Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
New post on 48 fps from Peter's Facebook Page:
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

DamienEngland
Rivendell

Apr 26 2011, 7:01am

Post #1 of 45 (2312 views)
Shortcut
New post on 48 fps from Peter's Facebook Page: Can't Post

   
"Your comments on 48 fps

by Peter Jackson on Monday, 25 April 2011 at 23:20
The news about us filming The Hobbit at 48 frames per second generated a lot of comments. Of course, it's impossible to show you what 48 fps actually looks like outside of a movie cinema, but there were several interesting and insightful questions raised.

We will be completing a "normal" 24 frames per second version—in both digital and 35mm film prints. If we are able to get the Hobbit projected at 48 fps in selected cinemas, there will still be normal-looking 24 fps versions available in cinemas everywhere.

Converting a film shot at 48 fps down to 24 fps is not a hugely difficult process, but it requires testing to achieve the best results. Some of this involves digital processes during post-production. We are also shooting the film a slightly different way, which is a question several of you asked. Normally you shoot a movie with a 180-degree shutter angle. Changing the shutter angle affects the amount of motion blur captured during movement. Reducing the shutter angle gives you the stroby (or jerky) "Saving Private Ryan" look.

However, we're going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master.

More soon ....

Cheers,
Peter J



=========


Mooseboy018
Gondor


Apr 26 2011, 7:20am

Post #2 of 45 (803 views)
Shortcut
Sounds good. [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm glad that the 48fps isn't really "permanent", just in case it turns out to look too weird and people don't like it. Not that I think there will be a problem based on what PJ has said so far...but this just helps relieve me of any uncertainty I had about this.Tongue


(This post was edited by Mooseboy018 on Apr 26 2011, 7:21am)


DamienEngland
Rivendell

Apr 26 2011, 7:36am

Post #3 of 45 (793 views)
Shortcut
Yep [In reply to] Can't Post

   

I've been impressed with the friendly spirit of inclusivity with which PJ is approaching this: y'know, he's doing a 2D and 3D version, 24 fps and 48 - basically covering all his bases for people to enjoy the films the way they want to.

The important thing, I'm sure he's equally aware of, is that the scripting, acting and characterisation is what will make us go to see the film on multiple viewings as it was with LOTR. It really doesn't matter to me if I see the Hobbit films in a dusty old cinema in 2D as lot as I like what I'm seeing.

When I was a kid, I used to watch a lot of old, classic movies on a crumby black and white TV in my bedroom late at night, with fields of static snow billowing across the picture intermittently from the God awful reception, and the sound low so my parents wouldn't hear. The point is, if it was a good film and a gripping, well acting story, I barely noticed the audio-visual impairments were there at all. Now THAT is the power of a good story. Cool


======


Maiarmike
Grey Havens


Apr 26 2011, 9:26am

Post #4 of 45 (729 views)
Shortcut
It's really cool that PJ takes the time for fans... [In reply to] Can't Post

...especially when he's such a busy man, but I think he's wasting his time explaining these technical aspects of film-making to everyone. Judging by the comments on that page, people still don't know what the hell he's talking about, or are still misinformed, and always will until everyone sees how great it looks in the cinema. Best to just let everyone view the movie magic for themselves in the theaters come December 2012.

"I'm just a happy camper! Rockin' and a-rollin!"


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 26 2011, 11:55am

Post #5 of 45 (701 views)
Shortcut
There's something for everyone [In reply to] Can't Post

Some people prefer the 24fps look, while others prefer a smoother/silkier look, such as myself. Good to see that all options will be out there...likely 24 in most theatres, but it will likely take a few years for most theatres to get at least on of their showing rooms to be 48 capable...TH 1 & 2 followed by Avatar sequels and other movies that shoot 48 will all help to make it more mainstream (hopefully some new Star Wars sequels/prequels...George if you're listening!? Wink)

It sound like thy can even make 24fps less juddery with the wider shutter angle..!? Interesting.
Also interesting that PJ and his DP prefer 24 from 48...I would guess because 24 still has a certain amount of judder that makes it look more 'cinematic', which is what most are used to...myself, I love the newer silkier than silky look, so I would not have the same preference as PJ on that one and would choose 48, but that's what makes us all different, as not everyone shares the same preference.

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


Crunchable Birdses
Rohan


Apr 26 2011, 12:22pm

Post #6 of 45 (707 views)
Shortcut
I think what PJ meant [In reply to] Can't Post

I think what PJ meant by that was this: given the two different ways of getting 24fps - either shooting natively in 24, or shooting in 48 and then converting to 24 - he prefers the look of the latter.

In general of course, given the choice of 48fps or 24fps, he prefers the look of 48fps.

* crunch *

(This post was edited by Crunchable Birdses on Apr 26 2011, 12:24pm)


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 26 2011, 12:25pm

Post #7 of 45 (700 views)
Shortcut
Though PJ doesn't come on TORN like GDT did [In reply to] Can't Post

through facebook, he is coming close to, if not equal to Del Toro in terms of communicating with fans. keep up the good work PJ.

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 26 2011, 12:32pm

Post #8 of 45 (667 views)
Shortcut
That's not how I understood it [In reply to] Can't Post

the first part of your post I think he meant, but the last part I understood that he preferred the look of 24 over 48 (when both are shot at 48 native)...just in the "as a matter of fact"ly way he said it...!? That's how it read to me, but I was wrong one time in the past...I remember it well, but I've been right ever since.Sly

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 26 2011, 12:39pm

Post #9 of 45 (681 views)
Shortcut
On second read [In reply to] Can't Post

I checked out what the 180 vs 270 deg shutter angles are and how they differ. It sounds like the silk he is talking about is more blur at 270 than 180. What I read is that the lower degree angles capture less blur and more clarity, where as the higher angles have more blur..!? Unless I understood it incorrectly?

Whatever the case, it appears that the new Hobbit films will definitely have a different look/feel to them even when shown at regular 24fps.

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


Flagg
Tol Eressea


Apr 26 2011, 1:02pm

Post #10 of 45 (659 views)
Shortcut
Your new avatar caught me off-guard [In reply to] Can't Post

I thought you were Peter Jackson for a second there. Crazy


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Apr 26 2011, 1:07pm

Post #11 of 45 (630 views)
Shortcut
I think Crunchable Birdses is right... // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Proudfeet!
Bree


Apr 26 2011, 3:04pm

Post #12 of 45 (611 views)
Shortcut
I understand the 48fps explanation... [In reply to] Can't Post

But I did graduate from film school.


Gnomeo
The Shire


Apr 26 2011, 3:20pm

Post #13 of 45 (642 views)
Shortcut
Crunchable Birdses is right [In reply to] Can't Post

He definitely meant that he prefers "24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master", as opposed to when it comes from a standart 24 fps master. He doesn't compare 24 vs 48 at all in this sentence.

In his previous post however he's quite clear that 48 is way superior to 24 and that's why he's shooting The Hobbit at this frame rate despite the higher cost.


(This post was edited by Gnomeo on Apr 26 2011, 3:22pm)


rings7
Rohan


Apr 26 2011, 4:49pm

Post #14 of 45 (570 views)
Shortcut
We shouldn't compare that [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't see why PJ should post here (cause he may read) when he can address a much wider fanbase in Facebook. I don't think every Tolkien fan alive comes to this particular board. I know several who only read the main site but never come to the forum. I even took a while to start posting here after just going to the main site for years. GDT made the personal decision to post on this forum and that was awesome. But then, they (PJ, GDT) would have to post on every Tolkien-related forum and that's impossible if that should be the case. So Facebook is a much better deal for everyone (fans and filmmakers) to communicate. So why not choosing FB over a forum?


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 26 2011, 7:48pm

Post #15 of 45 (503 views)
Shortcut
Yeah, I thought it was time for a change to something new & that picture of PJ is great // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 26 2011, 9:03pm

Post #16 of 45 (481 views)
Shortcut
Why are you misinterpreting what I posted as being negative? [In reply to] Can't Post

I was basically saying it's great that PJ (like GDT did) interacts with his fans. Though he does it via facebook and not Torn was not meant to be taken in a negative way. I'll rephrase if it helps.
It's great that both PJ and GDT have been good to keep us fans up to date and even read our comments, whether it be facebook or TORN, it doesn't matter, the fact is they are both great to do this! My comparison was to praise PJ without taking away any praise that GDT deserved in keeping us up to date and interacting with fans. I don't really care what forum or medium they choose to do it on, its just great that they do it.

Not sure how anyone could read into what I posted and take away from it a negative that I thought PJ should be posting on this forum instead of facebook, as if I thought he was choosing one over the other..!? I'm going to need to find a special 'over expressing re-interpretting misinterpretation' program to translate everything I type so that it gets re-translated into a form that can't be misinterpreted.

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 26 2011, 9:06pm

Post #17 of 45 (474 views)
Shortcut
Really? [In reply to] Can't Post

I read it again and it still doesn't read like that to me...I am open to both interpretations, but only PJ would be able to explain what he really meant before I'd be able to fully say one way or the other with 100% confidence in what he really meant.

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


rings7
Rohan


Apr 26 2011, 9:16pm

Post #18 of 45 (473 views)
Shortcut
Yes, i'm sorry [In reply to] Can't Post

i admit that i totally misunderstood your post as a "complain" that unlike GDT, PJ posted on Facebook instead of here. It was merely my mistake to read it that way. I apologize.


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 26 2011, 9:17pm

Post #19 of 45 (473 views)
Shortcut
I was starting to be on the fence [In reply to] Can't Post

and think it was 50/50 which way he meant it, but when you describe it like that, I am now closer to 85% that how I interpreted it is what he really meant.

I did read the part the same as you did about preferring "24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master" as opposed to when it comes from a standard 24 fps master... but the way he pipes up and finishes in an "as a matter of fact"ly or "actually to tell you the truth", type of phrasing about how he and the other guy actually liked the 24 better (after just having said the 48 and 24 both looked great using the 270deg angle), I'm almost sure he implied it to what he had just said when he praised both 48 & 24...and the order in which he worded it, stating about 48 first, then 24, and then the "as a matter of fact we liked 24 better", tells me it was in relation to the 48.

I guess we can all speculate and interpret what we think he meant by that until we're blue as an Avatar, but only PJ could fully give the real meaning behind what he actually meant, so with that I reserve 15% possibility that I misinterpreted it incorrectly, but that's just how I read it.


sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 26 2011, 9:22pm

Post #20 of 45 (473 views)
Shortcut
No harm done... [In reply to] Can't Post

It would be neat if google.com or some site actually had some kind of de-misinterpretation translator though (if that's even possible), that over emphasizes everything you say so that it could not possibly be taken any other way...if there were such a program, they'd have to have some fun with it and add some completely anal 10 times to long interpretations to the point of laughter...

I gotta go write such a program based on logic & comedy and sell it to google! Sly

sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


sphdle1
Gondor


Apr 26 2011, 9:47pm

Post #21 of 45 (459 views)
Shortcut
do I here 90% sure :-) [In reply to] Can't Post

I had to go back and read just the last paragraph again to see if it could be interpreted the other way as several have suggested, and now I am only 10% sure that it was meant that other way and 90% certain that my first interpretation is correct...if I go back a read it a few more times, I'm sure I can convince myself to get to 99% certaintly of which only PJ could make it 100% or 0%. Laugh

But looking at it closer, the real key is: (here's PJ's words)
"However, we're going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master."

At that point, he is no longer comparing regular 48 to 24 or to 24 down converted from 48 (as per the standard 180 deg shutter angle), he is now comparing 48 to down converted 24 based off the new 270 deg shutter angle, and how each look more silky or pleasing via that angle...then to go on with a change in preference via an "as a matter of fact" type statement. And I think he meant it as, down converted 24 at 270 look slightly better to them than 48 at 270, where as 'native' 24 at 270 would not look nearly as good. In other words, they were so impressed with what the 270 shutter angle looked like, it made the 24 down convert look slightly better than the 48 itself...
At leas that's how it reads to me.

I'm still holding 10% towards the other interpretation, so we're not at 100% disagreement Sly


sphdle1

"You shall not pass!"


Crunchable Birdses
Rohan


Apr 26 2011, 10:23pm

Post #22 of 45 (457 views)
Shortcut
Why would PJ do a u-turn on it now? [In reply to] Can't Post

Won't he look quite the fool if he now admits he prefers 24 over 48, when he's gone to all this effort (and gone to the trouble of convincing all parties involved) to shoot in 48fps?

It's just a slightly unfortunate choice of semantics from PJ, nothing more.

* crunch *


lurtz2010
Rohan

Apr 26 2011, 11:11pm

Post #23 of 45 (433 views)
Shortcut
not everyone who understands this stuff posts online [In reply to] Can't Post

and it's not even hard to understand anyway


KAOS82
Rohan


Apr 26 2011, 11:14pm

Post #24 of 45 (428 views)
Shortcut
he would be no more believable [In reply to] Can't Post

48 frames shooting with a 270° angle...well, I admit I'm not expert about it, but it sounds like "it will be revolutionary" and it will be the winning strategy Wink

TÚRIN TURAMBAR DAGNIR GLAURUNGA & NIENOR NÍNIEL


R11
Lorien

Apr 26 2011, 11:37pm

Post #25 of 45 (426 views)
Shortcut
double negative [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
and think it was 50/50 which way he meant it, but when you describe it like that, I am now closer to 85% that how I interpreted it is what he really meant.

I did read the part the same as you did about preferring "24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master" as opposed to when it comes from a standard 24 fps master... but the way he pipes up and finishes in an "as a matter of fact"ly or "actually to tell you the truth", type of phrasing about how he and the other guy actually liked the 24 better (after just having said the 48 and 24 both looked great using the 270deg angle), I'm almost sure he implied it to what he had just said when he praised both 48 & 24...and the order in which he worded it, stating about 48 first, then 24, and then the "as a matter of fact we liked 24 better", tells me it was in relation to the 48.

I guess we can all speculate and interpret what we think he meant by that until we're blue as an Avatar, but only PJ could fully give the real meaning behind what he actually meant, so with that I reserve 15% possibility that I misinterpreted it incorrectly, but that's just how I read it.



I think you misinterpreted it, period! Smile There's little doubt in my mind he meant they prefer the downconverted from 48 fps (with higher angle shutter) 24fps, over the native 24 fps (with lower shutter angle). Meanwhile, he is obviously fully appreciating the lovely, silky look from the 48 fps with higher shutter angle.


ron

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.