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...

This development throws up so many fascinating issues, but if a great deal of people were confronted by, and disliked the preview screening, then they've got a problem.

Sometimes these "problems" are just gently pushing people towards change, but nevertheless, it's a development they will be discussing seriously. I might add that this release of 10 minutes of footage may have been a deliberate test of suitable length, with carefully selected visuals, to assess audience reaction to the technology.

There IS an issue about what people are used to seeing and like seeing, and expect to see. The Mona Lisa or Rembrandt paintings are not hyper clear, are considered masterpieces, yet other styles are different and are also considered so.

For so long people have wanted "video" to look "like film" and in particular, epic films to look a certain way. (More Rembrandt than video.)

Now not only in capture but in exhibition we are moving into an area of what "like film" means, there are a lot of subtle things, and ultimately the mass of public will decide what they like best I guess, and whether things will shift. Technology providers (such as RED) can claim to give artists multiple choices and styles to express themselves and ultimately the market response will determine what styles make the most money, are most popular, or endure.

We are currently somewhere in the Twilight Zone between traditional filmmaking and bona-fide immersive virtual reality, the stuff previously of science fiction, and which still may be decades or centuries away.
 
We have a 65" Panasonic Viera 3D Plasma TV in a PAL region. Even my wife and kids say that the THX mode, which plays back BluRays at their original target frame rate, is the only one they can watch and still feel like they're watching a film. Every other viewing mode (except the two 'pro' modes) has a high refresh rate and makes great movies look like they were shot on video tape.
However even THX mode can't save Public Enemies :-)
 
Personally I don't like the 120Hz features of newer TV's. I think it looks terrible, but that could be because it's 24fps or 29.97fps material artificially being shown at the higher frame rate or refresh rate. That said, I'll hold judgement of The Hobbit until it's released and until I see it. I believe I read an article yesterday that Sony is releasing a software upgrade for their 4K projectors to allow them to project 2K at 48fps in 3D before The Hobbit is released. They are charging theaters $3,000 for the upgrade and expect most theaters to do the upgrade, so we should all be able to see The Hobbit in 48fps somewhere.

On another note, my personal feeling is that it's time to let go of the "film look". Film is essentially dead. A lot of people don't want to admit it, but really it is. Kodak is out of the film business and with so little supply of film stock the price will just go up. Most labs will stop processing film because there will be so little film to be processed, and thus the cost of processing at the labs that actually still process and print film will go up even higher. It will become more and more uneconomical to shoot film to the point that eventually no one will shoot film anymore. It's the laws of economics and supply and demand. We're in a new era of movie-making. It's no longer "filmmaking", it's movie-making. And we're shooting these movies with what? Film? No, VIDEO. So it should be no surprise that it could look like video. Don't see it as a bad thing. See it as different and an opportunity to develop new methods to make video look unique and better than it does now. Not better than film. Just different and maybe equally as pleasing... but just different.

Twenty years from now (or less) a new generation of movie-makers will emerge that has never even seen a strip of film stock and will have seen many more movies shot with video than with film. They won't be thinking about the "film look". They'll just shoot their movies on video to the best of their ability and make those movies look the best that they can.
 
Mike Halper said:
Personally I don't like the 120Hz features of newer TV's. I think it looks terrible, but that could be because it's 24fps or 29.97fps material artificially being shown at the higher frame rate or refresh rate. That said, I'll hold judgement of The Hobbit until it's released and until I see it. I believe I read an article yesterday that Sony is releasing a software upgrade for their 4K projectors to allow them to project 2K at 48fps in 3D before The Hobbit is released. They are charging theaters $3,000 for the upgrade and expect most theaters to do the upgrade, so we should all be able to see The Hobbit in 48fps somewhere.

On another note, my personal feeling is that it's time to let go of the "film look". Film is essentially dead. A lot of people don't want to admit it, but really it is. Kodak is out of the film business and with so little supply of film stock the price will just go up. Most labs will stop processing film because there will be so little film to be processed, and thus the cost of processing at the labs that actually still process and print film will go up even higher. It will become more and more uneconomical to shoot film to the point that eventually no one will shoot film anymore. It's the laws of economics and supply and demand. We're in a new era of movie-making. It's no longer "filmmaking", it's movie-making. And we're shooting these movies with what? Film? No, VIDEO. So it should be no surprise that it could look like video. Don't see it as a bad thing. See it as different and an opportunity to develop new methods to make video look unique and better than it does now. Not better than film. Just different and maybe equally as pleasing... but just different.

Twenty years from now (or less) a new generation of filmmakers will emerge that has never even seen a strip of film stock and will have seen many more movies shot with video than with film. They won't be thinking about the "film look". They'll just shoot their movies on video to the best of their ability and make those movies look the best that they can.
Click to expand...

[h=1]touché[/h]
 
It's no just the frame rate. For examplem just pause on some close ups and the picture looks very video like. Sharp but cheap.
 
I am personally totally surprised about the recent onslaught of negative news coverage about the Hobbit.
When my wife, kids, and I first saw the movie trailer... we were literally blown away.
Its what we both have been waiting for... the ability to 'see' and feel drawn into the movie.

It was an awesome moment to have such 'clean' video grace my screen and not the typical pixelated mess which occurs after being stretched out - like when sticking LOTR in the dvd drive and watching it on my computer screen. [Yes we use the computer to watch movies... hate fuzzy tv screens, etc.]

I suppose if people were born with eyeballs that saw fuzzy and got an 'upgrade' they may complain about the 'sharp vision' not being authentic.

At the end of the day, its a story and its painted with watercolors, oils, pencils, or whatever the artist chooses to express themselves with - it never should be limited to one 'toolset', and one that was built off of the limited tech of the day. Film was the birth of life on screen, we have nothing prior to that, so thus the attachment... [not saying its bad or useless, but it is what is is.]
But those hyper realistic shots and seeing every spec is a great option, and one that I fully appreciate... again its about the artist and their choice of what they wish to paint with to express themselves, and not being tied to a media due to having no other options.

However its true that if your seeing gaffers tape, etc., perhaps set design needs to evolve... does this mean purely CG to resolve the problems? Could be, maybe humans are lifes film and the universe is ready to evolve to 4k/48fps/CG hyper realistic and we are going the way of the dinosaur... [ok, not to get off topic into Kurzweils singularity, etc.] ;)
But what this means for actors - who knows.. check out Avatar. [a move toward voice acting only... perhaps not as long as we still have humans, but getting them to blend with everything will take a change in makeup, etc. to be certain.]

I can fully respect that each person has a given taste, but the extent of criticism I have seen, not here, but on other sites has been quite surprising.
The debate over what is film/video, etc., who cares - its just terms... doesnt really matter. Its about art and having the best tools to do how one sees fit... not everyone likes Rembrandt, not all will like this method, etc.

Personally I cant wait till its so hyper-realistic that Im in the movie acting out the part myself... [games and movies merge] Now that will really upset the cart as 'film was never meant to give the viewer a choice, its the directors story', etc. ;)

Peace

Dalen
 
Last edited:
You have not seen it in 48fps yet though. So, you might hate it too. I'll wait with any judgement, good or bad, until I've seen it. My prediction is that I will not like it though. I am certain I'll love the movie, I'm a huge PJ fan, but this 48fps thing. I don't know.
 
Paul Russell said:
We have a 65" Panasonic Viera 3D Plasma TV in a PAL region. Even my wife and kids say that the THX mode, which plays back BluRays at their original target frame rate, is the only one they can watch and still feel like they're watching a film. Every other viewing mode (except the two 'pro' modes) has a high refresh rate and makes great movies look like they were shot on video tape.
However even THX mode can't save Public Enemies :-)
Click to expand...


agree.
 
Worst case scenario, can't they just use every second frame? Shouldn't that bring it to 24 frames without any need for blending etc? Can't say I agree with the picture quality being cheap though, that might be a little ridiculous. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about the whole second frame thing, makes sense to me.
 
Paul Russell said:
However even THX mode can't save Public Enemies :-)
Click to expand...

I chuckle a little when I hear people claim that Public Enemies did poorly for technical reasons related to the way it looked. IMO the look was the least of it's problems.
 
BRANDON JAMESON said:
Interestingly, we are finding that most actresses look pretty darn scary in 4k and absolutely horrific in anything higher.
Click to expand...

Sounds like some more digital cosmetic work for guys at Lola VFX
Last time I checked they've done pretty good job at removing skin defects and de-aging. If they are able to do that with Sir Ian, all the younger ladies (and gentlemen) are completely fine. I bet they use this tech on The Hobbit to slightly de-age Galadriel, Gandalf, Legolas and maybe even older (Ian Holm's) Bilbo to match the look of trilogy. This is prequel to LOTR after all. I'd like to watch bigger movies in all of 4K glory, but if it's required to apply some "healing brush" over actors faces, I'm ok with that.
 
Neil Peart wrote my response to this thread back in 1997


"Grand Designs"

A to B
Different degrees...

So much style without substance
So much stuff without style
It's hard to recognize the real thing
It comes along once in a while
Like a rare and precious metal beneath a ton of rock
It takes some time and trouble to separate from the stock
You sometimes have to listen to a lot of useless talk

Shapes and forms against the norm
Against the run of the mill
Swimming against the stream
Life in two dimensions is a mass production scheme

So much poison in power, the principles get left out
So much mind on the matter, the spirit gets forgotten about
Like a righteous inspiration overlooked in haste
Like a teardrop in the ocean, a diamond in the waste
Some world-views are spacious
And some are merely spaced

Against the run of the mill
Static as it seems
We break the surface tension with our wild kinetic dreams
Curves and lines
Of Grand Designs
 
Last edited:
Steve G said:
It is actually Michael Mann's second most successful film in terms of box office. http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=michaelmann.htm
Click to expand...

Thanks for the facts. If that is the primary metric that concerns you then I can accept it as a correction. I don't know how best to rephrase and still be delicate. People are just saying it sucked, I guess.

I didn't care much for it. I thought they took an inherently exciting subject and made it fairly bland and boring. That is my memory of it anyway.
 
Last edited:
dalen johnson said:
a move toward voice acting only
Click to expand...

They have used technology called "Performance Capture" (or motion capture) on Avatar. It's not just voice acting, it's a facial + complete body acting. They'd just stay in a booths if the blue creatures weren't supposed to be actor-animated in realtime.
 
My guess for the near future:

2d @ 24 fps exhibition for movies shot for 2d and limited 2d releases of 3d movies

3d @ 48 fps exhibition for 3d movies

Why is this good? 3d will grow up and be used for its benefit. Movies shot for 3d will ultimately develop their own visual and narrative language. Admittedly The Hobbit isn't the best choice of source material to introduce such a thing regarding its classic flavor.
2d will be 2d again, 3d will hopefully move away from being cheaply upconverted as a cash grab.

In the end there will always be the 24 fps option. Downconverting and even adding decent motion blur for a 24/180 look is no big deal.

Do I want to see the much awaited extension of the LOTR saga in 48 fps? Probably not, but who knows, I'll give both versions a shot.
Do I want to see visionary filmmakers explore new technology and extend the possibilities of visual storytelling? Fuck yeah!
 
I've seen a lot of tests over at Warner Bros. in the last 8 months or so showing 48fps 3D. I've never liked it as it looks like video and the action seems way too fast and almost sped up. The good thing is that I've seen the footage in 2D and 3D converted from 48fps to 24fps and it looks like it was shot at 24fps. What I've seen of the Hobbit it looks amazing...the 24fps version that is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top