prefer the 24p version of the film. Did you watch Stu's interview? I think that sums it up better than I could articulate. It's about what's left out and those intentional choices to do so; as we approach near 'true reality' framerates (or whatever it can be called), we see everything. There's no sculpting. That's why people are suddenly saying it looks like actors on a set; there's no suspension of disbelief.
I love technological advancement and I'm often an 'early adopter' that wants to support progress to help push it along. But I don't see more frames as a progression just because the number is bigger. There is absolutely something to be said for the structural frame limit of 24p and the way it shapes how we perceive the story - much more than just because "it's the way we're used to seeing it." Of course that difference is subjective and some people will always prefer one to the other. But to chalk it all up to "tradition" or to say that we're blissfully ignorant viewers who just like what we're comfortable with is a little shallow I think.
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Well-known member
PVR Cinemas in India are showing it at 2K 48 fps. Looks good. Am impressed by the 'look', and I feel it has huge potential. It doesn't look like video, and it doesn't look like film - it looks like something else!
Scott Crawley
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2009
- Messages
- 3,947
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I didn't watch the interview yet, but I will.
"That's why people are suddenly saying it looks like actors on a set"
It's interesting that you mention that specifically, because while I observed that many criticisms of the 48 were not leveled on the 24 version, I did sense some of that very thing in the 24, that the illusion of the proscenium was occasionally broken. I chalked it up to the 3D, because as I mentioned it was apparent at times that the layers were flat planes. I didn't see it as a lighting/sculpting thing. The idea of temporal sculpting, if that is what you are saying, is an interesting one. I'll be thinking on that for a while. Thanks.
It may be that I'm not giving the general audience enough credit, but the more I think about my interactions with people in terms of positive and negative outcomes related to the management of expectations, the less they surprise me. To elaborate; I find that if I manage our expectations well (both mine and theirs) that we are much more likely to achieve an outcome that we can agree was mutually positive. I'm thinking that is entirely due to the fact that nobody was surprised. Everyone got pretty much what they expected, and that is why everyone is happy. This is true whether or not we were sucessful in achieving our primary goal. If expectations were well managed, we were OK.
If that wasn't too convoluted and I was able to communicate it well, you might get all Matrix on me and say that it isn't the spoon that has changed, it was merely myself. If you said that I might go along, but I'd also follow if you said there is no spoon... And if you tempted me with pie or doughnuts... but I digress.
Would you believe that I haven't been drinking tonight?
Last edited:
Ben Scott
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3,347
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Location
- London, UK
- Website
- www.smallrebellionfilms.com
But the thing that gets me in all this is as a filmmaker in any area of the process, you're not trying to show reality. You're trying to tell a story and present a world in which the story takes place. Any choices made in the tools used should support the storytelling. Clarity and less motion blur may well be very helpful to tell certain kinds of stories just as more motion blur and more things 'half seen' might might be more helpful for other things.
This really isn't either the paradigm shift nor the threat to cinema we know and love that the marketing people would have you believe. It's just a tool. Some people will use it. Some people will use it well and some people will use it like appalling 3D is used, to make a roller-coaster attraction/event instead of a film.
This really isn't either the paradigm shift nor the threat to cinema we know and love that the marketing people would have you believe. It's just a tool. Some people will use it. Some people will use it well and some people will use it like appalling 3D is used, to make a roller-coaster attraction/event instead of a film.
Sergio Perez
Well-known member
hmm, so you've seen the film...
Scott Crawley
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2009
- Messages
- 3,947
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Yup (@24fps). And... ? Are you suggesting that I missed something important?
Björn Benckert
Well-known member
I think this whole debate is odd.
For commercials and everything shot on film HFR has been available for a long time. We have done commercials way back that has been shot on film that was supposed to look like video but with better control of DR. So the stuff was shot in 50fps and then interlaced in online to become 50i video sequence... That looks really bad. nice colors but very video like, in an ugly way.
Even when we crancked up the playback to 50fps it looks only a fraction better than 50i, so still very ugly. We also done 5D films back when it could only record 30fps. 30fps shot material played back in 30fps... looks fluid in an ugly way. The workaround then was to reframerate the material down to 25fps so basically playing it back a bit in slomo. That looks good, very filmic it's then slowed down just a fraction and acctually it works quite well to stretch the audio to sync. Also we done commercials for the us back in the days. Then a few times we shot in 30fps just to get around the 3:2 pulldown etc that comes with shooting 24p... that does not look good. It's plain ugly. So it's for a reason 99% of the US commericals are shot 24p and then after VFX converted to 30p.
Also all feature films could easily been shoot and shown in cinema at HFR for a long time. But that has not happend, why? It's simple it actually looks really ugly. So for me and I think for most that have done all the tests on screens and monitors, I think it's quite simple 24p is a very good frame rate.
But Peter Jackson have managed to get a super big hype over this HFR stuff. Also most film fanatics have now already seen the film two or three times. It's also so that the 48fps3D stuff is well protected for screeners. i.e that format is nearly impossible to view as a pirate copy. So that brings even more people to the cinema.
So to me it's quite sad that they did this HFR mastering of the hobbit. But again I do not like any 3D projected films that I seen so far, I love the 3D stuff as an experiment. But for watching a movie I find it very hard on the eyes and for me it takes away focus from the actual film. Not to mention the additional hassle it brings to the shoot, the post process and budgets. I would have much rather seen the money and effort spent on even better CG acting, camera moves etc.
But Peter Jackson should get a A+ for effort and also for using new tech as marketing tactics. But in the whole I'm sure the film would have been tons better if it was shot mono 24p.
For commercials and everything shot on film HFR has been available for a long time. We have done commercials way back that has been shot on film that was supposed to look like video but with better control of DR. So the stuff was shot in 50fps and then interlaced in online to become 50i video sequence... That looks really bad. nice colors but very video like, in an ugly way.
Even when we crancked up the playback to 50fps it looks only a fraction better than 50i, so still very ugly. We also done 5D films back when it could only record 30fps. 30fps shot material played back in 30fps... looks fluid in an ugly way. The workaround then was to reframerate the material down to 25fps so basically playing it back a bit in slomo. That looks good, very filmic it's then slowed down just a fraction and acctually it works quite well to stretch the audio to sync. Also we done commercials for the us back in the days. Then a few times we shot in 30fps just to get around the 3:2 pulldown etc that comes with shooting 24p... that does not look good. It's plain ugly. So it's for a reason 99% of the US commericals are shot 24p and then after VFX converted to 30p.
Also all feature films could easily been shoot and shown in cinema at HFR for a long time. But that has not happend, why? It's simple it actually looks really ugly. So for me and I think for most that have done all the tests on screens and monitors, I think it's quite simple 24p is a very good frame rate.
But Peter Jackson have managed to get a super big hype over this HFR stuff. Also most film fanatics have now already seen the film two or three times. It's also so that the 48fps3D stuff is well protected for screeners. i.e that format is nearly impossible to view as a pirate copy. So that brings even more people to the cinema.
So to me it's quite sad that they did this HFR mastering of the hobbit. But again I do not like any 3D projected films that I seen so far, I love the 3D stuff as an experiment. But for watching a movie I find it very hard on the eyes and for me it takes away focus from the actual film. Not to mention the additional hassle it brings to the shoot, the post process and budgets. I would have much rather seen the money and effort spent on even better CG acting, camera moves etc.
But Peter Jackson should get a A+ for effort and also for using new tech as marketing tactics. But in the whole I'm sure the film would have been tons better if it was shot mono 24p.
paulherrin
Well-known member
if you're telling a story in any form, you're very much commenting on 'reality'.
there are many different schools and styles of approach. this is one.
paulherrin
Well-known member
bjorn, you haven't seen it, have you? the main utilitarian purpose of HFR is for 3D. and in any case, they did a mono, 24p finish just for you. voila. everybody should be happy, not sure where all this complaining is coming from.