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!

1131416181995

Posts

  • AtomikaAtomika Boobs McGee Registered User regular
    I think it comes down to directors feeling like they MUST recreate a "real" experience and make it as "real" as possible and the fact that the consumer doesn't give six shits about it so long as it doesn't look like a guy in a rubber suit or a potato covered in tin foil (and even then).

    In this particular case, it's not that simple.

    The theaters around the nation aren't largely even capable of showing a 4K film in 48fps. This whole panel today was Jackson's sales pitch to the industry for the format, and the industry responded with a fairly resounding shudder and cringe.

    The good news, for anyone worried about it, is that most people will probably still end up seeing The Hobbit at 24fps at 1080p.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I wasn't talking about this particular case, I was postulating on what's going on in Cameron and Jackson's heads. Luckily for us, the industry knows its silly goosery.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I think it comes down to directors feeling like they MUST recreate a "real" experience and make it as "real" as possible and the fact that the consumer doesn't give six shits about it so long as it doesn't look like a guy in a rubber suit or a potato covered in tin foil (and even then).

    In this particular case, it's not that simple.

    The theaters around the nation aren't largely even capable of showing a 4K film in 48fps. This whole panel today was Jackson's sales pitch to the industry for the format, and the industry responded with a fairly resounding shudder and cringe.

    The good news, for anyone worried about it, is that most people will probably still end up seeing The Hobbit at 24fps at 1080p.

    And thank fucking god.

    I haven't seen his presentation obviously, but if it's that creepy too smooth thing you get at Best Buy or whatever on occasion, I'm hopeful I never will.

  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    I wasn't talking about this particular case, I was postulating on what's going on in Cameron and Jackson's heads. Luckily for us, the industry knows its silly goosery.

    He's just a sucker for new technology. Which worked like a dream when he created Gollum, the first truly "real" CGI character in a live-action film. Though it's not working as well here, it seems like.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I think it comes down to directors feeling like they MUST recreate a "real" experience and make it as "real" as possible and the fact that the consumer doesn't give six shits about it so long as it doesn't look like a guy in a rubber suit or a potato covered in tin foil (and even then).

    In this particular case, it's not that simple.

    The theaters around the nation aren't largely even capable of showing a 4K film in 48fps. This whole panel today was Jackson's sales pitch to the industry for the format, and the industry responded with a fairly resounding shudder and cringe.

    The good news, for anyone worried about it, is that most people will probably still end up seeing The Hobbit at 24fps at 1080p.

    And thank fucking god.

    I haven't seen his presentation obviously, but if it's that creepy too smooth thing you get at Best Buy or whatever on occasion, I'm hopeful I never will.

    I think it might be worth toning does this rhetoric a bit. I can't stand that shit either, but no one is talking about fake frame filling, we're talking about Peter Jackson using an incredible number of pixels to film twice as much of Middle Earth at any given moment. I think the implications for this tech in big budget fantasy fare could be pretty exciting, though its usefulness probably is restricted to genre at this point.

    Is no one even excited by the possibility that this could be different enough to actually be a pretty cool way to see a big-canvas movie? Or maybe it will be really, irretrievably weird. I'm desperately curious to find out.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Edd wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I think it comes down to directors feeling like they MUST recreate a "real" experience and make it as "real" as possible and the fact that the consumer doesn't give six shits about it so long as it doesn't look like a guy in a rubber suit or a potato covered in tin foil (and even then).

    In this particular case, it's not that simple.

    The theaters around the nation aren't largely even capable of showing a 4K film in 48fps. This whole panel today was Jackson's sales pitch to the industry for the format, and the industry responded with a fairly resounding shudder and cringe.

    The good news, for anyone worried about it, is that most people will probably still end up seeing The Hobbit at 24fps at 1080p.

    And thank fucking god.

    I haven't seen his presentation obviously, but if it's that creepy too smooth thing you get at Best Buy or whatever on occasion, I'm hopeful I never will.

    I think it might be worth toning does this rhetoric a bit. I can't stand that shit either, but no one is talking about fake frame filling, we're talking about Peter Jackson using an incredible number of pixels to film twice as much of Middle Earth at any given moment. I think the implications for this tech in big budget fantasy fare could be pretty exciting, though its usefulness probably is restricted to genre at this point.

    Is no one even excited by the possibility that this could be different enough to actually be a pretty cool way to see a big-canvas movie? Or maybe it will be really, irretrievably weird. I'm desperately curious to find out.

    Why would we be excited? What tangible benefit is there to this?

  • MalReynoldsMalReynolds The Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicines Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Edd wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I think it comes down to directors feeling like they MUST recreate a "real" experience and make it as "real" as possible and the fact that the consumer doesn't give six shits about it so long as it doesn't look like a guy in a rubber suit or a potato covered in tin foil (and even then).

    In this particular case, it's not that simple.

    The theaters around the nation aren't largely even capable of showing a 4K film in 48fps. This whole panel today was Jackson's sales pitch to the industry for the format, and the industry responded with a fairly resounding shudder and cringe.

    The good news, for anyone worried about it, is that most people will probably still end up seeing The Hobbit at 24fps at 1080p.

    And thank fucking god.

    I haven't seen his presentation obviously, but if it's that creepy too smooth thing you get at Best Buy or whatever on occasion, I'm hopeful I never will.

    I think it might be worth toning does this rhetoric a bit. I can't stand that shit either, but no one is talking about fake frame filling, we're talking about Peter Jackson using an incredible number of pixels to film twice as much of Middle Earth at any given moment. I think the implications for this tech in big budget fantasy fare could be pretty exciting, though its usefulness probably is restricted to genre at this point.

    Is no one even excited by the possibility that this could be different enough to actually be a pretty cool way to see a big-canvas movie? Or maybe it will be really, irretrievably weird. I'm desperately curious to find out.

    Why would we be excited? What tangible benefit is there to this?

    What's the tangible benefit to seeing a movie? I don't walk out with a trophy and a certificate every time the credits roll.

    Seeing a movie, for me anyway, is about the experience. And if the experience is better delivered with 48fps, then I'm willing to give it a shot. And if I hate it, I hate it. I still get to walk out with my participation award and macaroni art.

    "A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
    "Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
    My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Edd wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I think it comes down to directors feeling like they MUST recreate a "real" experience and make it as "real" as possible and the fact that the consumer doesn't give six shits about it so long as it doesn't look like a guy in a rubber suit or a potato covered in tin foil (and even then).

    In this particular case, it's not that simple.

    The theaters around the nation aren't largely even capable of showing a 4K film in 48fps. This whole panel today was Jackson's sales pitch to the industry for the format, and the industry responded with a fairly resounding shudder and cringe.

    The good news, for anyone worried about it, is that most people will probably still end up seeing The Hobbit at 24fps at 1080p.

    And thank fucking god.

    I haven't seen his presentation obviously, but if it's that creepy too smooth thing you get at Best Buy or whatever on occasion, I'm hopeful I never will.

    I think it might be worth toning does this rhetoric a bit. I can't stand that shit either, but no one is talking about fake frame filling, we're talking about Peter Jackson using an incredible number of pixels to film twice as much of Middle Earth at any given moment. I think the implications for this tech in big budget fantasy fare could be pretty exciting, though its usefulness probably is restricted to genre at this point.

    Is no one even excited by the possibility that this could be different enough to actually be a pretty cool way to see a big-canvas movie? Or maybe it will be really, irretrievably weird. I'm desperately curious to find out.

    Why would we be excited? What tangible benefit is there to this?

    What's the tangible benefit to seeing a movie? I don't walk out with a trophy and a certificate every time the credits roll.

    Seeing a movie, for me anyway, is about the experience. And if the experience is better delivered with 48fps, then I'm willing to give it a shot. And if I hate it, I hate it. I still get to walk out with my participation award and macaroni art.

    Pretty much this.

    We only have the reports to go by, but what we're hearing is that the detail of 4k, combined with the natural (rather than illusory) persistence of the image offers an experience that is disarmingly, aggressively real. It sounds like there's a weight and immediacy to the footage that's challenging to the senses. I like the idea that seeing a movie could be an unsettling sensory experience above and beyond the content, especially when dealing with content that should be alienating on some level. I think there's an essential value to that even apart from the increased possibilities for visual fidelity.

    The obvious objection is that we went through all of this with 3D, but 3D was a half-finished tech that has been routinely abused in its implementation. There's nothing productive about what makes watching a film in 3D unsettling, whereas I'm not convinced the 4k 48fps thing is without potential (even in 3D).

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Edd wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I think it comes down to directors feeling like they MUST recreate a "real" experience and make it as "real" as possible and the fact that the consumer doesn't give six shits about it so long as it doesn't look like a guy in a rubber suit or a potato covered in tin foil (and even then).

    In this particular case, it's not that simple.

    The theaters around the nation aren't largely even capable of showing a 4K film in 48fps. This whole panel today was Jackson's sales pitch to the industry for the format, and the industry responded with a fairly resounding shudder and cringe.

    The good news, for anyone worried about it, is that most people will probably still end up seeing The Hobbit at 24fps at 1080p.

    And thank fucking god.

    I haven't seen his presentation obviously, but if it's that creepy too smooth thing you get at Best Buy or whatever on occasion, I'm hopeful I never will.

    I think it might be worth toning does this rhetoric a bit. I can't stand that shit either, but no one is talking about fake frame filling, we're talking about Peter Jackson using an incredible number of pixels to film twice as much of Middle Earth at any given moment. I think the implications for this tech in big budget fantasy fare could be pretty exciting, though its usefulness probably is restricted to genre at this point.

    Is no one even excited by the possibility that this could be different enough to actually be a pretty cool way to see a big-canvas movie? Or maybe it will be really, irretrievably weird. I'm desperately curious to find out.

    Why would we be excited? What tangible benefit is there to this?

    What's the tangible benefit to seeing a movie? I don't walk out with a trophy and a certificate every time the credits roll.

    Seeing a movie, for me anyway, is about the experience. And if the experience is better delivered with 48fps, then I'm willing to give it a shot. And if I hate it, I hate it. I still get to walk out with my participation award and macaroni art.

    Right....
    Ok, what the hell are you talking about.

    I'm asking how this improves the experience. Have you ever watched a movie and thought "Not enough FPS!".

  • pirateluigipirateluigi Arr, it be me. Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    shryke wrote: »
    Right....
    Ok, what the hell are you talking about.

    I'm asking how this improves the experience. Have you ever watched a movie and thought "Not enough FPS!".

    That's a really difficult question to answer without first seeing some movies in 48 fps. I didn't think I needed movies in HD either, but it's hard to go back to standard definition now.

    That said, I don't think I'd like it. But I want to like it. I think that 48 fps could give a better picture and better draw me into a picture, but we're all just so used to 24 frames. Unless we change slowly, I don't think audiences will accept it.

    pirateluigi on
    http://www.danreviewstheworld.com
    Nintendo Network ID - PirateLuigi 3DS: 3136-6586-7691
    G&T Grass Type Pokemon Gym Leader, In-Game Name: Dan
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Are there any comparisons of 24fps vs 48fps (not of The Hobbit, obviously) viewable online? I also hate the soap-opera look you get on badly set-up TVs, but for all I know that's as much due to crappy interpolation and other fiddling with the image as it is to the actual frame rate.

    Thirith on
    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • timspork's ghosttimspork's ghost Master Librarian and Ghostbuster Registered User regular
    Public Enemies was shot in 30 FPS and it bugged the crap out of me the whole time.

    (Switch Friend Code) SW-4910-9735-6014(PSN) timspork (Steam) timspork


  • MalReynoldsMalReynolds The Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicines Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Edd wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I think it comes down to directors feeling like they MUST recreate a "real" experience and make it as "real" as possible and the fact that the consumer doesn't give six shits about it so long as it doesn't look like a guy in a rubber suit or a potato covered in tin foil (and even then).

    In this particular case, it's not that simple.

    The theaters around the nation aren't largely even capable of showing a 4K film in 48fps. This whole panel today was Jackson's sales pitch to the industry for the format, and the industry responded with a fairly resounding shudder and cringe.

    The good news, for anyone worried about it, is that most people will probably still end up seeing The Hobbit at 24fps at 1080p.

    And thank fucking god.

    I haven't seen his presentation obviously, but if it's that creepy too smooth thing you get at Best Buy or whatever on occasion, I'm hopeful I never will.

    I think it might be worth toning does this rhetoric a bit. I can't stand that shit either, but no one is talking about fake frame filling, we're talking about Peter Jackson using an incredible number of pixels to film twice as much of Middle Earth at any given moment. I think the implications for this tech in big budget fantasy fare could be pretty exciting, though its usefulness probably is restricted to genre at this point.

    Is no one even excited by the possibility that this could be different enough to actually be a pretty cool way to see a big-canvas movie? Or maybe it will be really, irretrievably weird. I'm desperately curious to find out.

    Why would we be excited? What tangible benefit is there to this?

    What's the tangible benefit to seeing a movie? I don't walk out with a trophy and a certificate every time the credits roll.

    Seeing a movie, for me anyway, is about the experience. And if the experience is better delivered with 48fps, then I'm willing to give it a shot. And if I hate it, I hate it. I still get to walk out with my participation award and macaroni art.

    Right....
    Ok, what the hell are you talking about.

    I'm asking how this improves the experience. Have you ever watched a movie and thought "Not enough FPS!".

    I was talking about tangible benefits.

    Anyway, I've never watched a movie and gone, "Too many FPS," either. Except for Doom. That movie had too much FPS. Like, eight minutes of it.

    "A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
    "Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
    My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
    SCREECH OF THE FARG
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    Public Enemies was shot in 30 FPS and it bugged the crap out of me the whole time.
    I liked it, although I'm aware I'm in a minority. (My girlfriend hated the look.) I felt that Mann was using the digital look as a stylistic means, making the material fresh; the expected thing would've been a Godfather-style, painterly look that immediately evokes a nostalgic, "once upon a time" feel. I wouldn't want *every* film to look like this, but neither would I want every film to look like it's been shot by Gordon Willis.

    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    So, this will soon exist:

    75bb0dd8-4ad2-4245-ba5d-d89a73c01579-thumb-340x503.jpg

    lego-lord-of-the-rings-character-lineup-image-2.jpeg

    lego-lord-of-the-rings-character-lineup-image-1.jpeg

    like a game?!

    like Lego Harry Potter only LoTR?!

  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    No, like actual legos. :)

    http://www.geekosystem.com/lord-of-the-rings-lego-sets/

    6865694237_1781b0aca9_b-550x412.jpg

    Moria-2-550x366.jpg

    9469 Gandalf Arrives
    9470 Shelob Attacks
    9471 Uruk-Hai Army
    9472 Attack on Weathertop
    9473 The Mines of Moria
    9474 The Battle of Helm’s Deep
    9476 The Orc Forge

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • iguanacusiguanacus Desert PlanetRegistered User regular
    Haha, Gollum has a little fish!

    I dunno, I take you seriously on some topics and dick rider is your profession
  • 815165815165 Registered User regular
    how did that not already happen?

  • AtomikaAtomika Boobs McGee Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Xaquin wrote: »
    like Lego Harry Potter only LoTR?!

    Warner Interactive has a contract with Traveler's Tales, the company behind the popular LEGO video games, so I wouldn't be too surprised to hear that a LOTR/Hobbit game is being released this holiday season in time for the movie. It makes sense, and they probably could double dip: a LOTR game this holiday season, a Hobbit game (containing both movies' events) in 2013.


    I love those things. It's the one game the wife and I can play together without it coming to fisticuffs. I can't wait for the next LEGO game; it's going to be Batman & The Justice League.

    Atomika on
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Edd wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I think it comes down to directors feeling like they MUST recreate a "real" experience and make it as "real" as possible and the fact that the consumer doesn't give six shits about it so long as it doesn't look like a guy in a rubber suit or a potato covered in tin foil (and even then).

    In this particular case, it's not that simple.

    The theaters around the nation aren't largely even capable of showing a 4K film in 48fps. This whole panel today was Jackson's sales pitch to the industry for the format, and the industry responded with a fairly resounding shudder and cringe.

    The good news, for anyone worried about it, is that most people will probably still end up seeing The Hobbit at 24fps at 1080p.

    And thank fucking god.

    I haven't seen his presentation obviously, but if it's that creepy too smooth thing you get at Best Buy or whatever on occasion, I'm hopeful I never will.

    I think it might be worth toning does this rhetoric a bit. I can't stand that shit either, but no one is talking about fake frame filling, we're talking about Peter Jackson using an incredible number of pixels to film twice as much of Middle Earth at any given moment. I think the implications for this tech in big budget fantasy fare could be pretty exciting, though its usefulness probably is restricted to genre at this point.

    Is no one even excited by the possibility that this could be different enough to actually be a pretty cool way to see a big-canvas movie? Or maybe it will be really, irretrievably weird. I'm desperately curious to find out.

    Why would we be excited? What tangible benefit is there to this?

    Action sequences for one. Ever see a discussion where someone is complaining about too much shaky cam in a fight scene and then someone points out that shaky cam wasn't used? Generally the person complaining is seeing judder. It should be a definite improvement for those kinds of action scenes. Or shots with fast panning.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Action sequences for one. Ever see a discussion where someone is complaining about too much shaky cam in a fight scene and then someone points out that shaky cam wasn't used? Generally the person complaining is seeing judder. It should be a definite improvement for those kinds of action scenes. Or shots with fast panning.

    That's really a problem of simply moving the camera too much, too fast. "Those kinds of action scenes" need better directors, not more frames. But then most modern action direction is poorly done anyway, lacking a sense of geography, etc., so there's more problems with it that adding more frames wouldn't help. More frames wouldn't structure or cut it better.

    And when the websites seeing the footage are complaining it's "too real," and "sets looking like sets," they're talking about stuff like that carefully carved and painted wall looking like a painted foam wall and not granite. Unless the LotR people are going to spend trillions dollars and lifetimes of work to carve a mountain down and turn it into Moria, we need to be able to build caves from foam without them suddenly looking like foam caves.

  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    The last time I was visiting a friend (who works for Full Sail and is a huge media buff), his stepson was watching Apocalypse Now on his high end TV, and I could not for the life of me figure out what he was watching with Young Martin Sheen for some time, because it looked like it was shot on video in 2009. Then I realized what it was and was like, "Man, your TV is so good it sucks."

    I have no idea if the 48 FPS thing could be exploited to make a compelling image, but hyperrealism just isn't a thing that I go to movies to see. Maybe it would work best for 3D stuff, as that's already a bit off.

    Gary Gygax wrote:
    ''The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.''
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Action sequences for one. Ever see a discussion where someone is complaining about too much shaky cam in a fight scene and then someone points out that shaky cam wasn't used? Generally the person complaining is seeing judder. It should be a definite improvement for those kinds of action scenes. Or shots with fast panning.

    That's really a problem of simply moving the camera too much, too fast. "Those kinds of action scenes" need better directors, not more frames. But then most modern action direction is poorly done anyway, lacking a sense of geography, etc., so there's more problems with it that adding more frames wouldn't help. More frames wouldn't structure or cut it better.

    And when the websites seeing the footage are complaining it's "too real," and "sets looking like sets," they're talking about stuff like that carefully carved and painted wall looking like a painted foam wall and not granite. Unless the LotR people are going to spend trillions dollars and lifetimes of work to carve a mountain down and turn it into Moria, we need to be able to build caves from foam without them suddenly looking like foam caves.

    48 fps allows for more flexibility. It allows the camera to move quicker with less blur, which gives action directors another tool in the toolbox.

  • AtomikaAtomika Boobs McGee Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Action sequences for one. Ever see a discussion where someone is complaining about too much shaky cam in a fight scene and then someone points out that shaky cam wasn't used? Generally the person complaining is seeing judder. It should be a definite improvement for those kinds of action scenes. Or shots with fast panning.

    That's really a problem of simply moving the camera too much, too fast. "Those kinds of action scenes" need better directors, not more frames. But then most modern action direction is poorly done anyway, lacking a sense of geography, etc., so there's more problems with it that adding more frames wouldn't help. More frames wouldn't structure or cut it better.

    And when the websites seeing the footage are complaining it's "too real," and "sets looking like sets," they're talking about stuff like that carefully carved and painted wall looking like a painted foam wall and not granite. Unless the LotR people are going to spend trillions dollars and lifetimes of work to carve a mountain down and turn it into Moria, we need to be able to build caves from foam without them suddenly looking like foam caves.

    Well that was one of the things the makeup and costume artists were politely complaining about on The Hobbit production diaries, that the new 4K/48fps set-up was forcing them to spend a lot more time fine-tuning their work because the old standards looked like fried shit empanadas under that high of a resolution.

    This increase in detail and definition largely works against the film, not for it.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Action sequences for one. Ever see a discussion where someone is complaining about too much shaky cam in a fight scene and then someone points out that shaky cam wasn't used? Generally the person complaining is seeing judder. It should be a definite improvement for those kinds of action scenes. Or shots with fast panning.

    That's really a problem of simply moving the camera too much, too fast. "Those kinds of action scenes" need better directors, not more frames. But then most modern action direction is poorly done anyway, lacking a sense of geography, etc., so there's more problems with it that adding more frames wouldn't help. More frames wouldn't structure or cut it better.

    And when the websites seeing the footage are complaining it's "too real," and "sets looking like sets," they're talking about stuff like that carefully carved and painted wall looking like a painted foam wall and not granite. Unless the LotR people are going to spend trillions dollars and lifetimes of work to carve a mountain down and turn it into Moria, we need to be able to build caves from foam without them suddenly looking like foam caves.

    Well that was one of the things the makeup and costume artists were politely complaining about on The Hobbit production diaries, that the new 4K/48fps set-up was forcing them to spend a lot more time fine-tuning their work because the old standards looked like fried shit empanadas under that high of a resolution.

    This increase in detail and definition largely works against the film, not for it.

    Like how Terri Hatcher became the worst looking person in HD because the "softening" of SD doesn't reveal she's the cryptkeeper.

    And the thing is, it's not like these guys were doing skimmed-by work. The work for LotR was insane in the detailing and construction and now the idea that you have to double-down because the level of work that would put a film like Ben-Hur to shame just isn't cutting it is a really ridiculous one.

    Mad King George on
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    How can more FPS possibly make props look fake? That's absurd. Higher resolution, sure. But a higher frame rate can't change the appearance of static objects. It makes no physical sense.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Mego ThorMego Thor "I say thee...NAY!" Registered User regular
    @Thomamelas, I find it amusing that you're defending 48 fps against complaints of hyper-realism, while having an Alex Ross painting as your avatar. :P

    kyrcl.png
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    How can more FPS possibly make props look fake? That's absurd. Higher resolution, sure. But a higher frame rate can't change the appearance of static objects. It makes no physical sense.

    Less blur from the camera. It's not increasing the resolution but it is sharpening the image.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Action sequences for one. Ever see a discussion where someone is complaining about too much shaky cam in a fight scene and then someone points out that shaky cam wasn't used? Generally the person complaining is seeing judder. It should be a definite improvement for those kinds of action scenes. Or shots with fast panning.

    That's really a problem of simply moving the camera too much, too fast. "Those kinds of action scenes" need better directors, not more frames. But then most modern action direction is poorly done anyway, lacking a sense of geography, etc., so there's more problems with it that adding more frames wouldn't help. More frames wouldn't structure or cut it better.

    And when the websites seeing the footage are complaining it's "too real," and "sets looking like sets," they're talking about stuff like that carefully carved and painted wall looking like a painted foam wall and not granite. Unless the LotR people are going to spend trillions dollars and lifetimes of work to carve a mountain down and turn it into Moria, we need to be able to build caves from foam without them suddenly looking like foam caves.

    48 fps allows for more flexibility. It allows the camera to move quicker with less blur, which gives action directors another tool in the toolbox.

    That doesn't address action needing better direction, not more speed.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    How can more FPS possibly make props look fake? That's absurd. Higher resolution, sure. But a higher frame rate can't change the appearance of static objects. It makes no physical sense.

    Less blur from the camera. It's not increasing the resolution but it is sharpening the image.

    You get blur while shooting people standing around talking?

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Cameron_TalleyCameron_Talley Registered User regular
    I actually have been in a few movies where the frame rate bothered me. Jerkiness in action scenes (not shaky cam, but just jerkiness from not enough frames).

    So...we are on a gaming site where many people want as many fps as possible. Games that run at 30fps or less are sometimes lambasted. So why is the standard different for a movie?

    Switch Friend Code: SW-4598-4278-8875
    3DS Friend Code: 0404-6826-4588 PM if you add.
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Action sequences for one. Ever see a discussion where someone is complaining about too much shaky cam in a fight scene and then someone points out that shaky cam wasn't used? Generally the person complaining is seeing judder. It should be a definite improvement for those kinds of action scenes. Or shots with fast panning.

    That's really a problem of simply moving the camera too much, too fast. "Those kinds of action scenes" need better directors, not more frames. But then most modern action direction is poorly done anyway, lacking a sense of geography, etc., so there's more problems with it that adding more frames wouldn't help. More frames wouldn't structure or cut it better.

    And when the websites seeing the footage are complaining it's "too real," and "sets looking like sets," they're talking about stuff like that carefully carved and painted wall looking like a painted foam wall and not granite. Unless the LotR people are going to spend trillions dollars and lifetimes of work to carve a mountain down and turn it into Moria, we need to be able to build caves from foam without them suddenly looking like foam caves.

    48 fps allows for more flexibility. It allows the camera to move quicker with less blur, which gives action directors another tool in the toolbox.

    That doesn't address action needing better direction, not more speed.

    No it doesn't. It will reduce some of the impact of shitty fight direction on the audience and give good directors another tool.
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    How can more FPS possibly make props look fake? That's absurd. Higher resolution, sure. But a higher frame rate can't change the appearance of static objects. It makes no physical sense.

    Less blur from the camera. It's not increasing the resolution but it is sharpening the image.

    You get blur while shooting people standing around talking?

    No, but in shots where you have even small amounts of camera motion like a pan, or shots where the actors are moving around at all you get some.

  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    One thing is the film wasn't color graded yet. I could see that as improving the image by quite a bit. I know it did for the original trilogy.

    However, on the whole 48fps thing... several people have mentioned HDTVs and Blu-ray players. Blu-ray players show a film at the FPS that the film was shot at. They are a storage medium, and no distributor that I know of is upping the fps on Blu-ray films. That whole thing is a TV setting which can (and should) be turned off.

    But as far as the Hobbit, I want to give the 48fps a chance, and the benefit of the doubt. Apparently this 10 minute showing was cut at a very fast pace. Short shots, with very few scenes in the same location. Some of the opinions I've read have said that the Gollum/Bilbo scene was the longest scene in the 10 minutes, and that because of that the benefits of the 48fps started to work for the film instead of against it. And because of the 48fps, Gollum felt a bit more grounded in the scene. His weight felt right, the lack of motion blur helped the CGI character blend in.

    Which also goes for the 4k. From the same reviews they said that the Gollum/Bilbo scene was pretty neat because you couldn't notice any matting around Gollum wasn't nearly as noticeable.

    I'm not saying that Jackson is on the right path here, but I'm more than willing to give watching it in 48fps a shot. If it doesn't look good, and there's a huge backlash against it, maybe they'll release the films at 1080p with 24 fps (the only problem here will be the lack of motion blur, but that could be solve digitally by blending every other frame besides those involved with cuts). If it doesn't work and they give us a normal copy of the film, no harm no foul. But Jackson is the first director I'd go to to give us something beautiful to look at when it comes to these technologies. He's the perfect guy to try them out. If he can't make them work, however, I doubt anyone really could.

    Buuuuut, I also see a bunch of people going on and on about how this change is unnecessary. And to me that is kinda goosish. Was it unnecessary for Kubrick to shoot some of his films at an odd, taller than long, aspect ratio? Was it unnecessary for Spielberg to use CGI to bring dinosaurs to life? For Lucas to use tons and tons of models to bring around complex space battles? For Ed Wood to be shot in black and white? Experimentation with new/old technology and trying to change up the status quo isn't something that should be shunned. If it works for the film, fantastic, if it doesn't... well at least someone tried it. You could say these things are gimmicky, but they're only gimmicky if done for no reason. Jackson doesn't strike me as the type to do this without having some reason behind it.

    No I don't.
  • AtomikaAtomika Boobs McGee Registered User regular
    Buuuuut, I also see a bunch of people going on and on about how this change is unnecessary. And to me that is kinda goosish. Was it unnecessary for Kubrick to shoot some of his films at an odd, taller than long, aspect ratio? Was it unnecessary for Spielberg to use CGI to bring dinosaurs to life? For Lucas to use tons and tons of models to bring around complex space battles? For Ed Wood to be shot in black and white? Experimentation with new/old technology and trying to change up the status quo isn't something that should be shunned. If it works for the film, fantastic, if it doesn't... well at least someone tried it. You could say these things are gimmicky, but they're only gimmicky if done for no reason. Jackson doesn't strike me as the type to do this without having some reason behind it.

    In just about all of your examples, the effects in question were being used to somehow inform or enhance the narrative.

    What Jackson and Cameron are pushing doesn't do that.

  • HeisenbergHeisenberg Registered User regular
    Nappuccino wrote: »
    cue defenders saying "The footage wasn't finished" "You'll get used to it" "They're just stuck in their old ways"

    - The footage, indeed, was not finished. Jackson said as much prior to the reel being shown.
    - He also said, "You'll get used to it."
    - James Cameron would definitely say that last bit, because he's a giant douchenozzle.

    I feel like there probably is a time and place for 48fps... but it is going to take awhile for anyone to master it. And the benefits of it don't out weigh the costs, I feel. We'll see if directors actually embrace it in the next 5-10 years.

    I'm a stickler for practical effects and celluloid, so I'm probably already biased anyway, but I think 48fps and 4K are huge examples of both people trying to fix things that aren't broken and directors losing themselves in the technological potential of a medium that they completely forget what the purpose of the medium is in the first place.


    The Lord of the Rings trilogy was nominated for 30 Oscars, and won 17 of them, including Best Picture. I think people are just fine with the way that was projected.

    Agreed.

  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I saw Punch-Drunk Love with fake high-fps and hated it and thought it looked like an old BBC show.

    But I'm looking forward to seeing The Hobbit in 48 fps. You can't judge the technology based on upconverted stuff. Punch-Drunk love wasn't shot at a high framerate - The Hobbit was.

    The fact that some people saw a few minutes of the Hobbit at 48fps and didn't like the effect doesn't faze me, either, because sometimes it takes a little while to get used to something. Maybe I'll think The Hobbit looks fakey and creepy with a high framerate, or maybe I'll think the extra fluidity makes the movie more immersive, and action scenes easier to follow and more exciting. And maybe when I show my kids the original Lord of the Rings trilogy they'll be like "how did people stand watching movies that were this blurry?" Time will tell!

    wandering on
  • CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    The smoothing of HDTVs is not the same thing. That's your television trying to convert a film shot in 24fps to 30fps without getting the judder from panning you normally do.

    I'd prefer they move all the way to 60fps so that there's no conversion when watching at home. The problem is you can't cut that down to 24fps for theaters without digital projectors. Which is why they'll probably settle on 48fps for now.

    Watching something filmed at 60fps is a much better experience than 24fps. You can find homemade 60fps videos on the net. You just can't watch them on youtube because youtube converts everything to 30fps.

  • CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    The Lord of the Rings trilogy was nominated for 30 Oscars, and won 17 of them, including Best Picture. I think people are just fine with the way that was projected.

    This is pure mindless goosery. Sunrise:A Song of Two Humans one the first Academy Award for cinematography....should we have just stuck with black and white? It was also a silent film.

    I for one will always say adding sound to a film was a mistake.

  • jimb213jimb213 Registered User regular
    And because of the 48fps, Gollum felt a bit more grounded in the scene. His weight felt right, the lack of motion blur helped the CGI character blend in.
    That doesn't seem quite right to me. Motion blur is one of the big tools CG artists have to blend CG creations with live action. Motion blur essential hides some of the CG-ness.

    Also, I see lots of related technologies getting intermingled here. Your TV's 120Hz refresh rate is good, because it allows 24fps frames to be shown an equal number of times (5 "flashes" per frame). Older 60Hz TVs had to show some frames 3 times, and some frames 2 times. However, independent of, but frequently bundled with, 120Hz refresh rate is frame interpolation (SmoothMotion, TruMotion, AutoMotion, etc) where the TV actually creates frames to reduce motion blur inherent in capturing film or video at 24 fps. That technology is the devil and makes everything look terrible.

    I also don't really get complaints about 4k/5k acquisition. 4k digital is just getting to an equivalent resolution to good 35mm film stock. It could just be the organic nature of the chemical reaction of film vs. digital, but 4k isn't massively higher resolution than film.

    All that said, Jackson definitely faces an uphill battle. I think I said it in the TV thread, but we have roughly 100 years of training that Cinema is at 24 fps and 50 years of training that more than 24fps is TV/sports/news/documentary. Playing around with the established fundamental language of an art form gets tricky and will surely elicit a strong response from the public.

    And I definitely want to see The Hobbit in 3D, digital 4k projection, 48fps. Then I also want to go see it in 2D 24fps "regular" projection.

  • AtomikaAtomika Boobs McGee Registered User regular
    jimb213 wrote: »
    And I definitely want to see The Hobbit in 3D, digital 4k projection, 48fps. Then I also want to go see it in 2D 24fps "regular" projection.

    I plan on seeing it in both formats as well, though I'll try to see it in 24fps first as to just get a feel for the material.

    I'm open to giving 48fps a shot, but it definitely doesn't sound like something I'll go for.

Sign In or Register to comment.