Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 4

[redhawk23]

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.

I know it doesn't really apply, but resolution wise how does 5 K compare to film, especially something like IMAX?

 

[Kane52630]

I think everyone needs to revisit Peter Jackson's video blog about 3D again.

[YT]gHF536TJ0iE[/YT]

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I know it doesn't really apply, but resolution wise how does 5 K compare to film, especially something like IMAX?

Yeah. Imax is like over 10K (being film you can't accurately pin it down to a specific number).

 

[Whiskey Tango]

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.

Wasn't talking about whether it's used properly. The point is they are adding in with CG the very things that the tech itself is eliminating. Whether it's lens flare or motion blur, it seems a bit silly.

"We have this great new tech that eliminates these old quirks that we can't live without because it looks fake without them so we must recreate those old quirks immediately."

 

[dark_b]

we humans see a lot of bloom (glowing) from bright objects. sometimes even primitve shapes similar to lens flares. so they need to add them in some parts.

but i understand what you mean.

 

[Destructus86]

I'm confused. what was the trailer shot in? Because the trailed looks amazing. Is it not the same?

 

[Kane52630]

I'm confused. what was the trailer shot in? Because the trailed looks amazing. Is it not the same?

It's the same, it was just converted down to 24 fps which can be done. So if you guys do watch it in 2D and some in 3D (depending on your theater) it will be in 24 fps.

 

[Destructus86]

So why did they convert the trailer down and not just show it how they expect to show it in theaters?

 

[redhawk23]

^ Because the trailer is being projected in theaters that aren't set up for 48 fps yet.

 

[matrix_ghost]

I know it doesn't really apply, but resolution wise how does 5 K compare to film, especially something like IMAX?

Imax has a resolution of 18K. Nothing can be rendered at that resolution at this stage. Shooting something in imax format is gret till vfx work comes in. Every image needs to be rendered at the highesy resolution possible. The bigger the shot , the more time it takes to render something at that format

 

[Marvin]

like I said,

something about every property that get's revisited always ends up tainting the whole thing.

 

[Kane52630]

Not really, it's just a format change. I don't expect half of theaters to be prepared for the 48 fps. Plus once it's released on blu ray I can assure you nobody will be complaining about this.

 

[redhawk23]

Has it ever occurred to Peter Jackson that maybe people won't just "get used to it"? That the aesthetic difference may ultimately be a matter of taste and that he may be in a very small minority. I mean he's free to make his films how he wants I guess but its weird to just assume people will be chill with this after 15 minutes or something.

 

[Kane52630]

Well that was the whole point of going to cinemacon was to see peoples reaction, im sure they will have to take in consideration of what to do to with the 48 fps.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Has it ever occurred to Peter Jackson that maybe people won't just "get used to it"? That the aesthetic difference may ultimately be a matter of taste and that he may be in a very small minority. I mean he's free to make his films how he wants I guess but its weird to just assume people will be chill with this after 15 minutes or something.

People will get used to it throughout the years if and when this catches on. It's just a new thing and people always react negatively to change.

I'm sure people said, "We don't need color. Black and white is perfectly fine to tell a story" when technicolor first came out.

Plus there's a difference between wanting to get used to it and not wanting to get used to it. There's probably some psychological aspect of it. People just don't want to get used to it therefore they see it as something that they won't become used to and it doesn't change. We have become prety sued to 24 fps over the past 100 years. What if in the next 100, we become used to 48 fps?

 

[Octoberist]

It depends on the context ecause people didn't get used to 'New Coke' so they went back to old 'Coca Cola'. (Flash Fact: Hence calling it Coca Cola Classic in the 80's)

 

[Ramsay Snow]

So suppose this does turn out to be finally 48fps, does this mean that when I watch it on Bluray, it will be 48fps?

 

[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.

 

[Boom]

Peter Jackson responds to complaints about 'The Hobbit' footage:

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/04/27/peter-jackson-responds-hobbit/

 

[redhawk23]

People will get used to it throughout the years if and when this catches on. It's just a new thing and people always react negatively to change.

I'm sure people said, "We don't need color. Black and white is perfectly fine to tell a story" when technicolor first came out.

Plus there's a difference between wanting to get used to it and not wanting to get used to it. There's probably some psychological aspect of it. People just don't want to get used to it therefore they see it as something that they won't become used to and it doesn't change. We have become prety sued to 24 fps over the past 100 years. What if in the next 100, we become used to 48 fps?

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.

 

[Armored Avenger]

As much as I am disappointed with the negative reaction to the 48fps, it is the changes to the mythology of Middle-Earth that were suggested in the footage that have me far more concerned. I just posted this on the One Ring, in response to the apparent inclusion of the Witch-king and the Ringwraiths and that they have been magically entombed since the fall of Angmar:

Entombing the Witch-king after his defeat in the Battle of Fornost completely changes the history of Middle-Earth.
After the battle the Witch-king fled south and later (with the other Nazgul) attacked Minas Ithil, taking the city and leading to it becoming known as Minas Morgul. He is also directly responsible for the end of the royal line in Gondor, due to his challenge of single combat to the childless Eärnur. When Eärnur accepted, he rode to Minas Morgul and was never seen again, leading to the Stewards assuming control of Gondor.
This talk of "the Men of the North" imprisoning the Witch-king after the fall of Angmar completely contradicts everything Tolkien wrote about the character after his defeat and creates massive plot holes (if the Witch-king was imprisoned for all this time, how did Minas Ithil fall? How did Gondor lose its Kings? Who has been preparing Mordor for Sauron's return and leading his forces while he regains power?).

While the inclusion of the Nazgul in the Dol Guldur/Necromancer subplot may seem like a minor and reasonable change, the way they have handled it pretty much butchers the later half of the Third Age.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I think the real issue i have with jackson pushing 48fps is it's connection to its 3d showings. Apparently its grand purpose is to make the 3d viewing better even if that comes at the expense of its 2d viewing i suppose.

People have already discovered that the whole 3d trend is just the latest incarnation of the 3d fad that comes and goes. 3d revenues are down across the board for 3d films and 2d going back up. People are realizing paying 5$ to wear sunglasses in a theatre is not the most enjoyable experience. Don't get me started on the failed 3d tv push.

I think guys like jackson and cameron are making mistakes staking so much in 3d still. Someone like chris nolan will look very smart 10 years from now imo.

 

[Boom]

As much as I am disappointed with the negative reaction to the 48fps, it is the changes to the mythology of Middle-Earth that were suggested in the footage that have me far more concerned. I just posted this on the One Ring, in response to the apparent inclusion of the Witch-king and the Ringwraiths and that they have been magically entombed since the fall of Angmar:

Entombing the Witch-king after his defeat in the Battle of Fornost completely changes the history of Middle-Earth.
After the battle the Witch-king fled south and later (with the other Nazgul) attacked Minas Ithil, taking the city and leading to it becoming known as Minas Morgul. He is also directly responsible for the end of the royal line in Gondor, due to his challenge of single combat to the childless Eärnur. When Eärnur accepted, he rode to Minas Morgul and was never seen again, leading to the Stewards assuming control of Gondor.
This talk of "the Men of the North" imprisoning the Witch-king after the fall of Angmar completely contradicts everything Tolkien wrote about the character after his defeat and creates massive plot holes (if the Witch-king was imprisoned for all this time, how did Minas Ithil fall? How did Gondor lose its Kings? Who has been preparing Mordor for Sauron's return and leading his forces while he regains power?).

While the inclusion of the Nazgul in the Dol Guldur/Necromancer subplot may seem like a minor and reasonable change, the way they have handled it pretty much butchers the later half of the Third Age.

Agreed with everything you said. And I'm sure the posters at TheOneRing told you that because none of this information was mentioned/established in the trilogy, it is okay for Jackson to change it.

I'm just about ready to quit posting on TheOneRing. Some of those posters' loyalty to Jackson borders on ignorance sometimes. I know we're all excited to finally be getting an adaptation of this book, but let's not put the man on a pedestal so high that he is immune to criticism.

A few of these changes just stink of fan fiction. How does one entomb a disembodied spirit anyway?

 

[regwec]

 

[Boom]

Goddamnit, regwec .