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...

Bill Admans said:
The post production team at Park Road Post chose the Dolby Professional Reference Monitor for color grading The Hobbit.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that, Bill. Very informative, and even more interesting given the D-Cinema release.
 
The problem with Peter Jackson's assumptions that everyone hates anything that is not 24p or that only kids love it, or that IS the cutting edge technology, is the completely wrong assumption!

First, is not cutting edge technology, is TV technology that dates back to at least 50 years, how can he believe himself this to be cutting edge blows my mind... second; "kids love it", yeah, just the way kids love to watch movies on the iphone, and following that train of thought anyone who actually goes to the cinema is an old fart, sorry if I don't take my cues from a 20 year old! Third, the reason people don't like 50p is not because they don't accept anything that is not 24p and are therefore traditionalists, its because it just isn't better, is not a better experience. Period! Anytime you need to say that 20 mins into the movie you'll get used to it, is the same as saying, in 20 mins you'll eventually give up and just go with it. That's not my definition of a groundbreaking and wonderful experience...

Did James Cameron needed that sort of explanation in Avatar? Like; 'This motion capture thing should stop annoying you halfway through the movie, just hang on...' No! Everyone loved it. Because it was an actual good and brilliantly executed technical achievement. Trying to put hfr in the same technical league is just embarrassing!

But the public has spoken. Why is that so hard to understand?

I must say that Peter Jackson, carrying on with this kind of ramblings is not giving me any choice but to think much less of him. I also saw a video interview where he was asked why all the negativity from the general critics, and he came at the same angle, 'I'm forward thinking, and all these people who hate it, are just traditionalists'. Well, excuse me very much Mr. Jackson, but the last time you made a movie, no one went to see it, (The Lovely Bones) and was hardly a a 'good film' at all. Also The Hobbit has nothing forward going for it, film making wise is traditionalist in every way, shape and form. Younger film makers with a the budget of the catering services form The Hobbit can make a much more forward thinking film than you can, or ever did. The Social Network, Magic Mike, District 9, are just a few examples that were shot for half the budget of The Lovely Bones and grossed three times more, not to mention how much more forward thinking and better films they are.

So no, I don't think Peter Jackson is in any position to say what is and what isn't forward thinking, much less to insult anyone who disapproves with him. And to make himself look cool and smart, trying to convince everyone that HFR is the groundbreaking technology, and therefore it just has to be accepted, its just lame!

Insult taken, insult given. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
António Fagundes said:
The problem with Peter Jackson's assumptions that everyone hates anything that is not 24p or that only kids love it, or that IS the cutting edge technology, is the completely wrong assumption!

First, is not cutting edge technology, is TV technology that dates back to at least 50 years, how can he believe himself this to be cutting edge blows my mind... second; "kids love it", yeah, just the way kids love to watch movies on the iphone, and following that train of thought anyone who actually goes to the cinema is an old fart, sorry if I don't take my cues from a 20 year old! Third, the reason people don't like 50p is not because they don't accept anything that is not 24p and are therefore traditionalists, its because it just isn't better, is not a better experience. Period! Anytime you need to say that 20 mins into the movie you'll get used to it, is the same as saying, in 20 mins you'll eventually give up and just go with it. That's not my definition of a groundbreaking and wonderful experience...

Did James Cameron needed that sort of explanation in Avatar? Like; 'This motion capture thing should stop annoying you halfway through the movie, just hang on...' No! Everyone loved it. Because it was an actual good and brilliantly executed technical achievement. Trying to put hfr in the same technical league is just embarrassing!

But the public has spoken. Why is that so hard to understand?

I must say that Peter Jackson, carrying on with this kind of ramblings is not giving me any choice but to think much less of him. I also saw a video interview where he was asked why all the negativity from the general critics, and he came at the same angle, 'I'm forward thinking, and all these people who hate it, are just traditionalists'. Well, excuse me very much Mr. Jackson, but the last time you made a movie, no one went to see it, (The Lovely Bones) and was hardly a a 'good film' at all. Also The Hobbit has nothing forward going for it, film making wise is traditionalist in every way, shape and form. Younger film makers with a the budget of the catering services form The Hobbit can make a much more forward thinking film than you can, or ever did. The Social Network, Magic Mike, District 9, are just a few examples that were shot for half the budget of The Lovely Bones and grossed three times more, not to mention how much more forward thinking and better films they are.

So no, I don't think Peter Jackson is in any position to say what is and what isn't forward thinking, much less to insult anyone who disapproves with him. And to make himself look cool and smart, trying to convince everyone that HFR is the groundbreaking technology, and therefore it just has to be accepted, its just lame!

Insult taken, insult given. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself.
 
António Fagundes said:
I must say that Peter Jackson, carrying on with this kind of ramblings is not giving me any choice but to think much less of him. I also saw a video interview where he was asked why all the negativity from the general critics, and he came at the same angle, 'I'm forward thinking, and all these people who hate it, are just traditionalists'. Well, excuse me very much Mr. Jackson, but the last time you made a movie, no one went to see it, (The Lovely Bones) and was hardly a a 'good film' at all. Also The Hobbit has nothing forward going for it, film making wise is traditionalist in every way, shape and form. Younger film makers with a the budget of the catering services form The Hobbit can make a much more forward thinking film than you can, or ever did. The Social Network, Magic Mike, District 9, are just a few examples that were shot for half the budget of The Lovely Bones and grossed three times more, not to mention how much more forward thinking and better films they are.
Click to expand...

Antonio, who produced District 9? I don't understand the budget thing at all. What was the point in all of that?

OK, The Lovely Bones was not particularly successful. Does That make PJ's ideas on the subject of frame rates less valid?
 
Last edited:
I mentioned the budgets because I was trying to make a point and illustrate that Peter Jackson has no right to justify his technical choices by insulting the people who didn't like those choices.

That attitude has just made me think much less of him. He could have been dealing with all this mess in a much more gracious and balanced attitude. Instead he chooses to insult everybody. Like he's some sort of genius and everyone else is backwards. He's being arrogant about it. And that's what I was trying to say, he's not a genius, not in the way he makes himself to be. Other filmmakers have proven to be much more forward thinking than him, with half the money. He produced District 9, but he didn't make it, he didn't conceive it. District 9 would not exist if it weren't for Neil Blomkamp. And District 9 is a much more important and forward thinking film in terms of cinematic experience than The Lovely Bones is or even The Hobbit. And it actually cost half the budget from The Lovely Bones! That's forward!

The Hobbit is a great film, but also a very classically made film, there's nothing forward thinking about it, and making a big hype about showing it on what is essentially a TV format is not cool! So I really don't understand why he is so quick to point out how everyone is a traditionalist, while he is the one true traditionalist!
 
48 frames or interlaced video?

48 frames or interlaced video?

Just saw the Hobbit in 48 frames. Sorry everybody, I gotta say: Too many people are drinking the Koolaid. It looks like good old interlaced video. I felt like I was watching Monday Night Football with cut scenes from a video game. There is nothing more 'natural' about it. There is no 'forward' thinking going on here either. What is so forward thinking about making something look cheap or broadcasty?
 
I think it's safe to say that I and many of us trust our first impressions. If something excites me immediately and grabs my attention as innovative and "cool" that's the memory of that technique that I will carry with me. In time, these things that excite us start to define our "taste". The Hobbit in its execution ie HFR did not grab my attention in a positive way but rather the opposite. Therefore it's not innovative or cutting edge or any of the buzzwords used to promote the film to the media to me. It was just plain distracting and I won't be going to see the next films displayed in this fashion.
 
If PJ doesn't shoot his next film 48fps be it 2D or 3D he is officially lying. If he thinks 48fps is better then he will never go back to 24p.

Great post from Antonio once again.
 
"The Hobbit's 84.7 million estimated debut clobbered the December record", which
was set by Avatar. It does indeed look like "the public has spoken".


Josh: "officially lying" is downright absurd. Really not cool at all.
 
Well I finally saw Hobbit in HFR 3D. I went in wanting to love it.
I felt like some one punched me in the gut. I was appalled by how bad it looked on first blush. I felt nauseous and I don't think it was the 3D. The words "Cheap video" kept coming to mind. Aside from the abominable motion, I felt it just looked awful. Some of the worst looking colour, washed out highlights, and plasticky skin I've seen on the big screen. The exterior shots of the shire looked horrendous. It even looked like the compression was too high for all the grassy details, the foliage looked clumpy and undefined. I kept hoping it was somehow the fault of the projection in this super high priced AVX theatre, but that hope was dashed when we entered the second act and everything became darker. All of a sudden there was detail and skin, particularly Bilbos real skin, looked a heck of a lot better with more texture.

Here is where my opinion of the aesthetic qualities of the movie took a sharp turn. In the second act, with everything seemingly better exposed (or graded) my tummy finally calmed down. Wait I should say everything looked better, except for Gandalf's hat which reflected way too much light in the exteriors. My eyes were constantly drawn to it. The action sequences looked way good at 48fps, everything was crisp in a good way and the movement was easy to follow.

And that's the thing, after a couple of action sequences I was pretty much down with HFR, the way I expected I would be going in. I'm not just talking about the action sequences here, everything seemed more movie like by the time we were half way into The Hobbit. My mind, I think had by this time given up its resistance and had suspended disbelief. By the end I was loving my 48fps Experience. I do wonder though, how much of my acceptance was due to the all the CGI in the latter parts of the movie. Maybe CG rendering is better suited to HFR.

It all makes me wish that the Hobbit was projected not in HFR, but Variable Frame Rates, giving us our precious 24 for the slow stuff and HFR for the sweet action.
 
My fiancee and I saw the HFR 3D version here in Chicago on Tuesday. I've been trying to gather my thoughts since, and have finally come to a few conclusions as to why the HFR did not work for me (my fiancee feels the same way!):

1.) I immediately noticed that the VFX jumped out too much. I'm not sure if it was because of the 3D on top of the HFR, but the fire effects in the beginning definitely didn't look believable. Other aspects, like the trolls and Gollum, seemed to blend just fine.

2.) Movements of the camera and actors were over-defined. Maybe I was just getting used to it right off the bat, but Bilbo's opening writing shots (especially tight frames) looked extremely sped up/twitchy. Similarly, camera shakes and stops on dollies/jibs were very noticeable.

3.) Lighting was very on and off. By that, I mean that I never once found myself engrossed in the film because the lighting was always too distracting and didn't seamlessly integrate itself into the settings.

I strongly believe that if things are going to move towards this HFR "realistic" cinematic experience, every part of the production will need to scale back on how they currently do things. The jump from 24fps to 48fps is very similar to the jump from theatre to film; you wouldn't light, dress, or make-up your set the same way.

I'm interested in seeing where all of this goes, and think there is potential if everything else can adjust accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile in Australia, where the film hasn't opened yet, Warners has dramatically curtailed the number of HFR screenings. Awhile back negative reactions were attributed to the film "not being finished", now the dramatic reduction in HFR screenings is because they want to avoid any technical snafus in projection that may still have to be ironed out.

Okay...?

Talked to a friend in the States yesterday whose 15yo son and his friends walked out of the HFR screening and got tickets into the 24 session because the HFR version "looked really bad". Must have been projection problems and/or these kids are probably 40yo traditionalists lying about their age (with a really effective beauty regime).

Not interested in 'The Hobbit' subject matter at all, I was going to see the first film just for the tech, but now I'll save my money. I can't indirectly support this, notwithstanding at the root from all reports there seems a bloated, unnecessary trilogy that I interpret as a cynical wring-out-every-last-drop cash grab. I remember being so heartbroken at the end of 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' that I felt like weeping... I don't need to go to that emotional place again! Let alone pay for it, AND have to have a Karen Silkwood-like radiation scrub shower at the end. But that's just me, and I could very well be in the tiniest, slimmest minority on that. The box-office would suggest there are hordes of people stampeding over my lifeless ragdolled carcass to see it.
 
Isn't this what the Mayan's prophesied: Baktun, a new consciousness that is in closer harmony with middle earth. Or was it mother earth, I always get those two mixed up. ( :
 
António Fagundes said:
But the public has spoken. Why is that so hard to understand?
Click to expand...
The movie is making an ocean of money. In that respect, the public has spoken, and made it the #1 movie in America for the second week in a row.

I'm not saying that profit is proof of artistic or even technical success, but it's clear to me that the public does not care about HFR either way. They simply want to see an entertaining movie, and I think The Hobbit is delivering on that. $250M worldwide in 10 days... I think it's almopst guaranteed to make $1B, regardless of any opinion you or I might have.
 
Have yet to see hobbit HFR, but to be fair antonio when you say everyone loved avatar and they didn't have to adjust, I'm sorry but that is far from the truth. I had a mind numbing migraine coming out of it and I had to remove the glasses and look away during the dialogue scenes to give my eye's a break so I could watch the great visual scenes when they came. I would have rather watched a soap opera avatar than one I could barely watch at all, though to be honest I would rather watch 24fps, and in avatar's case I would also probably pick a different movie. now not sure if that is the advancement you were addressing but as I see it yes you have to take a stab at these things and people will have to get acclimatized to changes as drastic as these. Does that mean it should be standard... no, but we don't get anywhere new by not trying new things... admittedly I wish it was with anything other than the Hobbit but ah well I guess I'm seeing it two times now.... damn they got me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top