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...

Clearly, the badassdigest guy doesn't get it. He feels the disconnect is because the technology is not there, when in fact it's something entirely different. The argument for HFR is going to be a slippery slope and the transition is going to be ugly. It reminds me of when Michael Man made Public Enemy on the Genesis.


Luis Caffesse said:
Ouch.

http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/24/cinemacon-2012-the-hobbit-underwhelms-at-48-frames-per-secon/

http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html


Honestly, these articles make me all the more curious to see this projected at 48fps.
Click to expand...
 
Evan Starkey said:
:emote_popcorn:Im comfortable with 24fps like anyone so i say good on PJ or anyone for pushing the "standard" 24fps in action makes me dizzy and if you want to feel old just mention such low frame rates to a kid playing computer games. im with the kids...bring it on :)
Click to expand...
Computer games aren't the same as movies, high frame rates are important to video games because they are interactive and timing is very important, as for the aesthetic, it works for video games.
I haven't seen the Hobbit at 48 frames per second in 3D at 4k on a gigantic screen but my tests so far have been that in narrative content it just doesn't feel right, it looks a little weird. a little bit sped up at times.


Bob Gundu said:
Clearly, the badassdigest guy doesn't get it. He feels the disconnect is because the technology is not there, when in fact it's something entirely different. The argument for HFR is going to be a slippery slope and the transition is going to be ugly. It reminds me of when Michael Man made Public Enemy on the Genesis.
Click to expand...
Except that he shot f23 and various other cameras including the EX1, not the Genesis though.
 
Bob Gundu said:
Clearly, the badassdigest guy doesn't get it. He feels the disconnect is because the technology is not there, when in fact it's something entirely different. The argument for HFR is going to be a slippery slope and the transition is going to be ugly. It reminds me of when Michael Man made Public Enemy on the Genesis.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, no mention of the Sony Projector as possibly contributing to his dissatisfaction...
(Update per L. Langer: It was a prototype Christie projector modified from the normal design
to save money for future theatrical use instead of replacing the whole projector.")

maybe this calls for a 4K Red Laser Projector at 120fps coming in time for the release!

Quoting Douglas Trumbull:

http://www.btlnews.com/crafts/post-...-filmmaking-paradigm-with-nvidia-quadro-gpus/

“It’s a new cinematic language, which calls for different kinds of camera angles and movements, different selection of lenses, different kinds of action and framing, and a different editorial pace, because the result of 120 frames in 3D on a very bright screen is like being inside a movie rather than looking at a movie,” said Trumbull. “It’s a very intense, participatory experience. What I’m trying to do is show the industry how we could substantially improve the movie-going experience for the public.”
 
Last edited:
Trumbull have been a champion of HFR ever since he introduced Showscan in the late 70's. If there's anyone who knows the challenges that lay ahead is him.
I love this video he did in 2010 about shooting 24fps with modern technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg



N.D. Paolo said:
Unfortunately, no mention of the Sony Projector as possibly contributing to his dissatisfaction...

maybe this calls for a 4K Red Laser Projector at 120fps coming in time for the release!

Quoting Douglas Trumbull:

http://www.btlnews.com/crafts/post-...-filmmaking-paradigm-with-nvidia-quadro-gpus/

“It’s a new cinematic language, which calls for different kinds of camera angles and movements, different selection of lenses, different kinds of action and framing, and a different editorial pace, because the result of 120 frames in 3D on a very bright screen is like being inside a movie rather than looking at a movie,” said Trumbull. “It’s a very intense, participatory experience. What I’m trying to do is show the industry how we could substantially improve the movie-going experience for the public.”
Click to expand...
 
Hmmmm. This is all very disappointing. I've "Accidentally" stumbled into high framerate comparisons before. Once in film school we shot a short film and one of the B cameras was in 30p for a day. While reviewing dailies everything just felt really cheap and reality-televisiony. A non-production friend finally gets the courage and speaks up asking "why does it look like a soap opera, is the lighting off"? That was somebody who doesn't know anything about cameras and they didn't like it--felt it was cheap.

When I bought my last TV I got home popped in the first episode of a new season of a show I was in the middle of and I was incredibly disappointed with what I saw. "Oh no! Did they change DPs? Did their budget get cut from the last season?" 2 episodes later it occured to me that Smooth-O-Vision might be enabled, disabled it and the exact same show with the exact same lighting just looked so much nicer.

My friend was telling me about how his TV got it re-enabled once on accident and he had his family over to watch Bourne Identity and everyone in the family was asking what was wrong with the movie. Again, not super techie film people, just ordinary folk and they could pick it out as offputting.

It's not a problem with some Sony Projector. It's not something that Lasers or photon torpedoes can fix. It's just what high framerates look like. I would be curious though if a new generation would feel the same if there was no 'prejudice' against 30/48/60p.

When I watched Avatar I was incredibly immersed but I kept feeling like it was an instance of there still being that screen being in the way. I was hoping that 48p and 3D would be a match made in heaven and just suck you in. It's really disappointing to hear that it's not likely the case and it does just feel like a soap-opera. I'll reserve judgement for the final film but I'm not terribly optimistic now.
 
Craig W. Bickerstaff said:
Computer games aren't the same as movies, high frame rates are important to video games because they are interactive and timing is very important, as for the aesthetic, it works for video games.
I haven't seen the Hobbit at 48 frames per second in 3D at 4k on a gigantic screen but my tests so far have been that in narrative content it just doesn't feel right, it looks a little weird. a little bit sped up at times.
Click to expand...

So Frame rates do not apply to motion blur in games ?
 
These films are shot for teenagers. They haven't had as many years of 24fps at 48 flashes per second to harden their brains.
 
Miami Vice was shot on the Viper camera in VideoStream mode beciause the DP was not pleased with watching the monitor in the very green FilmStream mode.
Zodiac was shot on the Viper in FilmStream mode 4:4:4 10 bit RGB log and is regarded by many as the most beautifully shot digital capture to date.
Interestingly, we are finding that most actresses look pretty darn scary in 4k and absolutely horrific in anything higher.
The tirckery and hoops we are having to go through to get a "pretty" look is nothing short of a nightmare.
Yes, it IS lovely to have the information we get from a large sensor, but the reality is, we are back to all the work-arounds that Hollywood masters of light, filtration and post developed to make the glamourous stars look ...glamororous!
Will we indeed have to resort to Vaseline-smeared Doris Day close-ups to get approval on-set of the current stream of leading ladies, or will be electonically dealing with the very real reality of seeing humans under the scrutiny of the new wave
of very unforgiving sensors and projectors?
 
Evan Starkey said:
So Frame rates do not apply to motion blur in games ?
Click to expand...

If games have motion blur, I believe it's added as an effect - they couldn't have it based on the frame rate because the frame rate can change from 60fps to 150fps in a few seconds based on the complexity of what you're looking at.
 
I copied this from elsewhere and is how i understood it to be.

"The reason low frame rates work for movies is because of the way they are shot as a series of "long exposure" photos, each frame of a movie is "blurred" by the motion of period of a time, the "blur" in each frame is what tricks your eyes into seeing smooth motion when in fact the frame rate isnt high enough to see it smoothly. Video game "frames" though however are hard edged with no motion blur covering the point from one frame to the next its a "new" "solid picture" Human eyes are VERY sensitive to this sort of thing, whilst a game is certainly playable enough with 30fps (providing the minimum fps arent too low) the smoothness of animation is poor at 30 fps."
 
These articles are very interesting. I wouldn't judge so quickly, wait until you see it for yourself. I finally got to see a comparison test of 24, 48 and 60fps projected in 3D at the Christie booth at NAB. Honestly I was blown away, all the juddering and awful stuttering was gone... I never want to watch 24p 3D again. It's a completely different experience then what we're use too, IMHO its much more immersive then 3D at 24. I can focus on the content vs. being distracted from the juddering, and it definitely feels more real. Of course just like any change it will take some getting used too. However we should adjust very quickly as going backwards you can't help but notice all the flaws of 24p 3D... My two cents. I wouldn't throw in the towel, until you see it for yourself.
 
Sorry for quoting such an old post but I'm just catching up on this thread. Will your caption is a freakin' riot!

Will Devine said:
Give me your clothes, your boots and your ring of power.
Click to expand...

Les your observation about teens is dead on, but I think you will find the average age in attendance is much higher. I don't believe for a second that Jackson is making these films for such a narrow audience.

Les Dittert said:
These films are shot for teenagers. They haven't had as many years of 24fps at 48 flashes per second to harden their brains.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Are the trailers 48 fps? If yes... I like the look already.
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
Well, we are shooting "RAPE of a BEAUTY" 3D at 48fps as well, as we are extremely confident that the Projection capacity for high frame rates, is already in place by the time out movie is done, which should also be by December 2012... and thanks to people like Peter and Jim, and Jim... Cinema in 4K is already looking better and better for me... ;)
Click to expand...

I get that PJ would want to shoot 'The Hobbit' at 48fps in 3D but what are your motivations Ketch? How will 48 fps and 3D serve your story? Why do you think it's necessary?

Personally I feel taking a subject as charged as rape and adding all that extra technology seems poorly conceived. Have you realistically thought about distribution? Do you really think that the few theaters that could project this believe they can get the audience numbers to make it worthwhile?

Sorry I just don't see this as a viable project, maybe, maybe as an independent art house film with incredible script and known actors but in the local multiplex? Who's the director by the way?
 
Easy there big guy... This is a bit OT, no?

Ash Worth said:
I get that PJ would want to shoot 'The Hobbit' at 48fps in 3D but what are your motivations Ketch? How will 48 fps and 3D serve your story? Why do you think it's necessary?

Personally I feel taking a subject as charged as rape and ...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top