Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 4

[dark_b]

Originally Posted by redhawk23

That's largely the problem I have with it though. Just watching the production vids and showing the difficulty they're having with make up and set design not just from the higher resolution and frame rate, which fine that might be something to aspire to, but just from the cameras adding way too much yellow to everything. They have to go through so much extra work to just reach the baseline of quality thats already achievable with the technology of the past 100 years.
.

hahah that was a joke . if your camera adds to much yellow you can on the computer fix it.they use Nuke where they have 5 different color correction tools. its about color timing and color balance(white balance) .
its wrong by default. because noone else using digital cameras is using more red on sets and faces.

[Tequilla]

Probably it was already noted by someone , but the issue here is not so much the 48fps , but the combination of 48fps with a 270 degrees shutter (what Jackson is using). Many people remember Public Enemies photography , which also suffered from an artistic choice by Mann in the shutter. And that movie was 24fps , and most people didn’t enjoy it. Being this a fantasy movie , obviously the backlash is even bigger

Its perfectly normal that we cant adapt immediately to a different standard. Its decades of 24pfs with 1/48s shutter speeds. The motion blur is actually something we perceive in real life. But 3d doesn’t go well with blur , the lack of frames , the movement and dimmer image of 3d projections , makes the experience quite horrible in action.

I feel that the future will be something in the lines of what Trumbull experimented with showscan (in the 80’s , 60 fps !!!). We will see movies with framerates variations , during different scenes (especially scenes with lots of movements and incompetent camera handlers who simply cant adjust the panning…which is the problem with a lot of American movies !!!).
3d will benefit a lot from higher framerates. But I don’t think it’s the future. 3d is a gimmick with two 2d projections , and ours brains do the rest. There’s no depth input in the photography. On the other hand , yes I would compare higher framerates , with sound and color. They’re a simple evolution of photography and others techniques used in movies. 3d not so much.

[rogue_agent]

Originally Posted by Kane52630

I think it will be similar to the 3D blu rays/regular blu rays and have the 48 fps in only the 3D blu ray discs.

Oh, that's a relief. Oh well, looks like it won't affect me .

[Doctor Jones]

Originally Posted by redhawk23

The deal with color film was that the process got better, not necessarily that people just got used to it.

Technicolor could be pretty goofy looking, garish even and the process of compositing it all was pretty nuts. Eventually different processes for color were deveolped that were easier and looked better.


Similar problems production wise with the new technology forcing them to change the way they make things.

That's largely the problem I have with it though. Just watching the production vids and showing the difficulty they're having with make up and set design not just from the higher resolution and frame rate, which fine that might be something to aspire to, but just from the cameras adding way too much yellow to everything. They have to go through so much extra work to just reach the baseline of quality thats already achievable with the technology of the past 100 years.

What's the point?

Also the whole 48 frames thing isn't completely foreign to everyone. You can watch one of those tvs everyday and still think it looks like crap. Not the best comparison I know, but I'm just saying.

So this is the beginning stages for cinematic 48 fps and yes, the technology can only get better. It's fine that technology has worked for 100 years, but why not try something new for once? We can't know if it will work if we don't keep developing and instead of just giving up saying, "Can't be done, and people won't get used to it or just don't prefer it."

[Kane52630]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jones

So this is the beginning stages for cinematic 48 fps and yes, the technology can only get better. It's fine that technology has worked for 100 years, but why not try something new for once? We can't know if it will work if we don't keep developing and instead of just giving up saying, "Can't be done, and people won't get used to it or just don't prefer it."

Exactly my point.

[Whiskey Tango]

Maybe it's not so much "Let's not experiment with this new thing" as it is "Let's not experiment with this new thing on a movie I'm really anticipating like The Hobbit". Because no one really cares if Michael Bay or Paul W.S. Anderson wreck their next film with untried tech that no one knows the workarounds and tricks for. Those guys will just be along with another crapfest soon enough. But we're only getting one shot at The Hobbit.

just my 2¢

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by Whiskey Tango

Maybe it's not so much "Let's not experiment with this new thing" as it is "Let's not experiment with this new thing on a movie I'm really anticipating like The Hobbit". Because no one really cares if Michael Bay or Paul W.S. Anderson wreck their next film with untried tech that no one knows the workarounds and tricks for. Those guys will just be along with another crapfest soon enough. But we're only getting one shot at The Hobbit.

just my 2¢

My feelings exactly.

[Doctor Jones]

Originally Posted by Whiskey Tango

Maybe it's not so much "Let's not experiment with this new thing" as it is "Let's not experiment with this new thing on a movie I'm really anticipating like The Hobbit". Because no one really cares if Michael Bay or Paul W.S. Anderson wreck their next film with untried tech that no one knows the workarounds and tricks for. Those guys will just be along with another crapfest soon enough. But we're only getting one shot at The Hobbit.

just my 2¢

If there's one film I want to be completely immersed in, it's Middle-Earth. The Hobbit is that one film I'd want to spearhead the 48 FPS. I love the fact that it's going to be done on a huge film.

[Bruce Malone]

^^^

I very much disagree with that as I and others have brought up the hobbit is a fantasy film. There is a certain gloss and veneer you want to see in it. A fantasy film should be like looking at an intricate painting not a hi-rez photograph. The Lotr films had a very cinematic feel to them and from all of the reviews of the hobbit footage that cinematic feel has been replaced by an HD home video realism.

A big sci-fi film or war film would have been great for a 48p introduction not a fantasy.

[Marvolo]

I would love to see a war film shot on ultra real looking digital at 48fps, but I want my fantasy to look like fantasy. I want beautiful cinematography, fantastical color grading, and emotional lighting. If I want realism ill watch something realistic. Its like how Westerns are being shot on digital. To me shooting a western on anything but film is blasphemous. Certain genres and films should be on a certain "canvas".

[Armored Avenger]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jones

If there's one film I want to be completely immersed in, it's Middle-Earth. The Hobbit is that one film I'd want to spearhead the 48 FPS. I love the fact that it's going to be done on a huge film.

I'd rather the technology be perfected before being used on my most anticipated film in years. I don't want to look back on The Hobbit in a few years time and think "wow, 48fps really sucked at first". 48fps just doesn't look that great at the moment as it cheapens the visuals and the cinematography and emphasises how artificial everything is. There is a reason people have been averse to using it.
I'm left wondering if Jackson is determined to pioneer a new way of shooting movies just to add to his creative résumé, rather than because this is a change that needs to happen in the movie industry. This isn't changing the essential fabric of a film, like adding sound or colour or even (in some cases) 3D. Its essentially digital IMAX. Is he trying to solve a non-existent problem?
I was also completely immersed in the LOTR trilogy, without the aid of 3D and 48fps and predict I will have no problems being immersed once again at a 24fps 2D screening of The Hobbit. I will still see The Hobbit in 48fps 3D as well, as thats the way Jackson intends for it to be seen, but I am very apprehensive. Hopefully he proves me wrong.

[dark_b]

Originally Posted by Armored Avenger

I'd rather the technology be perfected before being used on my most anticipated film in years. I don't want to look back on The Hobbit in a few years time and think "wow, 48fps really sucked at first". 48fps just doesn't look that great at the moment as it cheapens the visuals and the cinematography and emphasises how artificial everything is. There is a reason people have been averse to using it.
I'm left wondering if Jackson is determined to pioneer a new way of shooting movies just to add to his creative résumé, rather than because this is a change that needs to happen in the movie industry. This isn't changing the essential fabric of a film, like adding sound or colour or even (in some cases) 3D. Its essentially digital IMAX. Is he trying to solve a non-existent problem?
I was also completely immersed in the LOTR trilogy, without the aid of 3D and 48fps and predict I will have no problems being immersed once again at a 24fps 2D screening of The Hobbit. I will still see The Hobbit in 48fps 3D as well, as thats the way Jackson intends for it to be seen, but I am very apprehensive. Hopefully he proves me wrong.

a technology like this can not be perfected if its not realesed in a blockbuster.a blockbuster movie is an expensive production with problems everyday. and this is how you test it out. do i agree with it ? of course not.

[Armored Avenger]

Originally Posted by dark_b

a technology like this can not be perfected if its not realesed in a blockbuster.a blockbuster movie is an expensive production with problems everyday. and this is how you test it out. do i agree with it ? of course not.

I just wish The Hobbit had been the culmination of the tests, rather than the first experiment.

[dark_b]

http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/28/4...f-art-vs-tech/

[DoomsdayApex]

Whoa, talk about 'split down the middle'.

Great article, by the way.

As a person who loves both technology and art, it's a complex issue. As the article references, Tech seems to be spearheading the cinema experience more than Art nowadays, and while I appreciate the advances of Tech, I can't help but feel that Tech is taking the Art aspect of the movie away.

In my honest opinion, there are certain films that are a better match for the 48fps and 3-D, but The Hobbit is not one of them. Utilize the technology in Avatar or The Avengers, but not in flicks like TDKR or The Hobbit.

[dark_b]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Utilize the technology in Avatar or The Avengers, but not in flicks like TDKR or The Hobbit.

Avatar and Battleship is not art?

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by dark_b

Avatar and Battleship is not art?

Not my point. I feel that if a film relies heavily on visuals/CGI/SFX like Avatar or Battleship, then go nuts. Go as wild as you want with the Tech, however, films like Casino Royale or The Dark Knight shouldn't feature 48 fps.

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

3d is a gimmick with two 2d projections , and ours brains do the rest. There’s no depth input in the photography.

Precisely what I have been saying since the very beginning and why I so despise this whole 3D fad. Even with all the fancy new technology, it's just basically two or (at most three layers) of photography with no real depth. What's worse is that it often makes the characters and objects on screen appear even more flat than they would otherwise on standard 2D. I think 3D works best when it is no longer distracting to the point that I don't even notice it is there, but that sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? Why am I paying a 25% premium for something I wouldn't feel is there at all? Two days ago I watched The Avengers in IMAX 3D and after the initial jarring effect, it didn't feel any different from any other film I watch in 2D. Another thing I really hate with 3D is how the image gets distorted if you tilt your head while watching (something I often do). And I don't like wearing glasses because they give me a headache.

Real feeling of depth comes from higher sharpness, clarity and resolution. That is why to me, The Dark Knight's IMAX sequences felt far more immersive than anything in Avatar. When the camera looks down at the bank robbers ziplining across two buildings, I genuinely felt as if I was going to fall into the screen.

Originally Posted by Christopher Nolan

I find stereoscopic imaging too small scale and intimate in its effect. 3-D is a misnomer. Films are 3-D. The whole point of photography is that it’s three-dimensional.

http://www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Ar...her-Nolan.aspx

Damn straight.

[Kane52630]

I don't see why you shouldn't go for 48 fps for The Hobbit. I say go for it and for those that dont want to see it, the tech isn't standard yet so you have the option of seeing this without the 3D fps. Also, I don't see theater owners being prepared for every 3D showing in 48 fps.

[Sawyer]

This conversation bores me.

Footage, Warner Bros. NOW!

[Kane52630]

Exactly lol

Me want footage nao! (I expect we will get something when TDKR comes out)

[Sawyer]

But..... that's months from now....

[ZombieBatman]

Yuck. Too much frames per second and other cinema mumbo jumbo discussion for my liking here. I can't believe this is what everyone has decided to discuss instead of the actual scenes in the footage shown.

[Bruce Malone]

That's apparently how distracting the 48fps was. Practically every critic shown the footage has only gone on about how the footage looks and not the content.

[craigdbfan]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

This conversation bores me.

Footage, Warner Bros. NOW!

Originally Posted by Kane52630

Exactly lol

Me want footage nao! (I expect we will get something when TDKR comes out)

I was kind of hoping for them to release 48fps footage but Peter Jackson apparently doesn't want to.

”I personally wouldn’t advocate a 48-frame trailer because the 48 frames is something you should experience with the entire film. A 2 1/2 minute trailer isn’t enough time to adjust to the immersive quality.” - PJ

I mean really? I'm not exactly happy about this 48fps thing but I'd at least like a taste of what I'm eventually going to spend money on.

I'm hoping this is one of those situations where WB does its own thing and does end up releasing a 48fps trailer so we can see the difference for ourselves.