|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tolktolk
Lorien
Dec 6 2012, 8:02pm
Post #1 of 37
(1291 views)
Shortcut
|
|
48fps - yay or nay!
|
Can't Post
|
|
It is fascinating seeing people on Twitter coming out of screenings and reacting to seeing The Hobbit.
On the whole most people seem to be enjoying the film but here is an illustration of how much opinion is split over the high frame rate. These two people have just been to a screening:
https://twitter.com/MattGoldberg
Just saw #TheHobbit in HFR 3D. Looked like a soap opera in fast forward with cheap digital effects. AVOID THIS FORMAT.
https://twitter.com/Majiesto
Just saw THE HOBBIT and loved the HFR (48fps) format. The level of detail is spectacular.
It's hard to believe they were both seeing exactly the same thing!
|
|
|
jimmyfenn
Rohan
Dec 6 2012, 8:13pm
Post #2 of 37
(905 views)
Shortcut
|
to say its looks like a soap opera in fast forward is just stupid, if a film looked that bad id leave the theatre and ask for my money back, im guessing he stayed for all of the 2 1/2 hours of this terrible film!
its interesting, i just watched the dark knight rises on bluray and if flips back and forth between imax /and 2.35 aspect rations ( well as much as it can on my 16.9 tele) and when you go back to the 2.35 format it really looks like a 'movie' in the traditional sense. you just get accustomed to things.
for quickbeam often laughed, he laughed if the sun came out from behind a cloud, he laughed if they came upon a stream or spring:
|
|
|
haarp
Rivendell
Dec 6 2012, 8:21pm
Post #3 of 37
(862 views)
Shortcut
|
ney, i will be seeing it 24fps juice
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Dec 6 2012, 8:37pm
Post #4 of 37
(848 views)
Shortcut
|
I was resolved to seeing it for the first time in 24fps, but the excellent article TwitchFilm.com by Jason Gorber just might have turned me around. He made a very persuasive argument that by seeing The Hobbit in HFR, you're seeing it the way P.J. intended-- the filmmaker's true artistic vision. Still haven't quite decided, but i'm definitely considering HFR for my first viewing. I just don't want to be distracted the first time i see it. But if not, then definitely the second time. It's funny, a couple of weeks ago, i was very ho-hum about the whole thing; now i'm kind of excited about HFR.
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Dec 6 2012, 8:38pm
Post #5 of 37
(833 views)
Shortcut
|
3D HFR at my local theater. My son and I are going to see for ourselves what's what.
Arthur: What manner of man are you that can summon up fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: I... am an enchanter.
Arthur: By what name are you known?
Tim: There are some who call me... 'Tim'...?
Arthur: ...greetings, Tim the Enchanter.
|
|
|
Finrod
Rohan
Dec 6 2012, 8:50pm
Post #6 of 37
(843 views)
Shortcut
|
Why in the world are all these people comparing 48 fps to video filmed at 30 fps? You would think that 30 fps would be a lot more like 24 fps than it would be like 48 fps! Sure sounds like they don’t know what they’re talking about.
And by 30 fps, I of course really mean 29.97 fps.
Hm, this all makes me I wonder how Jackson will manage his signature slow-motion scenes? Did he shoot them at 96 fps? Can Red even do that? Or is he going to fake them, and if so, will that simulated slow-motion look bad?
…all eyes looked upon the ring; for he held it now aloft, and the green jewels gleamed there that the Noldor had devised in Valinor. For this ring was like to twin serpents, whose eyes were emeralds, and their heads met beneath a crown of golden flowers, that the one upheld and the other devoured; that was the badge of Finarfin and his house.The Silmarillion, pp 150-151 while Felagund laughs beneath the treesin Valinor and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war.The Lays of Beleriand, p 311
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Dec 6 2012, 9:04pm
Post #7 of 37
(802 views)
Shortcut
|
Hm, this all makes me I wonder how Jackson will manage his signature slow-motion scenes? Did he shoot them at 96 fps? Can Red even do that? Or is he going to fake them, and if so, will that simulated slow-motion look bad?
That IS a good question! I generally like his slo-mo moments.
Arthur: What manner of man are you that can summon up fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: I... am an enchanter.
Arthur: By what name are you known?
Tim: There are some who call me... 'Tim'...?
Arthur: ...greetings, Tim the Enchanter.
|
|
|
belfalas
Bree
Dec 6 2012, 9:11pm
Post #8 of 37
(803 views)
Shortcut
|
Try googling it !
|
|
|
Artemis Roach
Bree
Dec 6 2012, 9:39pm
Post #9 of 37
(778 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Agree on the twitchfilm article
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was - and remain - a skeptic about the technology, but the twitchfilm article laid it out very nicely.
What my concern is:
I agree that film technology in 1927 is inherently inferior to the digital camera technology of the 21st century.
Yet that old technology still has high artistic value.
Look at Pabst's "Pandora's Box" from 1929, where you see Louise Brooks looking as ravishing and beautiful as any woman ever has on a silver screen. The film grain, the soft lighting, the camera lens, the motion blur, Brooks' flawless creamy skin - the result is otherworldly dreamlike, beautiful and immaculate.
Time-travel daydreaming hypotheses: I'm wondering if Pabst was to frame Louise Brooks in close-up with a 48 FPS RED Epic, that all I'd be looking at would be the pores in her skin, the eyebrow hair out of place, maybe a hint of a zit, or even the make-up trying to mask that zit - and then I'm really taken out of the story. That's my worry. (For that matter, how does Galadriel's skin look?)
Nevertheless, I'll put my faith in PJ and cross my fingers the digital projector can handle the payload.
(This post was edited by Artemis Roach on Dec 6 2012, 9:46pm)
|
|
|
Ref
Rivendell
Dec 6 2012, 9:49pm
Post #10 of 37
(748 views)
Shortcut
|
Well I've decided to first see it at 24 fps, and then if I enjoy the film I'll watch it again but at 48 fps.
Viewers of a nervous disposition may be interested to know that your television is off and I am speaking to you from inside your head...
*~* Hugh Dennis, Mock the Week *~*
Icon made by the talented wow_genius
|
|
|
Chopsta123
Gondor
Dec 6 2012, 9:53pm
Post #11 of 37
(742 views)
Shortcut
|
|
120fps is the maximum for the format PJ is using (5120x2134)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
if he were to go with additional dynamic range (HDRx), the maximum would decrease to 60 fps.
300 fps is only possible with 2k resolution.
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Dec 7 2012, 1:56am
Post #12 of 37
(683 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm tired of age old film judder
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
My vote will always be for the better quality higher frame rate, and not be stuck in what most are used to which is a format that is far past its prime. Getting used to something new is hard for many, but it's only because they are used to blurred judder as being normal looking for a movie. I am tired of trying to unblur and watch judder, so I will have no problem getting used to the more real life like look of the higher frame rates...like less than one minute ;)
sphdle1
"The last words Albus Dumbledore spoke to the pair of us?
Harry is the best hope we have. Trust him."
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Dec 7 2012, 1:58am
Post #13 of 37
(666 views)
Shortcut
|
'cause I'm diving headfirst into it on midnight 13th. Giddyup!
Arthur: What manner of man are you that can summon up fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: I... am an enchanter.
Arthur: By what name are you known?
Tim: There are some who call me... 'Tim'...?
Arthur: ...greetings, Tim the Enchanter.
|
|
|
totoro
Lorien
Dec 7 2012, 3:31am
Post #14 of 37
(647 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I've always like realistic art
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have no doubt I will prefer 48 fps. Even if a minority of moviegoers like the format, I imagine I will be one of them.
|
|
|
The Preciousss
Bree
Dec 7 2012, 7:13am
Post #15 of 37
(624 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I like the comparison someone made in a review.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He said it's like you have been living indoors your whole time looking through a thick, slightly window your whole life and now suddenly the glass is gone. At first you are distracted by how different it looks and won't be able to concentrate on the beauty of the clarity you can suddenly see. I keep that in mind for my first viewing.
If this movie hadn't been nearly 3 hours long to start his (which I am absolutely fine with:)), I guess it would have been a good idea to attach a short movie in the same format (like Disney does) to get the viewers acclimated.
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Dec 7 2012, 4:29pm
Post #16 of 37
(575 views)
Shortcut
|
Will you be able to see it HFR but *not* 3D? Because i have no real interest in 3D, but think 48fps has the potential to be really great. Anyone know?
|
|
|
Finrod
Rohan
Dec 7 2012, 6:06pm
Post #17 of 37
(566 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No 48fps except with stereo projection?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Will you be able to see it HFR but *not* 3D? Because i have no real interest in 3D, but think 48fps has the potential to be really great. Anyone know?
From an earlier posting on the main site:The Hobbit is the first film to be released in theatres in seven formats: HFR 3D, IMAX 3D, IMAX, standard 3D, and 2D, accompanied by Dolby Atmos 64-channel audio or Standard Dolby Surround. So it appears that the answer you question is that absent the fabled 2D glasses, that no, you cannot. The only 48fps offering appears to be “HFR 3D”.
One question I have is, how just exactly does the paragraph quoted above amount to seven formats? I see only six:- HFR 3D + Dolby Atmos
- HFR 3D + Dolby Surround
- IMAX 3D + Dolby Surround
- IMAX + Dolby Surround
- Normal 3D + Dolby Surround
- Normal 2D + Dolby Surround
What have I miscounted?
Another question is which of those formats are in so-called 4k resolution, and which are at something else? I believe that I have read that the HFR 3D will only be at 2k resolution. What about the others? Which ones are 2k and which are 4k? Are there more formats, or fewer?
Here’s still another question: if an IMAX screen is taller than it is wide, how are you supposed to watch a movie that it 2.35 times wider than it is tall on one? And why in the world would you want to?
There seem to be five possible traits:- screen: normal or IMAX
- frame rate: 24 or 48
- sound system: surround or atmos
- stereo: normal 2D or stereo 3D
- resolution: 2k or 4k, and also maybe IMAX or digital IMAX
That looks more like 32 or more possibilities than it does 7, so some must not be allowed. Which are which?
…all eyes looked upon the ring; for he held it now aloft, and the green jewels gleamed there that the Noldor had devised in Valinor. For this ring was like to twin serpents, whose eyes were emeralds, and their heads met beneath a crown of golden flowers, that the one upheld and the other devoured; that was the badge of Finarfin and his house.The Silmarillion, pp 150-151 while Felagund laughs beneath the treesin Valinor and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war.The Lays of Beleriand, p 311
|
|
|
unexpectedvisitor
Rohan
Dec 7 2012, 6:25pm
Post #18 of 37
(554 views)
Shortcut
|
once PJ embraced the idea of doing the movie in 3D (and, let's face it, PJ is a tech enthusiast), which is almost a prerequisite for all blockbusters these days, i think that became sort of the impetus behind doing the HFR. i myself am not a big fan of 3D--not least of all because of how it compromises the image in terms of strobing, brightness, colouring, etcetera--and HFR is supposed to help alleviate those issue with modern 3D. so, in short, if you don't want to see the movie in 3D, it may be better to see it in 24 FPS, anyways, as one of the major pros of HFR is it making the 3D experience better (and it may have some cons that may not otherwise feel worth it if you were able to watch it that way in 2D). i plan to see it both ways, definitely.
there has been quite the split on HFR, some raving about it and some absolutely loathing it (hard to wrap your head around the disparity when some entusiastic comment make it sounds like a captivating breakthrough and then others question if their projector was even working right and they couldn't imagine that PJ actually wanted the movie to look that way). i have seen a few reactions, though, that are very balanced, saying that the level of detail is astounding and works great for actions sequences and scenery shots but in smaller moments all that detail can become distracting or draw attention to the somewhat "fake" nature of sets and props, and that it can be hard to adjust to the fundamental change in the "motion" of the motion picture.
but when i read the negative comments about HFR 3D, i tell myself, "well, i can't imagine it's much worse than regular 3D!" it's just an option that PJ himself likes and is promoting as a better way of doing 3D...but you don't have to see it that way, and it won't be how you watch it at home.
|
|
|
Elenorflower
Gondor
Dec 7 2012, 7:06pm
Post #19 of 37
(550 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I dont see the need for this new tech,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
old fashioned 24fps film is beautiful, and I have never looked at LOTR and thought, well that looked juddery jiggly what a shame. I thought it was amazing, even after 10 years. Like Lawrence of Arabia is still great and the Wizard of Oz is still great. Its not the tech that counts but the artistry and vision and aesthetic creativity of the film makers. 3D is just a gimmick and I think this 48fps is a gimmick, for those under 18, who find these things 'kewl'. No offence to kiddies, its a different generation and older people appreciate differing things.
|
|
|
unexpectedvisitor
Rohan
Dec 7 2012, 8:24pm
Post #20 of 37
(551 views)
Shortcut
|
...you can see it in whichever format you prefer!
i imagine for many that like 3D, HFR may be a welcome enhancement.
i myself prefer 2D and love IMAX experiences when IMAX cameras were actually used...but i'm willing to give anything a go at least once!
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Dec 7 2012, 8:32pm
Post #21 of 37
(536 views)
Shortcut
|
|
He's doing it to try and get people back into the theaters
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The "need" is that less and less people are going to the theaters. It's a format you can't see on your TV or Ipad. He's just trying to promote something he thinks adds value to the experience so he can help an industry he cares about. Now, I'm not saying it's going to work or that I'll like it or anything, but it does make sense why he's trying it out. Some people do like the look, and he's one of them.
Arthur: What manner of man are you that can summon up fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: I... am an enchanter.
Arthur: By what name are you known?
Tim: There are some who call me... 'Tim'...?
Arthur: ...greetings, Tim the Enchanter.
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Dec 7 2012, 10:11pm
Post #22 of 37
(516 views)
Shortcut
|
this technology is still in it's infancy. 99.999% of the people haven't even seen it yet. Maybe it's a little iffy now, but as more people like P.J., James Cameron and Steven Spielberg experiment and work with it, it will only get better. I remember Roger Ebert talking about HFR (Douglas Trumbull's version of it anyway) on At the Movies in the 80s, saying pretty much exactly what proponents are saying about it now, and i've been excited about it ever since. Who knows if it will be successful or not, but it's a potentially cool new way of seeing movies, and i for one can't wait to check it out.
|
|
|
Elenorflower
Gondor
Dec 7 2012, 11:04pm
Post #23 of 37
(511 views)
Shortcut
|
and I dont doubt that is his motive, but why the Hobbit? it doesnt seem the right story to me personally. Why experiment with a story with so much expectation so much riding on it being perfect? why not experiment with more fitting subjects like sci-fi films? If the new Bladerunner was made in 48fps or a new Matrix film for example, I could understand it more, but a whimsical charming fairy story for kids?? meh! I dont get it.
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Dec 7 2012, 11:17pm
Post #24 of 37
(505 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think they should *not* have tried it, but
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't understand why they did the first press screenings for critics in HFR. Even if they like it, it's still a distraction from the film itself; and if they don't like it, or hate it, that will certainly color their judgements. Either way, it seems like it backfired.
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Dec 7 2012, 11:21pm
Post #25 of 37
(504 views)
Shortcut
|
|
To get more people to watch the movie, probably
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
All this buzz, positive or negative, is going to stir up some interest.
Then there's also the consideration that well, he likes it. So he probably wants to make sure it gets shown off to a large audience.
Plus, with a really popular movie, this will give incentive for theaters to upgrade so that it's a choice for customers. Laying the groundwork. And that flows into my previous point of getting more people into the theaters with new features like this one.
Arthur: What manner of man are you that can summon up fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: I... am an enchanter.
Arthur: By what name are you known?
Tim: There are some who call me... 'Tim'...?
Arthur: ...greetings, Tim the Enchanter.
|
|
|
|
|
1
