The Hobbit 48fps first impressions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Loofy said:
Douglas Trumbull was advocating that future movies use both 24fps and 48fps. Theres no reason to stick with 1 throughout the whole thing. 48 for action, 24 for dialogue etc.
Click to expand...
Douglas Trumbull was responsible for In Search of the Obelisk, right? If so, I think I remember him or someone else mentioning that film (actually, ridefilm) was shot at 48 fps.

I miss that ride. :(
 
Darkmakaimura said:
Douglas Trumbull was responsible for In Search of the Obelisk, right? If so, I think I remember him or someone else mentioning that film (actually, ridefilm) was shot at 48 fps.

I miss that ride. :(
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was him. That team evolved into the visual effects team on the Matrix movies (without Trumbull)
They still had Showscan at the Excalibur next door last I checked.
 
TAJ said:
Yeah, that was him. That team evolved into the visual effects team on the Matrix movies (without Trumbull)
Click to expand...
Douglas Trumbull's film, Brainstorm, was supossed to be the debut of his Showscan 60 frame/s 70mm process. The normal scenes would be in standard 24fps and the scenes inside the mind were to be 60fps to give them a heightened sense of reality.

Unfortunately, MGM backed out of plans to release the experimental picture in the new format.

This was in 1983.
 
TAJ said:
Yeah, that was him. That team evolved into the visual effects team on the Matrix movies (without Trumbull)
They still had Showscan at the Excalibur next door last I checked.
Click to expand...
Wow, didn't know that. I loved the effects (and the ride itself) for Obelisk.
 
Raistlin said:
I unfortunately can't find much info on AMD Vision profiles. If you find any links to info, I could take a look and explain what it appears they're doing.
Click to expand...

I would have never noticed or known if you did not mentioned! I opened the MPC display stats, and it actually shows it is refreshing at 60hz only. Seems like the VGA understand that TV has a 240hz but by EDID conformation, it only outputs 60hz thus occuring pulldown to that lovely 48fps video (only to the tv quadruplicate it all after...?). Lame. :(
 
So I just watched the newest 24/48 videos. Didn't see the earlier ones. After the second watch I preferred the 48fps. After the third watch the 24fps was looking abnormal! Almost jarring! 48 felt much more natural.
 
I'm curious if 48fps looks better in the dramatic sense as well (ie characters interacting) perhaps this is why there are so many bad Hobbit reactions? For a more technical scene like the one shot, it looks to be the winner.
 
Honestly, I'll be seeing the hobit solely because I'm curious about how 48fps will look. No interest in the movie otherwise
KuGsj.gif
 
FliXFantatier said:
anyone saying that 48 will make a movie automatically suck, is just biased...
they both look perfectly fine and if 48 makes pans and fast movements look more smooth its a win win...
Click to expand...
Difference should be even more pronounced when using 3D.
It is also very good to remember that most of us do not have monitor which can display 48fps correctly, so in theaters it should look even better. :)
 
Scullibundo said:
I wrote an article on the stigma of 48fps today. When the editor decides to upload it I'll post the link. He usually takes a while.




Cameron is shooting the Avatar sequels at 60fps.
Click to expand...


That is just awesome! Cant wait for the sequels for Avatar and to get them in 60fps is just making the wait even harder.
 
it feels like the blur is the main difference. Its not that we're used to 24fps, we're used to the motion blur between frames, and we interpolate that into 'reality' in our heads. With 48fps there is much less blur and much more real data, and perhaps that causes our brains some trouble adjusting.

You know how escalators are just moving stairs right? When they are out of order they're no different to stairs. Yet when you step on them, you still get a momentary 'bump' where you're subconciously anticipating movement but there isn't any. Maybe its like that - we just need to unlearn it.

If there is an extended period of 24/48 movies being shown side by side, that could be painful. Either it'll take us longer to get used to 48, or we'll start to find 24 looking bad.
 
All this controversy has to be good for “The Hobbit”. Hopefully it will generate a lot of free marketing and raising awareness of the film.

Most of the general commentary on the topic is pretty moot. Very few people have seen the actual footage. Those that did, saw a 10 minute show reel with lots of cuts, not the best basis on which to form an opinion.

The film will actually be released in traditional 24fps, 2D film print edition too. So those that have a real issue with the aesthetics can see it that way anyway.

Film is not just a visual medium, the visuals should be in service of the narrative. We like to experience good stories, with strong visuals. The actual look and feel of a film is less important than the quality of the story telling and how it is served by those visuals. People put up with watching movies transmitted in 4:3 pan and scan NTSC on 20” TVs for decades and still enjoyed them.

You might not like the aesthetics of the 48fps, 3D 4K digital projection of “The Hobbit”, but if it is a well executed story then to dismiss it only due to the aesthetic is foolish.

Ishtar and Heaven’s Gate didn’t suddenly become good films because they were shot on film, with good production design and projected at 24fps. The story telling still sucked. “The Hobbit” won’t be a disaster in 48fps if the story telling is good.

You can even see it twice, once in 48fps 3D and then 24fps 2D and at least have a subjective opinion based on the full evidence before you pronounce the folly of 48fps digital cinema, if that is the way you see it.
 
I am probably going to see both versions of the films if possible ( the 48fps 3D version, and the 24fps 2D version ), just to get a feel of the difference between the two. I will see the 2D version first, I think, as my eyes are familiar with that.
 
Nick Laslett said:
All this controversy has to be good for “The Hobbit”. Hopefully it will generate a lot of free marketing and raising awareness of the film.

Most of the general commentary on the topic is pretty moot. Very few people have seen the actual footage. Those that did, saw a 10 minute show reel with lots of cuts, not the best basis on which to form an opinion.

The film will actually be released in traditional 24fps, 2D film print edition too. So those that have a real issue with the aesthetics can see it that way anyway.

Film is ultimately a narrative medium. We go to the movies to experience good stories. The actual look and feel of a film is less important than the quality of the story telling. People put up with watching movies transmitted in 4:3 pan and scan NTSC on 20” TVs for decades and still enjoyed them.

You might not like the aesthetics of the 48fps, 3D 4K digital projection of “The Hobbit”, but if it is a well executed story then to dismiss it only due to the aesthetic is foolish.

Ishtar and Heaven’s Gate didn’t suddenly become good films because they were shot on film, with good production design and projected at 24fps. The story telling still sucked. “The Hobbit” won’t be a disaster in 48fps if the story telling is good.

You can even see it twice, once in 48fps 3D and then 24fps 2D and at least have a subjective opinion based on the full evidence before you pronounce the folly of 48fps digital cinema, if that is the way you see it.
Click to expand...

Nope. It is a visual medium as much as a narrative one.
 
Scullibundo said:
Nope. It is a visual medium as much as a narrative one.
Click to expand...

My point would be that to isolate 48fps as being the main reason for dismissing “The Hobbit” is foolish. There is more to a film’s visuals than just the framerate. A film is a balance of many things, but as my point about watching films on 20” interlaced NTSC pan and scan TVs tries to illustrate. You can reduce the visual impact of a film like “Lawrence of Arabia” by a huge amount and the power of the story telling still shines through even if it is diminished.

Anyway I have edited my earlier post because I do not dispute that visuals are important in cinema, luckily, whether a film is 48fps 3D or 24fps 2D it still has visuals. I believe the 48fps is the main issue people had with the Hobbit show reel, not the visuals as such. How 48fps related to those visuals is purely subjective and some will find it appealing, others will not. Luckily the film will be available in both flavours, so it is a win-win situation.
 
Scullibundo said:
Nope. It is a visual medium as much as a narrative one.
Click to expand...

I believe he meant as in:
Acting and story are more determining of what a 'good' movie is than visual quality and specifications.

As expressed on the followup of his quote. :P

I think he knows movies are made in a (animated) visual media, since its purpose is to tell by showing.

Edit: Damn
 
Nick Laslett said:
My point would be that to isolate 48fps as being the main reason for dismissing “The Hobbit” is foolish. There is more to a film’s visuals than just the framerate. A film is a balance of many things, but as my point about watching films on 20” interlaced NTSC pan and scan TVs tries to illustrate. You can reduce the visual impact of a film like “Lawrence of Arabia” by a huge amount and the power of the story telling still shines through even if it is diminished.

Anyway I have edited my earlier post because I do not dispute that visuals are important in cinema, luckily, whether a film is 48fps 3D or 24fps 2D it still has visuals. I believe the 48fps is the main issue people had with the Hobbit show reel, not the visuals as such. How 48fps related to those visuals is purely subjective and some will find it appealing, others will not. Luckily the film will be available in both flavours, so it is a win-win situation.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. Just needed to make sure that is what you meant.
 
Scullibundo said:
Agree completely. Just needed to make sure that is what you meant.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a worthwhile challenge. I have edited my earlier post.

I quite enjoyed reminiscing my first viewing of Lawrence of Arabia on a letterboxed PAL VHS tape, on a 32” Philips TV, with awful digital processing that could not be disabled. The image was like a postage stamp and full of digital pixilation.

But I thought the film was amazing.
 
PhoenixDark said:
Many people knew it would look like a daytime soap the minute the 48fps news came out, so I'm not surprised at this at all.

It's a shame a filmmaker of Jackson's caliber has fallen for the Cameron-ization of film trend, which is more focused on making tech demos than good films.
Click to expand...

what a crock.
Didn't Peter Jackson expressly test this technology with a tech demo, something to do with an aeroplane or dogfight? Presumeably he was happy with the test run and wants to use new tech.
 
Most of us will probably be okay with this change because we've been playing videogames at 60fps for a while now. The people saying it's a struggle to adjust have probably never seen anything over 24fps before.
 
Pai Pai Master said:
Most of us will probably be okay with this change because we've been playing videogames at 60fps for a while now. The people saying it's a struggle to adjust have probably never seen anything over 24fps before.
Click to expand...

Seeing a video game running at a higher frame rate is very different than seeing a film at the higher framerate. Games have always varied wildly with the speed, where film has been stuck for the most part on the one standard for nearly a century.

It will be an adjustment period for everyone. Now whether people like the adjustment is a different story. Just look at how wildly different the reactions are already.
 
They need to show a bunch of 48fps trailers before the movie starts to get your eyes adjusted by that point. Only problem is, what other movies are shooting for 48fps?
 
I can't wait to see this now. This is where tech should be pushed, I constantly notice the stuttery motion of slow pans in movies, especially tracking shots over or through cities. Good film makers have thrown out perfectly good shots because they simply don't work on film at 24fps, the stutter of the image takes you out of the scene.

I'm a big 3D hater in serious film because it isn't 3D it's a silly eye trick that my brain turns off after 3 minutes unless they do gimmicky stuff with it (so I'm fine with 3D in trashy stuff like Piranha 3D).

But this is additional information being captured. We can finally get past an ancient convention.

And if you want to make a movie in 24fps, you still can, just like black and white and silent film if you want.

mrklaw said:
You know how escalators are just moving stairs right? When they are out of order they're no different to stairs. Yet when you step on them, you still get a momentary 'bump' where you're subconciously anticipating movement but there isn't any. Maybe its like that - we just need to unlearn it.
Click to expand...
Brilliant analogy.
 
D.Lo said:
I can't wait to see this now. This is where tech should be pushed, I constantly notice the stuttery motion of slow pans in movies, especially tracking shots over or through cities. Good film makers have thrown out perfectly good shots because they simply don't work on film at 24fps, the stutter of the image takes you out of the scene.

I'm a big 3D hater in serious film because it isn't 3D it's a silly eye trick that my brain turns off after 3 minutes unless they do gimmicky stuff with it (so I'm fine with 3D in trashy stuff like Piranha 3D).

But this is additional information being captured. We can finally get past an ancient convention.

And if you want to make a movie in 24fps, you still can, just like black and white and silent film if you want.
Click to expand...
While I obvious concede that viewing 3D on a 2D plane involves some trickery, I'm confused why you're singling out 'additional information being captured' as a differentiator for higher framerates.

Filming in 3D most certainly involves additional information being captured.
 
To say 3D is a trick is bizarre, cinema is a trick. It reminds me of the people who say synthesizers aren't legitimate elements of popular music. The process of making a film is one whole big magic trick, 3D is just an additional layer of illusion.
 
I'll admit it, I have a problem with High Fidelity mediums. With music I prefer the sound of recording to tape as it retains a more human character. White noise, softens the highs and natural compression of the individual elements all meld naturally make a more cohesive and sonically enjoyable sound at the end. Digital retains too much separation, it's just not as nice.

Same goes for film, just because you have more information doesn't make the product any more enjoyable. Higher 'quality' can end up being a degradation of actual quality of the finished product.

That said, it's technically very interesting.
 
POWERSPHERE said:
I'll admit it, I have a problem with High Fidelity mediums. With music I prefer the sound of recording to tape as it retains a more human character. White noise, softens the highs and natural compression of the individual elements all meld naturally make a more cohesive and sonically enjoyable sound at the end. Digital retains too much separation, it's just not as nice.

Same goes for film, just because you have more information doesn't make the product any more enjoyable. Higher 'quality' can end up being a degradation of actual quality of the finished product.

That said, it's technically very interesting.
Click to expand...
You can reduce quality though, you can't increase it. You could master a ProTools recording to two-track half-inch, and result in the same degradation you require, you can't go from a sixteen track tape recording to a ProTools session and have the benefits of the sterile recording.

48fps and 3D don't stop a 24fps 2D version being issued, as of right now, it's a great middle ground for people. 60fps doesn't have a perfect 24fps pulldown unfortunately, so there is reason to be concerned with future higher frame rate films, but right now, it should be fine for everyone.
 
Bluerei: A quick question about the 24p video.

Did you just remove 1/2 the frames of the 48p one? I ask because it seems more jarring (mostly in the pan) than most films I've seen.

It seems to me that could be explained by missing 1/2 of the information (so whatever motion blur there would be to cover that up is gone)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

First time you say?
2
78
616
Amakusa replied
The first ever documented Spider-Man fan film
2
303
kunonabi replied
Elon Musk Just Became The First Person Ever Worth $500 Billion
News Business 
48
409
Unknown Soldier replied
The Legend of Korra and Last Airbender Sequel First Look
News 
11
724
lifa-cobex replied
The Fantastic Four: First Steps | Official Trailer
5 6 7 8 9
419
10K
kpopSuperstar replied
Top Bottom