SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
And for tonight's entertainment... Blindfolded backpedaling!
Yup.
And for tonight's entertainment... Blindfolded backpedaling!
Edmond Dantès;33636978 said:This day just keeps on giving. The sixth report from AICN's Quint is up.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/52353
Dude, I do video editing for cash
no it's not. It's running at 24fps. You need a 48fps projector to get the end result. HOWEVER, the pulldown tactics to reach 24fps from 48fps alter the general look of the film. And, well, it looks like shit.
Actually, it looks a lot like the motion smoothing effect that is oh-so popular with recent TVs.
no it's not. It's running at 24fps. You need a 48fps projector to get the end result.
Well, yeah. If it's shown at 48fps. This trailer was made to be shown in 24fps theaters.that cant be right. surely a pc can run a vieo at 48fps...
Is anyone who's actually knowledgeable on this going to argue or anything, or is just going to be PETER JACKSON IS BOSS, YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT?
that cant be right. surely a pc can run a vieo at 48fps...
My comment : The look of 24 fps coming from a 48 fps master looks like fucking shit
And, well, it looks like shit.
The end is : it looks like shit.
I'm sorry what was your opinion again?That 48 fps thing looks completely horrendous and cheesy.
I'm not saying you aren't. I'm saying I am.Well I don't get paid cash for that shit so I'm not really qualified.
You can also read my answer, and see that you're just trolling me for no reason.No no man, only 48fps projectors can decipher this eldritch technology. PCs and human eyeballs run at 24fps.
Is anyone who's actually knowledgeable on this going to argue or anything, or is just going to be PETER JACKSON IS BOSS, YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT?
Well, yeah. If it's shown at 48fps. This trailer was made to be shown in 24fps theaters.
No, actually, those look good. It's sad that you're trying to generalize, when all I'm saying is that this particular technique looks, again, like cheap shit to me.Thank goddess strict visuals rules define the medium. I mean, have any of you watched those so called Disney animated movies that are all hand draw to emulate movement with less than 24 cells per second! awful stuff. And don't even get me started on those animators from japan, I though the reel stopped moving!
Perhaps he doesn't like the slightly lower amount of motion blur in the image.Are you saying that you could pick up on the 24 fps difference from the trailer? What are you talking about?
Jesus Christ we don't need a bunch of shit media in the OP yet...just a few download links would be great.
I'm not saying you aren't. I'm saying I am.
You can also read my answer, and see that you're just trolling me for no reason.
I'm sorry to be the only one disappointed by this trailer, good god. Am I in a Nolan thread?
If they really did that, it wouldn't look like shit, and PJ wouldn't talk about how they love the effect it has on the 24fps footage, since it would look exactly like 24fps footage.Well you apparently don't know shit. The pulldown method is usually the same for any footage shot with a Phantom camera for example - or any sequence where a director might want to project it in slow motion. They'll overcrank it to 48fps (or higher) and then if they decide they want to screen it at 24fps they'll usually delete every second frame. There literally shouldn't be any difference, except that the new EPICS they're shooting with allow in a whole lot more light in the shutter than anything that has shot at the frame rate before.
I'm disappointed by the effect the 48fps shooting has on this particular trailer, which is shown in 24fps.you will at some point be capable of watching the movie, which has been filmed at 48fps, displayed at 48fps. Probably on release day in a theater near you. Certainly from a media player doohickey in the comfort of your living room.
Dude, I do video editing for cash, I know about that shit. I never explicitely stated that the trailer was 48fps, I was referring to the fact that it was shot in 48fps. I'm sorry I didn't give enough explanations for you to really understand.
The end is : it looks like shit.
Is anyone who's actually knowledgeable on this going to argue or anything, or is just going to be PETER JACKSON IS BOSS, YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT?
If they really did that, it wouldn't look like shit, and PJ wouldn't talk about how they love the effect it has on the 24fps footage, since it would look exactly like 24fps footage.
Unfortunately, it does look like shit. To me, again.
I'll point out the exact place where it looks like a framerate problem. Wait up. It's from 1:58 to 2:07.So, you just assumed they didn't do that and are the only one that thinks it looks like shit. Maybe the problem you're seeing isn't the result of the framerate.
That means :
a) I won't like the look of the 24fps version.
b) I won't like the look of the 48fps version, because I know what 48fps looks like, and it looks like cheap video.
So, incidentally, I won't like the look of this movie. It's sad, really.
ITT : People are offended when I'm acting like a jackass after people actually put me in doubt because I thought something LOOKED bad.
I think it looks cheap, like a home video, and makes the whole thing look like a bad play with costumed actors.We are just humoring in the fact that you can easily state that you will never watch the movie because its frame rate looks bad.
I don't think anybody is offended, so much as they are relishing the opportunity to make you look stupid when you act like a jackass.
Dude, I do video editing for cash, I know about that shit. I never explicitely stated that the trailer was 48fps, I was referring to the fact that it was shot in 48fps. I'm sorry I didn't give enough explanations for you to really understand.
The end is : it looks like shit.
Peter Jackson said:The news about us filming The Hobbit at 48 frames per second generated a lot of comments. Of course, its impossible to show you what 48 fps actually looks like outside of a movie cinema, but there were several interesting and insightful questions raised.
We will be completing a normal 24 frames per second versionin both digital and 35mm film prints. If we are able to get the Hobbit projected at 48 fps in selected cinemas, there will still be normal-looking 24 fps versions available in cinemas everywhere.
Converting a film shot at 48 fps down to 24 fps is not a hugely difficult process, but it requires testing to achieve the best results. Some of this involves digital processes during post-production. We are also shooting the film a slightly different way, which is a question several of you asked. Normally you shoot a movie with a 180-degree shutter angle. Changing the shutter angle affects the amount of motion blur captured during movement. Reducing the shutter angle gives you the stroby (or jerky) Saving Private Ryan look.
However, were going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master.
More soon .
Cheers, Peter J
Still can't believe they got PJ back for this, 10 years after the trilogy. Nuts man, must be a crazy feeling to reopen that chapter of your life.
Not really feeling the new actors (aside from Martin Freeman), but I guess Elijah Wood and the like weren't all the recognizable or distinct when they got the job either.
I think it looks cheap, like a home video, and makes the whole thing look like a bad play with costumed actors.
To be honest, even if you take out the framerate thing, the special effects in the trailer are pretty... weird/cheap looking compared to the original trilogy.
Best examples are in the same sequence I mentioned earlier.What special effects in particular?
I think it looks cheap, like a home video, and makes the whole thing look like a bad play with costumed actors.
To be honest, even if you take out the framerate thing, the special effects in the trailer are pretty... weird/cheap looking compared to the original trilogy.
No. But for a movie like The Hobbit, it's definitely a major part of it. We're not talking about a Bergman study of the mind or even a freakin' Scorsese movie here, we're talking about fantasy.Ok, so it is visually unappealing. Is really that all what matters to you in a Movie?
After re-reading that quote, I'm pretty sure the choice of upping the shutter angle is what's annoying me in the current look of the 24fps version. So whatever the pulldown process was has pretty much no impact, now.The whole PJ quote for those interested.
I'm gonna guess that motion blur will be done shot by shot and not by just deleting frames or applying a motion smooth algorithm to the whole shebang. Not to imply that motion smoothing is a bad thing when you're working with more frames than you'll end up with.
I wouldn't be so sure that the mountains have been integrated to the landscape.Best examples are in the same sequence I mentioned earlier.
Flying plates, the waterfall shot (ew), the weird faces on the dwarves, the bloom/lighting, the weird integration of the landscape with the mountains, dwarves falling through the door...
Everything looks weird.
I know, but there's something weird about that shot. The lighting perhaps? Something doesn't feel real.I wouldn't be so sure that the mountains would've been integrated to the landscape.
I know, but there's something weird about that shot. The lighting perhaps? Something doesn't feel real.