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 trailer...

Christoffer Glans said:
I find it strange that people talk about it feeling like stutter. Wouldn't it be the other way around? If they shot 48 fps at a degree of 360, the motion blur should be smoother (longer). So when doing the conversion to 24 fps I assume there would be some difference from traditional material, but the stutter could be a lot of different things. It could be how it's viewed, it could be the codec, it could be your monitor. If you judge the movie, Peter, Epic and DP based on an internet stream trailer you should have a reality check, there are too many factors to count in before judging.

The first thing, a 90's look? Well, the first trilogy was shot in the 90's so it might just be that they try to achieve a similar look, which is good, but I still disagree, it looks good, much better then most crap out there. Second, I assume that the DOF is based on it being shot for 3D. This is good and it's also great to see big scale environments in focus rather then limiting the world. The immersion, be it 2D or 3D will be much better if the DOF is longer for this type of movie and that "style" or way of filming might be more 90's then todays films. But 3D demands certain things to be good, it's a whole new way of thinking cinematically. The "haters" of 3D, as I see it, only hate it out of fear, fear of not being able to see the 3D effect, fear of not affording a 3D television, fear of not knowing how to handle it, well get over it.
Learn how to shoot 3D and do it well instead, this is what they seem to be doing with this movie. The 48 fps will increase the quality of 3D, it will be less flickery and more immersed.

I thought the conversion to 24 fps would look awful, but I'm very positive about what I've seen here, at least what I can see out of an internet stream. I also think that when this comes out in cinemas, you will want to see it at 48 fps in 3D, nothing else. When it comes out on bluray or similar you would want to see it in the same way. If you aren't an enthusiast about watching movies in the way they were shot, then I don't think you are a person that will see the drawbacks of the 24 fps conversion. A lot of people can't see details, be them good or bad, when it comes to cinematography.
Click to expand...



So for example .. I and Falk (although I don’t speak for him) in our separate spheres are heavily involved professionally with S-3d applications so we are not (s-3d) phobic as we have both invested zillions of hours and capital working and developing new techniques for the S-3d paradigm.

I would say that I respect falk’s opinion greatly so the fact that he sees something from a certain point of view is great… makes things much more interesting (I think). So for me I try to understand how Falk’s eye is, try to see things through his eyes to understand his aesthetic. By that I am trying to understand Falk’s perspective. I'm interested in what he has "reported".

So I eagerly await to see the Hobbit, Prometheus and everything else as its very relevant.. but as a professionals we set our own standards and that is our guiding principal. I don’t think anyone here is being “off message” about S-3d. It’s only by having a critical eye that we strive to make improvements and new and useful technical and artistic contributions.

Cheers,

Eric
 
Andrew Huse said:
I've heard people say the RED's color is lifeless and desaturated. I have no idea what they're talking about after seeing the Hobbit trailer. The most beautiful color I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Those people doesn't know what they are talking about. I've met a few cinematographers who bash Red and love Alexa and when I ask why, they speak mostly about the colors... well, later, when doing the grading of Alexa material, they panic because it looks like crap... because it's log, and they don't even understand that digital cinema require grading. So all in all, even those experienced cinematographers are stuck in 35mm land and they essentially doesn't know what they are talking about. There's a LOT of bullshit around these days, and a lot comes from people afraid of saying "I really don't know, show me how".
Pride goes to peoples heads so much they tend to not learn new things because they wan't to show they know from experience... well, I say bye bye to those people.
Digital cinema is not WYSIWYG, it's WYSIGB (What you see is getting better) :)
 
Now that I see the trailer but only on you tube I see what Falk is going on about the 90’s “video/tv” look. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. Or a good thing. I’m sure it looks a little different in overall appearance in the cinema and from Scene to scene (perhaps).

However it really seems like the Hobbit (no matter what) is going to be a HUMUNGOUS BLOCKBUSTER.

I really hope that with Prometheus and Hobbit, and Cabret, and Tintin, that new articles and reports say that S-3d is going from strength to strength. I hope these movies have enough contrast to cut through the Real-D systems. Maybe we see the 2d versions of the movies too to compare color resolution and impact…

To have these NOT play on Red 4k laser projectors in S-3d must be sooo frustrating for RED team and Jim. But good to know that Scott and Jackson are really running gangbusters with their Epics.

Cheers,

Eric

Hobbit trailer...The aesthetic looks a bit like video game in some respects… not quite World of Warcraft... but it is a fantasy world so it does have a sort illustrative appearance in some sense in terms of color more like an engraving that has in some plates been “inked”. So in that sense it’s like the colored plates from an old book but hyper real. I think a lot of people will "dig it".
 
Steve Sherrick said:
One thing I found interesting from the BTS videos from Peter was the use of extra red in the makeup. It's kind of funny seeing the actors in the BTS because they look a bit weird, but on camera look normal. It's worth watching these BTS videos to pick up some techniques they are using to get the most out of the cameras.

The trailer looks fantastic and I'm looking forward to seeing the film.
Click to expand...

Yes I noticed that, the stage colors also have a "weird" look in the BTS videos.
 
What's with the talk of less motion blur being video-like? I've always associated long/no shutter with video...less motion blur has always been a film look in my eyes. For example I've been playing around with the Beaulieu R16 which has a fixed shutter angle of 144 degrees, which is almost the same as what The Hobbit's 24fps shutter angle is. I mean yeah it's a bit stuttery, but that's the nature of 24fps. I notice that stutter regardless of whether the shutter angle is 90 degrees, 144 degrees 180 degrees or whatever...the difference is how much detail you can see, and I like being able to make out what things look like instead of it all being a blurred mess.

Christian Munoz D said:
Yes I noticed that, the stage colors also have a "weird" look in the BTS videos.
Click to expand...

Again, as has been pointed out by others, the 3D rig shifts the color that goes to each camera, so they pump up the saturation in the sets and make-up so that they have plenty of information to work with when desaturating the different color channels to match the cameras. Don't expect this to be an issue on a single camera shoot.
 
I've updated my post to make sure people realize I am speaking in the context of 3D and what they are going for in The Hobbit.
 
Gabe Conroy said:
Again, as has been pointed out by others, the 3D rig shifts the color that goes to each camera, so they pump up the saturation in the sets and make-up so that they have plenty of information to work with when desaturating the different color channels to match the cameras. Don't expect this to be an issue on a single camera shoot.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that. Do you know why they didn't do it with the exterior shots?
 
Christian Munoz D said:
Thanks for pointing that. Do you know why they didn't do it with the exterior shots?
Click to expand...

Likely because they'd have to somehow boost the saturation on the landscape, which would be impossible...I assume then that they just rely on increasing the saturation in post when they need to.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
I find it strange that people talk about it feeling like stutter. Wouldn't it be the other way around? If they shot 48 fps at a degree of 360, the motion blur should be smoother (longer).
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. If you open up your shutter and shoot 48 fps every exposure would be 1/48th. But they didn't shoot it with open shutters. They shot it with a 270 degree shutter(if I remember correctly, not 360 though), so the 24fps version will have shorter exposures than the 1/48th you are used with.

Fell in love with the trailer though.
 
I can see the line at the theaters already...this is gonna be amazing! Congrats to Jim, RED team, PJ and team!
 
Klas Persson said:
No it wouldn't. If you open up your shutter and shoot 48 fps every exposure would be 1/48th. But they didn't shoot it with open shutters. They shot it with a 270 degree shutter(if I remember correctly, not 360 though), so the 24fps version will have shorter exposures than the 1/48th you are used with.

Fell in love with the trailer though.
Click to expand...

Aha, that explains it, I thought it was equally changed in line with the FPS. Explains the sharpness, but as I said earlier, video-looks looks like video when the motion blur is longer and more "smeary". So that's a relief, it's better that the 24 fps version has shorter motion blur, that's at least less "home video"-ish then the opposite.
 
Amazing, beautiful trailer. I was worried much about sky too bright, maybe this is just my crappy display. It might be PJ's visual aesthetics for this film, but I'm sure EPIC can dig a bit further into shadows and highlights (with HDRx enabled). Can't wait to see it in IMAX 3D, or any big 3D screen with 48FPS-enabled projectors. None less.
 
Vadim Bobkovsky said:
Amazing, beautiful trailer. I was worried much about sky too bright, maybe this is just my crappy display. It might be PJ's visual aesthetics for this film, but I'm sure EPIC can dig a bit further into shadows and highlights (with HDRx enabled). Can't wait to see it in IMAX 3D, or any big 3D screen with 48FPS-enabled projectors. None less.
Click to expand...

My suspicion is that the films grade hasn't been finalized or perhaps even begun yet, I'm not as blown away with the trailer as most here seem to be but I suspect that when I sit down in a cinema and view it at 4k 3D at 48fps (If such a cinema even exists in Auckland) I will be much more impressed by the look of the film than I am now.
 
Craig W. Bickerstaff said:
My suspicion is that the films grade hasn't been finalized or perhaps even begun yet, I'm not as blown away with the trailer as most here seem to be but I suspect that when I sit down in a cinema and view it at 4k 3D at 48fps (If such a cinema even exists in Auckland) I will be much more impressed by the look of the film than I am now.
Click to expand...

I for one just hope HDRx was enabled on the exterior shots. :) It would be a shame to lose all those details in the clouds. I love film for it's ability to hold highlights and with HDRx it's already possible on EPIC. There are several methods to blend two streams of footage, as far as I know. For example one in SCRATCH with Luma key or similar ways. While typing this, I'm more than pleased with what I've already seen in the trailer. This will be one great movie to watch, especially on a decent bright 3d projection system.
 
Saw it in 3D in front of Tintin last night. Looked as good as any live action 3D I've seen, but it still suffers for the weird "pop-up book" effect where each element looks like a 2D slice in a 3D space. So while there is depth to the image overall, there is no real depth to individual people or objects.

Tintin on the other had looked amazing in 3D!
 
AndrewThomas said:
Saw it in 3D in front of Tintin last night. Looked as good as any live action 3D I've seen, but it still suffers for the weird "pop-up book" effect where each element looks like a 2D slice in a 3D space. So while there is depth to the image overall, there is no real depth to individual people or objects.

Tintin on the other had looked amazing in 3D!
Click to expand...

Interesting…

Wonder if they (Hobbit) employs a sort of judicious “depth” budget where there might be more detailed 3d texture and rounded features within a larger range of parallax that is perhaps more controlled and given a bit more consideration for key sequences?. i.e. less cardboard cutout effect in certain parts of the movie? It’s encouraging for me/our group as we have a good set of techniques to mitigate said “carboard cut out” effect and yet maintain comfortable range of viewing parallax will well disposed rich three dimensional textures. We have proven this in other spheres, and this is why we buy Scarlets (or have ordered) to demonstrate the same points for a good bridge into practical advanced techniques in stereo cinematics in “anger”… (and cost effectively… many thanks to RED/JIM for the form and incarnation of the Scarlet-X release). But maybe the reported white backgrounds = less stereo interference from large ranges of parallax AND color grading and aesthetic make the story look like it is a living “story book” of the Hobbit? I.e. inked in plate engravings with the light pages of a book that come to life?

Thanks for reporting that.

TinTin sounds great!

Cheers,

Eric
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top