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...

António Fagundes said:
What on earth are you talking about?

Mr. Mullen was kind enough to let you know that he, as a predominant cinematographer in the industry, knows that if HFR would ever be the only option available, he would still be offered the same jobs for the same reasons and for the same purpose, even if he didn't like it, it would be completely up to him, his choice, not others.

But because that is such a fanatical idea, and its not how these things work! Since Avatar, 3D was suppose to be the end of 2D no matter what. Well, almost 4 years later, 2D is still the most profitable presentation. Fewer and fewer movies are being done in 3D. Technological advancements are not dictated by fanaticals like you, they live or die according to popular demand.

Why are you so high on telling others that they won't adapt and therefore will 'die'. Is that what happened to you? Do you actually think that's how artists make their choices? By fear?

Tarantino said he will stop making films once there is no more film PROJECTION, it's up to him. If that ever happens, which it won't, will only mean that he is in a good place. He rather turn the lights off rather than doing something that he doesn't like or by sheer fear. Because he doesn't give a shit of what people like you think. That's why he's at the top of his game and you are somewhere else...
Click to expand...

Maybe I wasn't communicating the idea very well.

IF the powers that be (not me, the ones who put up the money or otherwise control the budget) were only willing to make pictures at 48fps, then a choice would have to be made. One choice might be to stop working, but there are others.

Tarantino was used as an example by way of analogy. If he chooses to stop directing because of the technology, because he chooses not to adapt, that is the equivalent of suicide so far as his directing career is concerned. IF Mr. Mullen (For whom I have the utmost respect) CHOSE the same path, then the same could be said of his decision. I certainly wouldn't want to see that happen.

I don't pretend to be pulling the strings and I certainly don't presume to tell Mr. Mullen what to do. I didn't even claim that 48 was better, or that things should go that way or that I even plan to shoot any of my own projects that way, so why do you assume so much?

Does that help you to understand Mr. Fagundes, or are you not interested? You are certainly free to disagree, I only ask that you not take things so personally.

Edit: I guess I also ask that you not be so rude as to call me an egotistical fanatic fear mongering dictator unless I actually make statements to support such assertions.

Thank you for your kind consideration.
 
Last edited:
António Fagundes said:
You really don't know what you're saying anymore, do you?
Click to expand...

actually, i know precisely what i'm saying... please feel free to offer a critical response to everything i've said in this thread. i'm really interested in having a discussion about this. what i'm not interested in is bickering with people who have nothing but negativity to say.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Goes both ways -- it can just as easily apply to technology, not just people (as for which tends to have shorter lifespans, people's attitudes or technical processes, you tell me). To believe that 48 fps would actually supplant 24 fps (so that filmmakers are forced to "adapt or die") not just be an optional format, would be to believe that it solves a fundamental problem that everyone agrees needs to be solved, or that it is so immensely popular that people start avoiding 24 fps in favor of 48 fps, or that it allows some huge increase in cost-savings or productivity in motion picture production. I don't see any of those three conditions being met. Maybe if we reached a point where 20% of all movies were shot in HFR but they accounted for 90% of all box office receipts over the course of a year, a studio might think "hey I better start making only HFR movies", but we haven't reached that point.

"Committed to 24 fps" is just an odd concept -- I would get work tomorrow if all movies switched from 24 fps to 48 fps, as would most workers in the motion picture industry. Being committed to a framerate would be like most Hollywood cameramen in the 1950's refusing to work once movies went from Academy to widescreen because they were committed to the 4x3 aspect ratio.
Click to expand...

I do see your points. Maybe I am over estimating 48fps' chances. If the new crop of laser projectors made 3D glasses unnecessary and made 3D less unpleasant for some people, then 48fps could become irrelevant. OTOH with all of the traits being attributed to The Hobbit's frame rate, I am forgetting exactly what it was supposed to remedy in the first place.

The idea of being committed to a frame rate does seem odd, but if people are unwilling to move from a frame rate for whatever reason, am I not correct in describing them in that way?
 
Last edited:
Scott Crawley said:
Tarantino was used as an example by way of analogy. If he chooses to stop directing because of the technology, because he chooses not to adapt, that is the equivalent of suicide so far as his directing career is concerned.
Click to expand...

Or it's an artistic choice without compromise, in all it's purity. For him, making movies direct for TV, even if that TV is placed in a cinema, is not something he wants to do, it's below his standard, for him it's an artistic and filmatic suicide to make TV-features, even if the resolution is 4K and the screens are fairly large. I empathise a lot with his sentiments and statement, although I think he'll find a solution if he really wish to continue making FILMS.
 
Jon MIchael Puntervold said:
Or it's an artistic choice without compromise, in all it's purity. For him, making movies direct for TV, even if that TV is placed in a cinema, is not something he wants to do, it's below his standard, for him it's an artistic and filmatic suicide to make TV-features, even if the resolution is 4K and the screens are fairly large. I empathise a lot with his sentiments and statement, although I think he'll find a solution if he really wish to continue making FILMS.
Click to expand...

Isn't it both? It is a very romantic notion; falling on one's sword in the name of honor in war, but some are also calling it scapegoating in QT's case. I'm still not sure I agree with that, but the argument isn't a weak one.
 
Scott Crawley said:
Edit: I guess I also ask that you not be so rude as to call me an egotistical fanatic fear mongering dictator unless I actually make statements to support such assertions.

Thank you for your kind consideration.
Click to expand...

Don't write like one then.

actually, i know precisely what i'm saying... please feel free to offer a critical response to everything i've said in this thread. i'm really interested in having a discussion about this. what i'm not interested in is bickering with people who have nothing but negativity to say.
Click to expand...

You know I'm really not being negative. Not liking 48f is not being negative, its having an opinion. Deal it with. What you do fail to understand from what people with a different opinion from yours is, we make creative and technical choices based on things much more relevant and free minded than hype. Especially when you do not have any real reasons to support your choices.
 
Its not translation. Its not your words. Its what your do with them. Your attitude. I can 'translate' that also.

But Scott, don't take this personally. Write what you will, but then you give me no choice but to reply to your attitude rather than your thoughts.
 
António Fagundes said:
You know I'm really not being negative. Not liking 48f is not being negative, its having an opinion.
Click to expand...

enough said. the only positive thing you've said is that you have a negative opinion, which seems to be fully developed (pun intended). congratulations. as i've said - feel free to critically respond to the very real and thoughtful reasons i've demonstrated for the potential of variable framerates in cinematic or parallel new-media experiences. say something worth saying or go make something worth seeing and let me know when it's ready.
 
António Fagundes said:
Its not translation. Its not your words. Its what your do with them. Your attitude. I can 'translate' that also.

But Scott, don't take this personally. Write what you will, but then you give me no choice but to reply to your attitude rather than your thoughts.
Click to expand...

How can you correctly discern my attitude if you don't first comprehend my thoughts?
 
António Fagundes said:
What you do fail to understand from what people with a different opinion from yours is, we make creative and technical choices based on things much more relevant and free minded than hype. Especially when you do not have any real reasons to support your choices.
Click to expand...

Are you actually explaining to him how he forms his own opinions?
 
Last edited:
Brandon J.F. said:
Are [you] actually explaining to him how he forms his own opinions?
Click to expand...

hehe...

on that note, time to take a deep breath. no need for personal antagonism. everybody needs to chill.

i'm sure we've all got better stuff to do (or not do - 'He who does not know how to use leisure... has more work than work itself.' - Quintus Ennius)
 
Written by someone in another forum:

There's no "training the audience," no "finding the magic combination," no "filmmakers not using their tools properly." Either it is liked by the audience or it is not.....And to a great degree, I think this is true of 3D in general.
 
Went to the matinee today to see it in 24 fps to compare it to 48 fps imax. This audience was 50% kids, and they loved the start of the movie (you could just tell by the comments since in the matinee the kids talk through the whole thing ... this is btw good for me since it allows me to get direct audience feedback). Another thing was the movie theater was packed and this was a Friday, so i'd expect strong numbers for the entire week. I btw didn't really like the first half of the movie in 24 fps, shutter stuttering at 270 was just driving me crazy, but I noticed that most of the shutter issues dropped away after the point where they were in the thunder mountains.
 
Appropriate to Christmas time, this thread just keeps on giving!

My sister visiting from interstate announced to me just now that she had purchased tickets for both of us to go see 'The Hobbit' in HFR today. Oh my God... my smile was like the one you'd see on a dead dog.

This... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU
 
There were some good moments visually and many not so good moments, but I do see the potential in this... there is a big upside to it.

Lets be grateful that some people saw the potential in Muybridge's experiment with series of photographs and his Zoopraxiscope.

Like everything in this world the first one is usually not the prettiest.
 
Cameron Chin said:
There were some good moments visually and many not so good moments, but I do see the potential in this... there is a big upside to it.

Lets be grateful that some people saw the potential in Muybridge's experiment with series of photographs and his Zoopraxiscope.

Like everything in this world the first one is usually not the prettiest.
Click to expand...

You guys are such visionaries. Its amazing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top