|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phibbus
Nargothrond
Dec 10 2012, 1:51pm
Post #26 of 57
(807 views)
Shortcut
|
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"—and 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
Gondolin
Dec 10 2012, 2:01pm
Post #27 of 57
(827 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
Gondolin
Dec 10 2012, 2:09pm
Post #28 of 57
(811 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
Nargothrond
Dec 10 2012, 3:26pm
Post #29 of 57
(743 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Menegroth
Dec 10 2012, 4:29pm
Post #30 of 57
(754 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
Ossiriand
Dec 10 2012, 4:37pm
Post #31 of 57
(743 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
Mithlond
Dec 10 2012, 4:43pm
Post #32 of 57
(736 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Nargothrond
Dec 10 2012, 4:46pm
Post #33 of 57
(736 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
Hithlum
Dec 10 2012, 4:58pm
Post #34 of 57
(715 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm glad I'm not the only one who missed the OP's sarcasm. Several folks in this thread are just like me.
|
|
|
Artemis Roach
Nevrast
Dec 10 2012, 7:15pm
Post #35 of 57
(657 views)
Shortcut
|
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.
the critics reporting abnormally fast motion just don't realize that they're just not used to it.
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Dec 10 2012, 7:28pm
Post #36 of 57
(655 views)
Shortcut
|
Wasted on me, I'm afraid! 
|
|
|
Finrod
Nargothrond
Dec 10 2012, 7:46pm
Post #37 of 57
(645 views)
Shortcut
|
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. the critics reporting abnormally fast motion just don't realize that they're just not used to it.
I think it’s more than that. We don’t really understand what’s 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 treesin Valinor and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war.The Lays of Beleriand, p 311
|
|
|
Artemis Roach
Nevrast
Dec 10 2012, 7:55pm
Post #38 of 57
(637 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Dor-Lomin
Dec 10 2012, 8:09pm
Post #39 of 57
(631 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
Hithlum
Dec 10 2012, 8:10pm
Post #40 of 57
(621 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
Nevrast
Dec 10 2012, 8:32pm
Post #41 of 57
(623 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Nargothrond
Dec 10 2012, 9:30pm
Post #42 of 57
(606 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Nargothrond
Dec 10 2012, 9:48pm
Post #43 of 57
(610 views)
Shortcut
|
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 treesin Valinor and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war.The Lays of Beleriand, p 311
|
|
|
R11
Menegroth
Dec 10 2012, 10:59pm
Post #44 of 57
(581 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
Menegroth
Dec 11 2012, 12:25am
Post #45 of 57
(559 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 ?
|
|
|
Escapist
Mithlond
Dec 11 2012, 1:00am
Post #47 of 57
(542 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
Nargothrond
Dec 11 2012, 1:03am
Post #48 of 57
(542 views)
Shortcut
|
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 staggered—and 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
Mithlond
Dec 11 2012, 1:11am
Post #49 of 57
(534 views)
Shortcut
|
If they need to add blurring, then why aren't they just dropping the frame rates back down instead?
|
|
|
Phibbus
Nargothrond
Dec 11 2012, 1:23am
Post #50 of 57
(530 views)
Shortcut
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
