Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 4

[Rac]

I'm glad that the footage at least looks good in 24fps (or whatever speed they are playing the trailer in theaters). I might see this in 48fps, for the second time, but first time is definitely 24fps. I want to enjoy the film.

I haven't even been able to watch Public Enemies yet...

 

[matrix_ghost]

It will probably be the thing that is picked over the most, and may overshadow the film itself. I mean look. Ten minutes of footage was shown, and people barely reported what was shown. Talk of the 48 fps is everywhere though. Ten whole minutes of new footage, and the frame rate is all anyone can talk about. Its already dominating discussions on the film.

To be honest when the first footage of Avatar was screened , the reports was also about the 3-d effects , the quality of the CGI images etc. Not so much about the footage itself.
I think the difference here is unlike AVatar which showed full sequences , Hobbit was more about seeing different scenes meaning that the audience couldn't properly adjust to the change .

 

[Marvolo]

To be honest when the first footage of Avatar was screened , the reports was also about the 3-d effects , the quality of the CGI images etc. Not so much about the footage itself.
I think the difference here is unlike AVatar which showed full sequences , Hobbit was more about seeing different scenes meaning that the audience couldn't properly adjust to the change .

And that's what worries me about this whole thing. The fans and viewers in general have been wanting this film for years and years. Here it is but they throw us in the deep end with this new frame rate. We just want great film after all the BS it went through to get greenlit. I don't want to have to adjust to something new when I see this film for the first time or any time I pop this in my blu-ray player. I just want to be able to enjoy this film without having to adjust to something no one really asked for in the first place. If 48fps had already been done a few times and proven itself I'd be ok with it but to take the gamble on this film of all films is a bit more than aggravating for me.

 

[matrix_ghost]

And that's what worries me about this whole thing. The fans and viewers in general have been wanting this film for years and years. Here it is but they throw us in the deep end with this new frame rate. We just want great film after all the BS it went through to get greenlit. I don't want to have to adjust to something new when I see this film for the first time or any time I pop this in my blu-ray player. I just want to be able to enjoy this film without having to adjust to something no one really asked for in the first place. If 48fps had already been done a few times and proven itself I'd be ok with it but to take the gamble on this film of all films is a bit more than aggravating for me.

In hindsight they should've just shown entire sequences instead of snippets.
And while i can understand your point on them taking a huge risk by shooting this in 48 fps , fact that sooner or later a big production would have to do it.
With every movies tech is always being developed and refined.
Plus lets not forget that TTT also had a huge risk that paid off in the end :

Gollum.

TTT basically relied on making Gollum believable. If WETA had screwed that up , TTT would've failed miserably.

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

One of the latest reviews I've read compared the 48fps look to an old Doctor Who episode or a live television event. To be honest, I really had no clue what to expect from a constant moving image at 48. I was just going by Jackson's description of it, being that it would give you a clearer definition picture and motion blur would be reduced, making action sequences clearer easier to keep up with.

That all excited me, but now I'm not sure how to take it. I was already worried about it being in 3D, but now that 48 is an issue I can't see why I wouldn't see this in normal 24fps. The irony is that this will more than likely be a great film from every angle you think of it. I hate to think that great films like this are going to have a black spot on them for all of time because of poor frame rate decisions and the inclusion of 3D.

I mean, really think about it. What does 3D contribute to a movie like the Hobbit? I can't think of a single thing.

 

[dark_b]

what if they go clip by clip and only use 48 fps footage for acting scenes and fast camera movement? fo all dialoge shots and slow camera movement they use 24? they would have to go clip by clip so that we dont notice when it switches.

 

[Kane52630]

3D for me makes you feel that you are there.

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

3D for me makes you feel that you are there.

I felt like I was already there in the early 2000's when I was watching LOTR on a film projector. A skilled cinematographer (which the Hobbit has) has the ability to make you feel in the moment and physically transported through showing you something spectacular, which is exactly what Peter Jackson's team excels at doing.

3D isn't so much a "wow I'm actually there" effect as it is a stereoscopic effect. Chris Nolan says it best here:

"3-D is a misnomer. Films are 3-D. The whole point of photography is that it’s three-dimensional. The thing with stereoscopic imaging is it gives each audience member an individual perspective. It’s well suited to video games and other immersive technologies, but if you’re looking for an audience experience, stereoscopic is hard to embrace. I prefer the big canvas, looking up at an enormous screen and at an image that feels larger than life. When you treat that stereoscopically, and we’ve tried a lot of tests, you shrink the size so the image becomes a much smaller window in front of you.”

Basically, both of us can be sitting in a 3D movie and both of us can have a completely different experience than the other. When my experience can sometimes come down to where I'm actually seated in the theater, I'm going to have to pass on that option. I haven't seen one film in 3D that impressed me or did something better than what a normal film has done.

 

[Sun_Down]

I remember when HD TV came out and things looked terrible. You could really see the pancake make up on actors and the fakeness of the sets. It seems these things have been resolved as the industry adapted to the technology.

That said, when I watch certain TVs (that I assume use some sort of newish technology), they look terrible. And they still look terrible. That too-fast-moving, soap opera style filming can truly ruin a good show/movie. There is such a thing as too much resolution, at least when the filmmakers don't know how to smooth it out.

All the talk of "it's early footage, it's not done", etc. is pretty unconvincing though. Anyone remember X3? The Sentinel clip looked crappy and had terrible music. The effects of Jean destroying that door in the infirmary looked cheap. And when the movie came out? Yeah, they were unchanged (mostly). So the work-in-progress rationale doesn't comfort me particularly.

 

[Boom]

I think people are pinning all of their complaints on the 48 fps, when I think the 5K resolution is just as much a culprit.

When you increase the resolution, you put the image under a higher level of scrutiny. In other words, the more real the image looks, the more conscious you become of the fake stuff (wigs, fake beards, makeup/prosthetics, sets). It’s not a coincidence that people universally praised the landscape shots, but were turned off by anything that involved artificially-produced sets and characters. The quality of the makeup, prosthetics, wigs, fake beards, and the polystyrene rocks and trees just don’t hold up to this level of resolution. The more life-like movements allowed by the 48 fps only aggravates this issue.

 

[Bruce Malone]

The problem as described by those who've seen the 48fps is that it takes away the cinematic feel of the film. The LOTR films were very cinematic and it's a shame that it seems the hobbit will be the odd man out.

For a vast fantasy i don't think this was the right film to showcase 48fps, if 48ps is all about super clarity and realism a fantasy may not be the best bet. I think a war film would actually have worked better. Fantasy needs that somewhat gloss over it.

 

[terry78]

Same gripes when Public Enemies came out. People *****ed about Mann using the digital.

 

[Bruce Malone]

^^^

With good reason. I think public enemies would have looked a lot better without the hd home video in the 1930's look it had.

 

[Marvolo]

I felt like I was already there in the early 2000's when I was watching LOTR on a film projector. A skilled cinematographer (which the Hobbit has) has the ability to make you feel in the moment and physically transported through showing you something spectacular, which is exactly what Peter Jackson's team excels at doing.

3D isn't so much a "wow I'm actually there" effect as it is a stereoscopic effect. Chris Nolan says it best here:


Basically, both of us can be sitting in a 3D movie and both of us can have a completely different experience than the other. When my experience can sometimes come down to where I'm actually seated in the theater, I'm going to have to pass on that option. I haven't seen one film in 3D that impressed me or did something better than what a normal film has done.

This is my issue with 3D. For me there are so many more distractions with 3D: the glasses, the flicker, the dark visuals, ghosting (cross talk), things coming out of the screen etc. When I go watch a 2D movie I sit down and I get lost in what's going on. I don't eat, I don't drink, or any of that stuff I just soak it all in.

The problem as described by those who've seen the 48fps is that it takes away the cinematic feel of the film. The LOTR films were very cinematic and it's a shame that it seems the hobbit will be the odd man out.

For a vast fantasy i don't think this was the right film to showcase 48fps, if 48ps is all about super clarity and realism a fantasy may not be the best bet. I think a war film would actually have worked better. Fantasy needs that somewhat gloss over it.

You hit the nail on the head for me. To me film is like art and your film or camera is your canvas. Different canvas and brushes serve different purposes depending on the art you are making. Fantasy benefits heavily from cinematography and the way it is graded. A super realistic clearity and motion may clash with what this film is. An in your face gritty war film from say Spielberg would have been good, but not this film.

I like my fantasy to look like fantasy not realism. Some of my favorite cinematographers, especially someone like Bruno Delbonnel, make their films look like paintings, and I'm not sure it is possible with this 48fps.

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

This is my issue with 3D. For me there are so many more distractions with 3D: the glasses, the flicker, the dark visuals, ghosting (cross talk), things coming out of the screen etc. When I go watch a 2D movie I sit down and I get lost in what's going on. I don't eat, I don't drink, or any of that stuff I just soak it all in.

Probably the biggest issue I've ever had with 3D is that color is seriously dimmed down, which many people don't understand is a huge issue. I don't care how expertly you think these guys are shooting something in 3D, nothing can save the color through those glasses.

I seriously wish Jackson would have just scrapped the digital 3D, 48 idea altogether and just shot on IMAX. Can you imagine those famous sweeping landscape shots of New Zealand on an IMAX screen? It pains me when great film makers like Jackson miss the bigger picture (no pun intended) and go with digital 3D over IMAX. Thank goodness Chris Nolan is championing this stuff so heavily, otherwise no one would pay attention.

You hit the nail on the head for me. To me film is like art and your film or camera is your canvas. Different canvas and brushes serve different purposes depending on the art you are making. Fantasy benefits heavily from cinematography and the way it is graded. A super realistic clearity and motion may clash with what this film is. An in your face gritty war film from say Spielberg would have been good, but not this film.

I like my fantasy to look like fantasy not realism. Some of my favorite cinematographers, especially someone like Bruno Delbonnel, make their films look like paintings, and I'm not sure it is possible with this 48fps.

Agreed.

I'm still interested to see if 48 goes anywhere someday, but I hate that this is the reaction we're getting, and I don't think something as loved as the Hobbit should have been the film to test it on.

 

[Kane52630]

The 48 fps 3D clears any ghosting and blur and the last few 3D films I've seen are much brighter than before.

 

[Marvolo]

Probably the biggest issue I've ever had with 3D is that color is seriously dimmed down, which many people don't understand is a huge issue. I don't care how expertly you think these guys are shooting something in 3D, nothing can save the color through those glasses.

I seriously wish Jackson would have just scrapped the digital 3D, 48 idea altogether and just shot on IMAX. Can you imagine those famous sweeping landscape shots of New Zealand on an IMAX screen? It pains me when great film makers like Jackson miss the bigger picture (no pun intended) and go with digital 3D over IMAX. Thank goodness Chris Nolan is championing this stuff so heavily, otherwise no one would pay attention.

Agreed.

I'm still interested to see if 48 goes anywhere someday, but I hate that this is the reaction we're getting, and I don't think something as loved as the Hobbit should have been the film to test it on.

As with any new technology demo sometimes the product they test it on can suffer. The new technology takes center stage rather than letting the material shine. One example, to use a game, Assassins Creed was a big tech demo more than anything and the story and game mechanics were ho hum. Later sequel's addressed those issues, but the first one has never been a great game. This film is a 48fps demo that will, based on initial reaction, leave a black mark on the film itself. It happens in any evolving industry, but its sad it had to happen to this film.

I know me, and I've never liked tru-motion or 120hz conversion on films or tv. It looks unnatural to me, and I've never been able to get used to it. Unless this film looks completely different from that there is a snowballs chance in hell I will like it. Final judgment is reserved, but I'm looking for something specific with this, and unless its that I don't see it being my cup of tea.

 

[Octoberist]

I'm in the mind where I want to see the 48 for myself. I think the write up at Aint It Cool was very fair and constructive: It looked like Tru Motion but not. So obviously, it looked better than that HD TV crap but at the same time, it's also radically different that the result could divide people.

I'm thinking that The Hobbit will be playing in 24 FPS in 2D, while the 3D versions will have 48.

 

[dark_b]

if you go back to the avatar threads you will see that i was one one of the rare people complainign about the strobing. you could see it very good when the camera was moving very slow. 3D is closer to reality. and in reality 24fps is not enough.

i have an idea what they could have done. ok this is talking without any proof. they should use the 48 fps and add motion blur where it needs it. you can add 3D and 2D motion blur. a software called Nuke has this option. even After Effects has a cheap 2D motion blur. you go clip by clip and add motion blur where it needs. you still have 48 fps resolution so you dont get the strobing and ghosting effect.

 

[dark_b]

This is my issue with 3D. For me there are so many more distractions with 3D: the glasses, the flicker, the dark visuals, ghosting (cross talk), things coming out of the screen etc. When I go watch a 2D movie I sit down and I get lost in what's going on. I don't eat, I don't drink, or any of that stuff I just soak it all in.

this is not fair. a lot of theaters are saving on energy and bulbs. they on purpose showing you a darker 3D image. the ghosting effect is sometimes also a problem bcause the theater doesnt have the projectors calibrated.in the last 5 years i watched at least 5 movies where the image was very dark .i am talking about a normal 2D movie. and in one movie the edged were blurry. yes you read it right. the f... theater showed a blurry movie. this has to become illegal. someone needs to go to prison. i am not sayin that the image is not darker with 3D movies. it is. but a lot of times the theaters are even more making it darker. if youare listening to slashfilm podcasts you can see how Adam and David a lot of times complain about the bad 3D. not from the movie but from the theater.

 

[dark_b]

Probably the biggest issue I've ever had with 3D is that color is seriously dimmed down, which many people don't understand is a huge issue. I don't care how expertly you think these guys are shooting something in 3D, nothing can save the color through those glasses.

I seriously wish Jackson would have just scrapped the digital 3D, 48 idea altogether and just shot on IMAX. Can you imagine those famous sweeping landscape shots of New Zealand on an IMAX screen? It pains me when great film makers like Jackson miss the bigger picture (no pun intended) and go with digital 3D over IMAX. Thank goodness Chris Nolan is championing this stuff so heavily, otherwise no one would pay attention.
.

i am not writting this because you are wrong. you just dont have enough info. let me explain it to you.

every second of Hobbit will go on the computer. Jackson is editing,color timing on computers. so everything is digital. which means everything needs to be scanned on the disc. plus almost every shot from Hobbit will have an CGI effect.
now lets go to Nolan. he is not using in every shot CGI. he edits oldschool like Spielberg( War Horse was his fist digital cut movie). so we have a situation where Nolan doesnt have to get the footage on the computer. from what i understand he even uses some oldschool techniques for color correction. you see where i am going? Bird with M:I4 also didnt have in every shot a CGI effect.
IMAX is for movies that are very practical and filmed on location. you can not use IMAX for a fantasy movie like Hobbit. first there is not enough harddrives to have the whole movie in IMAX resoltions. second WETA couldnt render everything in imax resolution. on TDK DoubleNegative had insane big problems. they had problems even previewing the footage. everything needed to be in bigger resoltuion for CGI models. ILM had comuter crashing when rendering the robots. some computers burned. yes burned.

IMAX is not an option for Hobbit. and it never was an option. TDKR can be 50% in imax resolution.

 

[dark_b]

http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/laser-projection-at-55000-lumens-hfr-48fps-the-future-of-cinema/

laser projection. now this is interesting. everything that is closer to IMAx and at the same time easier and cheaper is interesting.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

i have an idea what they could have done. ok this is talking without any proof. they should use the 48 fps and add motion blur where it needs it. you can add 3D and 2D motion blur. a software called Nuke has this option. even After Effects has a cheap 2D motion blur. you go clip by clip and add motion blur where it needs. you still have 48 fps resolution so you dont get the strobing and ghosting effect.

"The good news is modern cameras can eliminate lens flare. The bad news is we'll have to cgi in some lens flare to compensate."

 

[dark_b]

not the same. the problem with lens flares in movies from JJ is that they force lens flares where there wouldnt be lens flares. for example you have a white light with a extreme blue lens flare.

Peter Jackson,Cameron,Spielberg used a lot of fake lens flares. but only where it would make sense.

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

i am not writting this because you are wrong. you just dont have enough info. let me explain it to you.

every second of Hobbit will go on the computer. Jackson is editing,color timing on computers. so everything is digital. which means everything needs to be scanned on the disc. plus almost every shot from Hobbit will have an CGI effect.
now lets go to Nolan. he is not using in every shot CGI. he edits oldschool like Spielberg( War Horse was his fist digital cut movie). so we have a situation where Nolan doesnt have to get the footage on the computer. from what i understand he even uses some oldschool techniques for color correction. you see where i am going? Bird with M:I4 also didnt have in every shot a CGI effect.
IMAX is for movies that are very practical and filmed on location. you can not use IMAX for a fantasy movie like Hobbit. first there is not enough harddrives to have the whole movie in IMAX resoltions. second WETA couldnt render everything in imax resolution. on TDK DoubleNegative had insane big problems. they had problems even previewing the footage. everything needed to be in bigger resoltuion for CGI models. ILM had comuter crashing when rendering the robots. some computers burned. yes burned.

IMAX is not an option for Hobbit. and it never was an option. TDKR can be 50% in imax resolution.

The very basis of how Jackson shot LOTR was that a heavy percentage of it was practical. There's a ton of CGI, to be sure, everything you described that IMAX is good for, i.e. shooting on location and shooting practically, is what Jackson excels at doing. If CGI on IMAX film is that much of a problem then obviously the entire film couldn't be shot on the format, so I would preferably want most of those shots to be the giant landscape shots of all the different locations around New Zealand.

As far as actually adding CGI elements to an IMAX negative; my understanding of film is that the more latitude you have to work with, the more special effects you are able to add, so in theory I would guess that it would be an animators dream come true. I don't know much about the conversion process of IMAX film, but I don't see how editing it could be too terrible different from normal 35. You mention that Nolan is an old school editor, how do you mean? Does he physically cut film on a flat bed? Because as far as I know, the industry has been editing on computer for a good long while now and I haven't seen anyone say differently. It's almost dumb not to edit on a computer, unless you're really efficient using traditional means.

But going back to my original argument, I don't see how IMAX is a bad format to use for a film like this since, as you stated, it's perfect for practical and location shooting. The Hobbit is all of that and then some.