Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[The Hobbit] Rough cut is in the wild!

1151618202195

Posts

  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Waaaaaait how is Aragorn older than Theoden?

    The Dunedain, of which Aragorn is the most prominent in the books, both because of their ancestry (their kings are descended from the brother of Elrond, whose mother was an elf) and because of their ancestors part in the wars against Mogroth in the first age they were granted a great deal of power - long life, physical strength etc... - by the Valar. Originally they would often live up to 300 years or so. At the time of LOTR those descended from them often still live up to 150 or more. Aragorn himself lives to be 210 (being in his late 80s at the time of LOTR).

    "Dunedain" is a Sindarin (the most common language of the elves in middle earth) word for humans descended from Numenoreans. But not all of them. It really means the descendants of those fraction of the Numenorians who remained friendly to the elves and didn't end up rebelling against the Valar.

    Note that most of the Ringwraiths (including the Witch King, their leader) were also Numenoreans. They were by no means all - or even mostly at the end - "good guys". Their island kingdom of Numenor was eventually destroyed when most of them rebelled against the Valar and tried to invade the blessed lands by force of arms (they became bitter chiefly over the fact that while they were longer lived than most mortals in the end they still would die and they desired to live forever).

    Out of the destruction of Numenor, a fraction of those who had remained friendly with the elves (and were peresecuted by the kings) escaped to Middle Earth. The Numenoreans had been visting as explorers and eventually colonial conquerers for a long time. Many of the enemies of Gondor in LOTR (the southrons etc...) are distant cousins of the Dunedain. Same bloodlines, but very different uses of their advantages. A lot of the reason the Dunlendings and southrons are able to be whipped up by Saruman and Sauron against Gondor is because the Numenoreans were often brutal, oppressive overlords and are not remembered fondly in many places.

    RiemannLives on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Yeah, the only reason I knew Aragorn was not a normal human was from the Extended Edition. Eowyn turns all deredere and asks him about it, because Theoden told her that he remembered Aragon when he was a little boy.

    I must have watch the Extended Edition a zillion times. And I ain't done.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    Cantido wrote: »
    Yeah, the only reason I knew Aragorn was not a normal human was from the Extended Edition. Eowyn turns all deredere and asks him about it, because Theoden remembered Aragon when he was a little boy.

    I must have watch the Extended Edition a zillion times. And I ain't done.

    All of the "Rangers" that come out of the north and meet up with Aragorn in Rohan are also Dunedain. And of course a fair few of the people of Gondor are also descended from those who fled the destruction of Numenor with Elendil.

  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    Cantido wrote: »
    Yeah, the only reason I knew Aragorn was not a normal human was from the Extended Edition. Eowyn turns all deredere and asks him about it, because Theoden told her that he remembered Aragon when he was a little boy.

    I must have watch the Extended Edition a zillion times. And I ain't done.


    I dread 2014 when watching all five movies in a row will be a possibility.

    Has Jackson said he's doing extended editions for the Hobbit movies?

  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    Has Jackson said he's doing extended editions for the Hobbit movies?

    Jackson comments upon that here. The short version is, "most likely."

    While I don't know it would be absolutely crucial for a single story already broken into two films (that are likely going to be 2.5-3 hours, each, already) to be further elongated by Extended Editions, I'm very aware that the shoot for the two Hobbit films is actually going to be substantially longer than the shoot for all three LOTR films. There could very easily be enough footage left over to go all-out on some EEs.


    I can just see spending 18 hours of my life watching Middle Earth come to life.

  • MaratastikMaratastik Just call me Mara, please! Registered User regular
    Waaaaaait how is Aragorn older than Theoden?

    The Dunedain, of which Aragorn is the most prominent in the books, both because of their ancestry (their kings are descended from the brother of Elrond, whose mother was an elf) and because of their ancestors part in the wars against Mogroth in the first age they were granted a great deal of power - long life, physical strength etc... - by the Valar. Originally they would often live up to 300 years or so. At the time of LOTR those descended from them often still live up to 150 or more. Aragorn himself lives to be 210 (being in his late 80s at the time of LOTR).

    "Dunedain" is a Sindarin (the most common language of the elves in middle earth) word for humans descended from Numenoreans. But not all of them. It really means the descendants of those fraction of the Numenorians who remained friendly to the elves and didn't end up rebelling against the Valar.

    Note that most of the Ringwraiths (including the Witch King, their leader) were also Numenoreans. They were by no means all - or even mostly at the end - "good guys". Their island kingdom of Numenor was eventually destroyed when most of them rebelled against the Valar and tried to invade the blessed lands by force of arms (they became bitter chiefly over the fact that while they were longer lived than most mortals in the end they still would die and they desired to live forever).

    Out of the destruction of Numenor, a fraction of those who had remained friendly with the elves (and were peresecuted by the kings) escaped to Middle Earth. The Numenoreans had been visting as explorers and eventually colonial conquerers for a long time. Many of the enemies of Gondor in LOTR (the southrons etc...) are distant cousins of the Dunedain. Same bloodlines, but very different uses of their advantages. A lot of the reason the Dunlendings and southrons are able to be whipped up by Saruman and Sauron against Gondor is because the Numenoreans were often brutal, oppressive overlords and are not remembered fondly in many places.

    Don't forget about Sauron's role in the fall of Numenor. He had major influence over the king and really helped encourage the bitterness the numenorians felt towards the elves and valar.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Behemoth wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    It's weird that they are dividing the Hobbit into two movies. Oh, I know it is all the rage since HP did it but if you really look at the Hobbit you'll see that it has a very condensed narrative already that could easily be adapted to a single 2 hour, 20-30 minutes.

    What I'm worried about the most is that part 1 is the meat of the book and part 2 is a two hour long version of the battle of five armies...which takes about five pages in the book.

    The Hobbit is more then enough book for 2 movies. There's a full movies worth of story just getting to Laketown. And I'm betting that's where the break will be. The whole kurfuffle with the mountain and the dragon and the siege and the battle will be movie 2 and that's more then enough material.

    I think in terms of pacing ending the first movie at Beorns house would work better. You get the escape from the goblins and the stuff from the chapter "Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire" as the climax of the first movie with chillin' at Beorns house as the resolution.

    Yeah, that would work really well. There's a lot of stuff that happens in The Hobbit, to do it justice it would have to be really long anyway. Better to add a little bit and make it 2 movies.

    I'm trying to stay away from too many spoilers, but it seems that Jackson is working hard to not only get in all the goodness from source material, but also throw in both a good bit about the goings on in Middle Earth around the same time (the White Council, et al) and events that would tie the Hobbit films to the greater LOTR story (the Loosing of the Nine).

    I'm leery of some of it.

    I do think some explanation is needed though because the books "Gandalf takes off for awhile" thing just wouldn't fly in a film. But I worry a bit they'll add too much extraneous bullshit.

  • RotamRotam Registered User regular
    Cantido wrote: »
    Yeah, the only reason I knew Aragorn was not a normal human was from the Extended Edition. Eowyn turns all deredere and asks him about it, because Theoden told her that he remembered Aragon when he was a little boy.

    I must have watch the Extended Edition a zillion times. And I ain't done.

    I think I've watched them all once this year already. I intend to get another viewing done soon.

  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Has Jackson said he's doing extended editions for the Hobbit movies?

    Jackson comments upon that here. The short version is, "most likely."

    While I don't know it would be absolutely crucial for a single story already broken into two films (that are likely going to be 2.5-3 hours, each, already) to be further elongated by Extended Editions, I'm very aware that the shoot for the two Hobbit films is actually going to be substantially longer than the shoot for all three LOTR films. There could very easily be enough footage left over to go all-out on some EEs.

    I can just see spending 18 hours of my life watching Middle Earth come to life.

    I'd be shocked if they didn't, since the studios made bales of extra money off them and the fans ate it up. Everyone would be leaving money on the table if they didn't. Though weirder things have happened.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Has Jackson said he's doing extended editions for the Hobbit movies?

    Jackson comments upon that here. The short version is, "most likely."

    While I don't know it would be absolutely crucial for a single story already broken into two films (that are likely going to be 2.5-3 hours, each, already) to be further elongated by Extended Editions, I'm very aware that the shoot for the two Hobbit films is actually going to be substantially longer than the shoot for all three LOTR films. There could very easily be enough footage left over to go all-out on some EEs.

    I can just see spending 18 hours of my life watching Middle Earth come to life.

    I'd be shocked if they didn't, since the studios made bales of extra money off them and the fans ate it up. Everyone would be leaving money on the table if they didn't. Though weirder things have happened.

    Though speaking of leaving money on the table, Christopher Tolkien ranks pretty high on my list of oblivious douchenozzles.

    But yes, I can easily see them pulling out Extended Editions. Meaning I would have quite the weekend to plan.

  • thepotato232thepotato232 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I dread 2014 when watching all five movies in a row will mandatory.

    I've got two years to find The World's Comfiest Chair.

    thepotato232 on
    Butt inquiries are completely fair game.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Has Jackson said he's doing extended editions for the Hobbit movies?

    Jackson comments upon that here. The short version is, "most likely."

    While I don't know it would be absolutely crucial for a single story already broken into two films (that are likely going to be 2.5-3 hours, each, already) to be further elongated by Extended Editions, I'm very aware that the shoot for the two Hobbit films is actually going to be substantially longer than the shoot for all three LOTR films. There could very easily be enough footage left over to go all-out on some EEs.

    I can just see spending 18 hours of my life watching Middle Earth come to life.

    I'd be shocked if they didn't, since the studios made bales of extra money off them and the fans ate it up. Everyone would be leaving money on the table if they didn't. Though weirder things have happened.

    Though speaking of leaving money on the table, Christopher Tolkien ranks pretty high on my list of oblivious douchenozzles.

    But yes, I can easily see them pulling out Extended Editions. Meaning I would have quite the weekend to plan.

    Why is he a douchenozzle? Does he do anything other then not want his dad's stuff (that he owns) to be filmed? Cause that doesn't really make one a douchenozzle.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Has Jackson said he's doing extended editions for the Hobbit movies?

    Jackson comments upon that here. The short version is, "most likely."

    While I don't know it would be absolutely crucial for a single story already broken into two films (that are likely going to be 2.5-3 hours, each, already) to be further elongated by Extended Editions, I'm very aware that the shoot for the two Hobbit films is actually going to be substantially longer than the shoot for all three LOTR films. There could very easily be enough footage left over to go all-out on some EEs.

    I can just see spending 18 hours of my life watching Middle Earth come to life.

    I'd be shocked if they didn't, since the studios made bales of extra money off them and the fans ate it up. Everyone would be leaving money on the table if they didn't. Though weirder things have happened.

    Though speaking of leaving money on the table, Christopher Tolkien ranks pretty high on my list of oblivious douchenozzles.

    But yes, I can easily see them pulling out Extended Editions. Meaning I would have quite the weekend to plan.

    Why is he a douchenozzle? Does he do anything other then not want his dad's stuff (that he owns) to be filmed? Cause that doesn't really make one a douchenozzle.

    I think he's a jerk because, among other things, he's very possessive of a body of work that isn't his and yet has made him terribly wealthy, from leasing the rights for the films to all the "editing" work he's done on his father's posthumous work that you still see in stores. He's a notch above Brian Herbert on the "let's ride this corpse all the way to the bank" scale, but gets all butt-hurt when other people try to do the same thing on a grander scale, including the Jackson films, and has stated a refusal to license any further works of his father for adaptation.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    That's an incredibly unfair characterization from what I've read of the man.

    He's taken his dad's work that's mostly complete and edited it up. He's several notches above Brian Herbert, so much so that I don't even think they're on the same scale. Until Kevin J Anderson starts releasing sequels to LOTR I don't think the comparison is really applicable at all.

    And at the end of the day, what rights holders do with their stuff isn't any of our business. Tolkien seems like he's just cleaning up the massive backlog of things that his dad left unfinished when he died and he doesn't want people to muck it up (like a repeat of those awful cartoons).

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    That's an incredibly unfair characterization from what I've read of the man.

    He's taken his dad's work that's mostly complete and edited it up. He's several notches above Brian Herbert, so much so that I don't even think they're on the same scale. Until Kevin J Anderson starts releasing sequels to LOTR I don't think the comparison is really applicable at all.

    And at the end of the day, what rights holders do with their stuff isn't any of our business. Tolkien seems like he's just cleaning up the massive backlog of things that his dad left unfinished when he died and he doesn't want people to muck it up (like a repeat of those awful cartoons).

    I'll say about this what I say to people who complain about the Daniel Craig 007 films not being "real Bond:" No work can undo something already done.

    If Peter Jackson totally botches The Hobbit, Tolkien's books are still going to be there. But Peter Jackson took Tolkien out of the shadows of genre shame and geekery and made it a worldwide phenomenon, and it's likely that Jackson has done more to sell Tolkien's books than any one person other than Tolkien himself.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    True, but you don't get to dictate how rights holders use those rights. That's the kind of argument that should be used to try to convince him to let them make some more movies or what have you, not an argument to call him a douchenozzle.

    Basically, if JRR Tolkien was doing what his son was doing, would you still think he's a jerk?

    If so, I think you're asserting ownership over something you don't really have any ownership over.

    Fans aren't entitled to anything.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    Basically, if JRR Tolkien was doing what his son was doing, would you still think he's a jerk?

    Not really, because an artist should be entitled to some measure of control. I appreciate Christopher Tolkien's desire to maintain his father's legacy, but he's also cashing in on it, as well.

  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    Basically, if JRR Tolkien was doing what his son was doing, would you still think he's a jerk?

    Not really, because an artist should be entitled to some measure of control. I appreciate Christopher Tolkien's desire to maintain his father's legacy, but he's also cashing in on it, as well.

    If I remember correctly from his letters, the only thing J.R.R hated more than theater was musical theater.

    Not only did it run for more than a year on the West End, the Lord of the Rings musical was pretty damned awful.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    True, but you don't get to dictate how rights holders use those rights. That's the kind of argument that should be used to try to convince him to let them make some more movies or what have you, not an argument to call him a douchenozzle.

    Basically, if JRR Tolkien was doing what his son was doing, would you still think he's a jerk?

    If so, I think you're asserting ownership over something you don't really have any ownership over.

    Fans aren't entitled to anything.

    So is Christopher Tolkien. Bullshit IP laws are the only reason he's got anything going right now.

    Him releasing his father's notes and such? That was cool. Well done.

    Him keeping a stranglehold on every single piece of IP related to Tolkien? Fuck you.


    It's not cool when Disney fucks around like this, it's not any cooler when Christopher Tolkien does it.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    What?

    Tolkien writes and never releases something.

    Tolkien Died.

    Little Tolkien inherits his father's stuff, including drafts and notes.

    ?????

    Little Tolkien doesn't own it! It belongs to the internet!


    So, I'm calling bullshit on that.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    What?

    Tolkien writes and never releases something.

    Tolkien Died.

    Little Tolkien inherits his father's stuff, including drafts and notes.

    ?????

    Little Tolkien doesn't own it! It belongs to the internet!


    So, I'm calling bullshit on that.

    Do you not understand the idea of public domain at all? Or just IP law in general?

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    What?

    Tolkien writes and never releases something.

    Tolkien Died.

    Little Tolkien inherits his father's stuff, including drafts and notes.

    ?????

    Little Tolkien doesn't own it! It belongs to the internet!


    So, I'm calling bullshit on that.

    Do you not understand the idea of public domain at all? Or just IP law in general?

    Do you?

    It's his. It isn't ours and it shouldn't be.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    What?

    Tolkien writes and never releases something.

    Tolkien Died.

    Little Tolkien inherits his father's stuff, including drafts and notes.

    ?????

    Little Tolkien doesn't own it! It belongs to the internet!


    So, I'm calling bullshit on that.

    Do you not understand the idea of public domain at all? Or just IP law in general?

    Do you?

    It's his. It isn't ours and it shouldn't be.

    Well, it's not so much "his" as it it's "in his stewardship."

    Not exactly apples and oranges. And it can kind of be argued that Chris Tolkien is ardently refusing to let others have access to his father's work because it's just invading his turf.

    He may not be as craven and irreverent as Brian Herbert, but they're just about tied for posthumous publications of their father's work.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    What?

    Tolkien writes and never releases something.

    Tolkien Died.

    Little Tolkien inherits his father's stuff, including drafts and notes.

    ?????

    Little Tolkien doesn't own it! It belongs to the internet!


    So, I'm calling bullshit on that.

    Do you not understand the idea of public domain at all? Or just IP law in general?

    Do you?

    It's his. It isn't ours and it shouldn't be.

    Well, it's not so much "his" as it it's "in his stewardship."

    Not exactly apples and oranges. And it can kind of be argued that Chris Tolkien is ardently refusing to let others have access to his father's work because it's just invading his turf.

    He may not be as craven and irreverent as Brian Herbert, but they're just about tied for posthumous publications of their father's work.

    I guess I'm just not seeing where that's the problem.

    If you look at what they've done as stewards of their father's work, Tolkien is street ahead as Middle Earth is still a coherent and rich universe and Dune has Kevin J Anderson in it.

    And in his stewardship means its his in this context, let's not split hairs just so we can hate someone.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    What?

    Tolkien writes and never releases something.

    Tolkien Died.

    Little Tolkien inherits his father's stuff, including drafts and notes.

    ?????

    Little Tolkien doesn't own it! It belongs to the internet!


    So, I'm calling bullshit on that.

    Do you not understand the idea of public domain at all? Or just IP law in general?

    Do you?

    It's his. It isn't ours and it shouldn't be.

    Well, it's not so much "his" as it it's "in his stewardship."

    Not exactly apples and oranges. And it can kind of be argued that Chris Tolkien is ardently refusing to let others have access to his father's work because it's just invading his turf.

    He may not be as craven and irreverent as Brian Herbert, but they're just about tied for posthumous publications of their father's work.

    I guess I'm just not seeing where that's the problem.

    If you look at what they've done as stewards of their father's work, Tolkien is street ahead as Middle Earth is still a coherent and rich universe and Dune has Kevin J Anderson in it.

    And in his stewardship means its his in this context, let's not split hairs just so we can hate someone.

    Oh, I don't hate Chris Tolkien, and I certainly agree that he's nowhere near the monster Brian Herbert is, but I do feel that he's being a little possessive and baseless in his desire to keep Middle Earth out of the hands of anyone else, especially in the light of how many people thought Jackson's films to be so wonderful.

    If Chris Tolkien gets any royalties from selling the LOTR or Hobbit books, then Peter Jackson has probably made him fabulously wealthy, and if nothing else, Jackson has extended and broadened the appeal of his father's works. That should count for something, especially considering how Jackson almost singlehandedly pulled fantasy from its B-movie ghetto and put it front and center in the critical and commercial mainstream.

  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    Peter Jackson sits down with The Hollywood Reporter and Entertainment Weekly to discuss the fallout from the poor reception to The Hobbit being shown in 48fps at CinemaCon earlier this week.

    The short version:

    - PJ assures us that all the promotional material from this point forward will be in 24fps.
    - The Hobbit films will be released in SIX different formats: 2D, 3D, and IMAX, each in 24fps and 48fps.
    - Jackson reiterates the line, "You just have to get used to it."
    - Says that he's going to keep making movies in 48fps anyway, since "it's the future."


    Ah, well. I still plan to see the film at least twice, for comparison.

  • Caveman PawsCaveman Paws Registered User regular
    As long as they are providing the film in the (currently) desired 24fps (because we are ignorant fools who aren't "with it" yet) I'm happy.

    They will probably be releasing a different version of the movie every few years for the next decade anyway so, the more the merrier.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    What?

    Tolkien writes and never releases something.

    Tolkien Died.

    Little Tolkien inherits his father's stuff, including drafts and notes.

    ?????

    Little Tolkien doesn't own it! It belongs to the internet!


    So, I'm calling bullshit on that.

    Do you not understand the idea of public domain at all? Or just IP law in general?

    Do you?

    It's his. It isn't ours and it shouldn't be.

    Wait, so you are arguing against the idea of public domain?

    What the fuck are you on?

  • HeirHeir Registered User regular
    Why is it worse being seen in 48fps instead of the standard 24? I've never really understood how all that works with regards to film.

    camo_sig2.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    Heir wrote: »
    Why is it worse being seen in 48fps instead of the standard 24? I've never really understood how all that works with regards to film.

    It's difficult to explain without a visual aid.

    The science on it says that the picture is much clearer and sharp because 48fps is much closer to the refresh rate of the natural human eye; the eye has a rate of perceived regular motion between 18 and 60 fps (give or take).

    At 24fps, motion blurring occurs that mimics very similarly what the human eye generally perceives; any slower than that and it looks too slow and unreal, and any faster than that and it looks too real, if you get my meaning. When the rate gets as high as 48 or 60fps, the eye begins to notice sharpness and detail that isn't normally associated with passive vision, so while it can see the images, they don't process the same way that an image at 24fps does.

    The look of "Cinema," as a technical definition, is a combination of framerate and filmstock. Is 48fps worse? I think that's a hard argument to make. But it certainly doesn't look like cinema.

  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    Basically everything past 24 FPS starts to look like a home movie, simply because you're eyes aren't used to actually noticing that much detail. You're kind of forced to take in everything, including the stuff that would normally be filtered by your brain or on your peripheral vision if it was you looking at the scene, rather than the camera. This leads to disconnect in viewers, and why a lot of "Real" sets on TV shows look fake or low budget, despite being crafted and actually there.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    Also, the idea of stuff looking Too Real and having the opposite effect is called the Uncanny Valley.

    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    Heir wrote: »
    Why is it worse being seen in 48fps instead of the standard 24? I've never really understood how all that works with regards to film.

    It's difficult to explain without a visual aid.

    The science on it says that the picture is much clearer and sharp because 48fps is much closer to the refresh rate of the natural human eye; the eye has a rate of perceived regular motion between 18 and 60 fps (give or take).

    At 24fps, motion blurring occurs that mimics very similarly what the human eye generally perceives; any slower than that and it looks too slow and unreal, and any faster than that and it looks too real, if you get my meaning. When the rate gets as high as 48 or 60fps, the eye begins to notice sharpness and detail that isn't normally associated with passive vision, so while it can see the images, they don't process the same way that an image at 24fps does.

    The look of "Cinema," as a technical definition, is a combination of framerate and filmstock. Is 48fps worse? I think that's a hard argument to make. But it certainly doesn't look like cinema.

    Wow, that's the best explanation on the matter I've seen yet. Thank you very much, Ross.

  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    Heir wrote: »
    Why is it worse being seen in 48fps instead of the standard 24? I've never really understood how all that works with regards to film.

    It's difficult to explain without a visual aid.

    The science on it says that the picture is much clearer and sharp because 48fps is much closer to the refresh rate of the natural human eye; the eye has a rate of perceived regular motion between 18 and 60 fps (give or take).

    At 24fps, motion blurring occurs that mimics very similarly what the human eye generally perceives; any slower than that and it looks too slow and unreal, and any faster than that and it looks too real, if you get my meaning. When the rate gets as high as 48 or 60fps, the eye begins to notice sharpness and detail that isn't normally associated with passive vision, so while it can see the images, they don't process the same way that an image at 24fps does.

    The look of "Cinema," as a technical definition, is a combination of framerate and filmstock. Is 48fps worse? I think that's a hard argument to make. But it certainly doesn't look like cinema.

    Wow, that's the best explanation on the matter I've seen yet. Thank you very much, Ross.

    No problem.

    Cantido wrote: »
    Also, the idea of stuff looking Too Real and having the opposite effect is called the Uncanny Valley.

    Indeed. While the details of visual science aren't completely understood, theories like the Uncanny Valley go a long way to explain how vision and cognition have certain hardwired expectations as to what is "real" and what looks too close for comfort. It's the same reason that people find facial features that are "too perfect" unnerving and ultimately unattractive.

  • DHSDHS Chase lizards.. ...bark at donkeys..Registered User regular
    Yeah, considering I saw the Lord of Rings each six times in the the theater I don't really mind checking it out six times in different formats, even. I'm excited for the frame rate thing, I think the tradition "cinema" look, which is an important and invaluable artistic concept is also something created out of technical limitations and accepted practices. Those limitations, however, are what helped in driving the art, and it sounds like the frame rate leap opens up new possibilities and limitations which to me are just as exciting as the possibilities, because overcoming limitations are what drives things to becoming transcendent. I'm also not to overly sentimental about things like how it "should" look, especially if the craft is still there, and it's more intriguing to think that it'll be something entirely new. I believe anyway, that will just be an artistic choice in the near future, with different trade-offs and sacrifices, and coping with those will be what determines if it's ultimately a worthwhile evolution.

    "Grip 'em up, grip 'em, grip 'em good, said the Gryphon... to the pig."
  • HeirHeir Registered User regular
    The explanation makes very good sense Ross. Thanks.

    That's probably why I don't like watching TV on my brother's huge LED TV. It almost seems like its slightly fast forwarded if that makese sense.

    camo_sig2.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    - The Hobbit films will be released in SIX different formats: 2D, 3D, and IMAX, each in 24fps and 48fps.

    I can imagine the headaches this will cause.

    "Hello, yes, I was wondering if you are showing the hobit at 24fps or 48fps?"

    "...*click*"

  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    Heir wrote: »
    The explanation makes very good sense Ross. Thanks.

    That's probably why I don't like watching TV on my brother's huge LED TV. It almost seems like its slightly fast forwarded if that makese sense.

    This is actually most likely a settings issue that can be fixed with a cursory glance at the manual.

  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    - The Hobbit films will be released in SIX different formats: 2D, 3D, and IMAX, each in 24fps and 48fps.

    I can imagine the headaches this will cause.

    "Hello, yes, I was wondering if you are showing the hobit at 24fps or 48fps?"

    "...*click*"

    Finding a showing in 24fps isn't going to be hard; after all, it's the only thing most theaters have the capability to project.

    But I'm interested in seeing a 48fps showing in 3D, as Jackson intended. That may take some . . . . .scouring?


    :winky:

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    What?

    Tolkien writes and never releases something.

    Tolkien Died.

    Little Tolkien inherits his father's stuff, including drafts and notes.

    ?????

    Little Tolkien doesn't own it! It belongs to the internet!


    So, I'm calling bullshit on that.

    Do you not understand the idea of public domain at all? Or just IP law in general?

    Do you?

    It's his. It isn't ours and it shouldn't be.

    Wait, so you are arguing against the idea of public domain?

    What the fuck are you on?

    I'm arguing against the idea that a thing should be in the public domain just because a bunch of fans decide it should be.

    I don't like how entitled the internet has made consumers of art, this discussion on Chris Tolkien has been a good example.

    Public domain is good and proper, but I think that content creators should still get to keep their shit. Also, since in this specific instance it's Chris Tolkien who has released a bunch of content, it is technically his. Some notes in a drawer don't count as public domain.

    That's the fuck I am on, @shryke

    Lh96QHG.png
Sign In or Register to comment.