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:
How come PJ never saw any problems with 48 fps?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Phibbus
Rohan


Dec 10 2012, 1:51pm

Post #26 of 57 (413 views)
Shortcut
Good reference [In reply to] Can't Post

People keep assuming that lessening of motion blur is a good thing. Our eyes/brains do perceive blur in real life. In turn, however, our eyes/brains do not naturally perceive or supply blur between the contiguous still frames of a film. If it is not captured in the image itself (or added through image manipulation,) we will not see it. That blur is a large portion of what conveys "reality" to our minds, and cinematographers have traditionally gone to great lengths to tweak the degree to which it gets captured or doesn't.

Stop motion animation, by its nature, doesn't capture any motion blur, and the lack thereof was always one of the key giveaways to its "unreality"óand the major reason behind ILM's development of Go Motion in the '80s (which used vibrating motors in the models' armatures to simulate motion blur while they were being photographed.)

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.


Bombadil
Half-elven


Dec 10 2012, 2:01pm

Post #27 of 57 (432 views)
Shortcut
Bomby went to tbe LOTR Extended Edition Marathon [In reply to] Can't Post

Saturday Specifically to see it in 24 frames per second
The stuttering that PJ has been talking about
Was so obvious on a large screen
I'm seeing it and 48 frames.
PJ loves moving cameras and this is his solution!
Even moving around in bagEnd
In the Fellowship of the Ring.
It's a mistake not to follow PJ's lead.


dormouse
Half-elven


Dec 10 2012, 2:09pm

Post #28 of 57 (417 views)
Shortcut
I think you're being unduly negative [In reply to] Can't Post

Remember the film hasn't even been released yet, so most people haven't seen it - which makes your claim that 'nobody' likes it pretty thin. And since I haven't seen it I can't decide either way but I daresay, like most things, some will like it, some won't.

Where's the fire?


LordotRings93
Rohan


Dec 10 2012, 3:26pm

Post #29 of 57 (348 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post

Of course Peter will like the format. He's starting it, really. And he's been looking at it for a year or so now, so it's probably grown on him to the extent it's like 24 fps. PJ wasn't even use to it at first, as he stated in many an interview it takes sometime to get use to.

I won't be seeing it in 48 fps, mainly because my theater won't have it, and because I'd rather just see it normally, then maybe down the road check it out in 48 fps.

Lover of Medieval Fantasy
"I know what I must do. It's just... I'm afraid to do it."


frodolives
Lorien

Dec 10 2012, 4:29pm

Post #30 of 57 (359 views)
Shortcut
It was a mistake to show it to critics [In reply to] Can't Post

I have read about 30+ reviews of the film and I have yet to find a single critic that truly enjoyed the 48fps. Not one. This was a massive mistake; critics are hard to please as it is without giving them something else to complain about. I hope the next two films are previewed at 24fps, but I doubt it.


utku
Rivendell


Dec 10 2012, 4:37pm

Post #31 of 57 (347 views)
Shortcut
I think that mistake was done in CinemaCon 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

The negative reactions from it made the headlines everywhere, I don't know a single person who's going to the Hobbit and didn't hear about it (Hell, if you google CinemaCon the first thing that pops up is still that piece of news). Plus I would bet "soap opera look" wording is originated from there as well. That was PJ's biggest mistake. I wonder how many critics would have approached HFR with more openmindedness if it didn't happen.


dave_lf
Gondor

Dec 10 2012, 4:43pm

Post #32 of 57 (342 views)
Shortcut
Who says he didn't? [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe he knew it would receive a mixed reception, but honestly believes it is the way to go and decided to spend some of his political capital to make it happen.


sycorax82
Rohan

Dec 10 2012, 4:46pm

Post #33 of 57 (342 views)
Shortcut
Who knows how many people are seeing this correctly-projected... [In reply to] Can't Post

I just have this feeling that some projectionists won't know what the hell they're doing with this format and it won't get displayed properly. A few of the reviews have made me suspect this.


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Dec 10 2012, 4:58pm

Post #34 of 57 (321 views)
Shortcut
Sarcasm Loves Company [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm glad I'm not the only one who missed the OP's sarcasm. Several folks in this thread are just like me.

Wink


Artemis Roach
Bree


Dec 10 2012, 7:15pm

Post #35 of 57 (262 views)
Shortcut
Benny Hill, etc. [In reply to] Can't Post

What I don't understand: If you shoot in 24 fps and play back in 24 fps, it doesn't look sped up. If you shoot in 30 fps and play back in 30 fps, it doesn't look sped up. Ergo, theoretically, if you shoot in 48 fps and play back in 48 fps, it should NOT look sped up, UNLESS the projector is not up to the task.


Quote
the critics reporting abnormally fast motion just don't realize that they're just not used to it.


dormouse
Half-elven


Dec 10 2012, 7:28pm

Post #36 of 57 (261 views)
Shortcut
Oh - was it sarcasm? [In reply to] Can't Post

Wasted on me, I'm afraid! Tongue


Finrod
Rohan


Dec 10 2012, 7:46pm

Post #37 of 57 (250 views)
Shortcut
We do not really know why yet [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
What I don't understand: If you shoot in 24 fps and play back in 24 fps, it doesn't look sped up. If you shoot in 30 fps and play back in 30 fps, it doesn't look sped up. Ergo, theoretically, if you shoot in 48 fps and play back in 48 fps, it should NOT look sped up, UNLESS the projector is not up to the task.


Quote
the critics reporting abnormally fast motion just don't realize that they're just not used to it.



I think itís more than that. We donít really understand whatís going on yet. It seems to have to do with how your brain perceives motion, both speed and acceleration considered separately, when viewing frames like this.

If you watch the same scene shot at 12, 18, 24, 30, 48, 60, 120 fps, they do not seem to move at the same speed, even though they in fact do so. One theory is that you are getting twice as much info at 48 fps as you are used to getting at 24 fps, so your brain assumes that there must be more motion occurring.

We donít yet understand what causes all this, nor whether it is permanent. It seems not to be, because kids used to 60 fps games never even notice it. Nor, apparently, do the filmmakers, who presumably got used to it reviewing footage in putting it together.

We donít know. Yet. Time will tell.

…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 trees
in Valinor and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war.
The Lays of Beleriand, p 311




Artemis Roach
Bree


Dec 10 2012, 7:55pm

Post #38 of 57 (243 views)
Shortcut
Ebert and Maxivision48 [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm curious what Roger will think. He is on the record hating 3D. But for the past 15 years he has been championing an analogue film process Maxivision48, which although different from PJ's digital HFR 48, seems to be the same principle of 48 frames shot & projected per second (if I understand him correctly).


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Dec 10 2012, 8:09pm

Post #39 of 57 (237 views)
Shortcut
I saw a Siskel & Ebert back in the 80s [In reply to] Can't Post

where Ebert talked glowingly about Douglas Trumbull's hfr process, and i've been waiting for it ever since. Very interested in what he has to say about it, and i can't wait to see it for myself.


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Dec 10 2012, 8:10pm

Post #40 of 57 (227 views)
Shortcut
Notice: This Is A Sarcastic Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't know whether it's the threaded or flat structure that causes folks to miss posts, but I missed the OP's sarcasm too and replied to it at face value, as you did. I view threads flat so I don't miss anything, but I did miss the sarcasm. ;) . You can see my initial response somewhere in this thread and the OP's clarification that he is a "PROPONENT" of HFR. I'm pretty good with sarcasm, but the OP's post is a masterful use of it. LOL.


Artemis Roach
Bree


Dec 10 2012, 8:32pm

Post #41 of 57 (229 views)
Shortcut
AC/DC [In reply to] Can't Post

I put on my tin-foil hat and think about Thomas Edison electrocuting elephants to discredit Nikola Tesla's alternating-current, and then imagining corporate rivals (hackers) infecting HFR48 digital projectors with a "Benny Hill Bug." I take off my tin-foil hat, and I can't wait to see this 48 FPS.


(This post was edited by Artemis Roach on Dec 10 2012, 8:34pm)


Phibbus
Rohan


Dec 10 2012, 9:30pm

Post #42 of 57 (211 views)
Shortcut
Con-current [In reply to] Can't Post

Someone over on the IMDb Hobbit board started a thread about Edison's advocacy of high motion picture frame rates, and I responded regarding his (as you point out, sometimes wackily-exhibited) adherence to DC transmission.

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.


Finrod
Rohan


Dec 10 2012, 9:48pm

Post #43 of 57 (216 views)
Shortcut
Edison thread? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Someone over on the IMDb Hobbit board started a thread about Edison's advocacy of high motion picture frame rates, and I responded regarding his (as you point out, sometimes wackily-exhibited) adherence to DC transmission.


Could you please post a link to that discussion so that those of us not used to wandering around over there can find it?

Thanks.

…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 trees
in Valinor and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war.
The Lays of Beleriand, p 311




R11
Lorien

Dec 10 2012, 10:59pm

Post #44 of 57 (187 views)
Shortcut
It is a good thing, shooting at HFR does not give us super visual processing power [In reply to] Can't Post

There is no blur in reality. Our optical system "sees" blur when motion is fast enough to overload the system and images can't be processed clearly :-). Our eyes will create blur on anything we see that is over that threshold, even if it's recorded footage shot at very high frame rates. Take some footage shot at super high rates and play it back slowly and it's amazing slo-mo. But play it back at regular speed and it will look just as blurry as if you saw it in real life. The blurring we perceive that gives us a feeling of motion always comes from motion which is over that threshold where our eyes/brain processing can no longer "keep up". Shooting at higher rates, assuming playback at the regular rate, will only reduce the blur that's under the threshold. Once you get to that threshold your brain will start to blur what you're watching on it's own. Put another way, the only blur that shooting at higher rates removes, is the "unnatural" blur we wouldn't see in real life. When people complain that it makes things look too clear they can only mean in comparison to the blurry 24 fps they are used to seeing from movies.


ron


Notanelvishname
Lorien

Dec 11 2012, 12:25am

Post #45 of 57 (165 views)
Shortcut
Thank you for the informations [In reply to] Can't Post

It is the best and most educated description so far.
It seems like when people are facing something they don't like they tend to justify it with a mixture of pseudo science and artistique principles.
No we can set the score right.

Note : It's the same when I read that Jackson likes HFR because he watched daylies in 48fps for two years and now he is accustomed. So he choose to shoot in a format he didn't like at first, gambling on the fact that he might get used to it in the end ?


Phibbus
Rohan


Dec 11 2012, 12:55am

Post #46 of 57 (144 views)
Shortcut
Sorry [In reply to] Can't Post

Here's the link....

http://www.imdb.com/...ard/thread/208021785

although the thread is mostly just the usual snarking back and forth.

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.


Escapist
Gondor


Dec 11 2012, 1:00am

Post #47 of 57 (148 views)
Shortcut
Everybody doesn't have a problem with 48 FPS ... [In reply to] Can't Post

... nor does everybody have a problem with 3 movies or 3 hours.

But some people have a problem with these things (and they are not the majority) ... however, some of them are "important", so we hear a lot about it.

Furthermore, people can choose 24 FPS.


Phibbus
Rohan


Dec 11 2012, 1:03am

Post #48 of 57 (148 views)
Shortcut
Blur again [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Our eyes will create blur on anything we see that is over that threshold, even if it's recorded footage shot at very high frame rates.

That simply is not the case. There is not enough intervening visual information in a sequence of still images, even at 120fps, to cause your eye to perceive blur. This is the reason why video games, even when in excess of 60fps, look staggeredóand the reason why their developers have begun incorporating motion blur algorithms into them.

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.


Escapist
Gondor


Dec 11 2012, 1:11am

Post #49 of 57 (140 views)
Shortcut
That's surprising! [In reply to] Can't Post

If they need to add blurring, then why aren't they just dropping the frame rates back down instead?


Phibbus
Rohan


Dec 11 2012, 1:23am

Post #50 of 57 (134 views)
Shortcut
Clarification [In reply to] Can't Post

Do you mean in film or in video games? If the latter, the blur will not be present no matter what the frame rate if it is not introduced.

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 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.