Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 4

[terry78]

Ironically, we nerds are scared of technology and change when it comes to certain things.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Filming at 48fps for a 3d movie is an entirely different thing than the trumotoin crap tvs have nowadays. People should NOT be looking at the trumotion effect and thinking 48fps will look the same. People need to get that out of their heads.

 

[craigdbfan]

Then they should release a 48fps trailer if that's the case. I'm actually curious to see it in the format it was intended.

 

[Spider-Who?]

It's only a simple animation, but here's a nice example of how different frame rates look.

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

 

[craigdbfan]

I'm aware of the difference between 24fps and 60fps as a good deal of FPS run on 60fps. Most popularly the COD games but that doesn't mean it gives me any better of an idea to how The Hobbit is going to look like in 48fps. I get the fluidity of movement part but attributes like the lighting and it being a bit of a heavy fantasy period piece with extensive costumes, prosthetic's and CGI creatures definitely change all of that. The movement isn't exactly my problem as I welcome smoother dynamism but I want to look at how the palette of the overall movie is affected by these added frames.

Again it'd be nice to see footage for this movie in 48fps so I can decide for myself whether or not I feel it looks good or not.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Then they should release a 48fps trailer if that's the case. I'm actually curious to see it in the format it was intended.

As we all are, but I think I agree with PJ on holding off. It'll take more than a trailer to get used to it, and that fact will surely put people off. Peter is a great filmmaker and I trust his judgement.

 

[dark_b]

we will not know how 48 fps looks if they realese the 48fps trailer online.

 

[Tequilla]

we will not know how 48 fps looks if they realese the 48fps trailer online.

Why not ?

Some movie theatres projections probably wouldn’t be able to show it (although its probable that a lot of it would already be able to) , and some old monitors with small refreshing rates.

Everyone else would be able to see it , outside of some youtube-esque players.

 

[dark_b]

modern monitors support the technology that Cameron and Jackson are promoting in theaters?

 

[Tequilla]

modern monitors support the technology that Cameron and Jackson are promoting in theaters?

Yes , outside of 3d (even that there's already some 3d tvs which actually are better than most theatres projections). Anyone with the right equipment can record something in 48 (or higher) and upload it to the net. There's probably videos out there (not on some youtube players that doesn’t support it)

Higher Framerates was talked almost 30 years ago. Cameron isn’t inventing the wheel. There's a lot of formats like showscan and maxivision 48 that were planned considering that. The industry simply took a dump on them.

Now with 3d , higher framerates come in handy.

 

[dark_b]

i know that Cameron didnt invent the wheel. Cameron talked at comiccon 2009 that some projectors can support higher frame rates. i thought this is not possible on the itnernet and monitors.

 

[Kane52630]

I hear it's more of a firmware update on the 3D projectors than anything else according to Cameron.

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

Jackson speaks up about the reactions to 48fps.

http://geektyrant.com/news/2012/4/29/peter-jackson-responds-to-hobbit-footage-48fps-complaints.html?utm_source=***********&utm_medium=twitter

 

[Armored Avenger]

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.

The footage shown hasn't exactly filled everyone with excitement either. Radagast the Brown has birds living in his hair and rides a sled pulled by rabbits (or hares) and some subplot involving the 'tombs of the Ringwraiths' has been added, which seems to contradict the entire latter history of the Third Age. As I posted earlier:

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.

In addition to this, what was left of the Arnorians of Arthedain (or 'the Men of the North' as the film calls them) would have no where near the number, strength or capability to imprison any of the Nine. The entire North Kingdom had been decimated and what was left of its people became a wandering group of Rangers. How would they have managed to entomb the disembodied spirit of the Lord of the Nazgul?

What was shown of the Trollshaw scene (complete with talking Trolls) and the Riddles in the Dark got a much better reception though (apart from reports of Gollum referring to himself as Smeagol, which seems to contradict events Jackson himself made a big deal over in The Two Towers). It has all just been overshadowed by the 48fps debate, the bizarreness of Radagast and the fan fiction sounding Ringwraith additions.

 

[I'm Old Greg]

I'm all for this new Format. I like more Frame rates, i got an LED Samsung because I didn't like the motion blur in the old TV.

People always **** on the New and Unfamiliar before giving it more of a chance.
I saw a TV years ago with more frame rates and i couldn't stop starring at it, it was soo expensive, i still haven't seen a TV like that but it felt soo real like they were in a window and not on a television.

I like New and innovative things, I like different, I like progress, i like experimenting. Give me a break people don't like it, sounds like a bunch of old stuck in what there used to cause they can't adjust. I don't want things to stay the same i want it to change.

I can't wait to see the Hobbit shot like this. I want it 'more real'. I need more out of a film experience than just seeing peoples faces stretched out 20feet on a screen.

 

[Armored Avenger]

I want it 'more real'.

This is a fantasy film in a completely constructed world, so there is no "real" to begin with. Everything is artificial, from the sets, to the wigs, to the make up, the costumes, the props, etc. And it seems the 48fps exposes all of that and takes people out of the illusion of excepting this imaginary world. People are complaining that the sets look like sets, not actual locations. It's apparent that the actors are wearing make up. I fail to see how noticing all of this improves the viewing experience.
As others have said, 48fps seems far more suited for some types of films as opposed to others. A gritty war film with an emphasis on real locations and practical effects, for example, could benefit greatly from the immersion of seeing everything 'as it is'. A fantasy film in which everything is an illusion that must be maintained throughout, not so much.

 

[dark_b]

the brain is making a connection to the behind the scenes videos. higher fram rates reminds the brain on behind the scenes footage. in the behind the scenes footage you see sets and props and wigs. thats why some reported that the sets looked like sets.

and i didnt know that fantasy movies didnt have to be 100% real. since fanboys like to complain about CGI in every fantasy movie. so is it with CGI different? since movies are not meant to be real why is it wrong if the CGI shadow is 4 % darker then on the live action plate? t:

 

[Marvolo]

Heard it put best "The 48fps are going to make this look a bunch of people are dressed as hobbits and dwarves LARPing through the woods."

I hope not, but that's what it sounds like based on some of the initial reactions.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

So, first we have Nolan possibly spoiling people's enjoyment of TDKR by having Bane talk indecipherably , and now there is the possibility that, just when Jackson makes a hobbit film using more fake sets than outdoor location shooting(than he did on lotr anyway), he is using some new filming method that could possibly make the shots look like the kind of cheaper film they use for behind the scenes footage, so it will be more apparent they are using fake sets. great.

 

[Armored Avenger]

and i didnt know that fantasy movies didnt have to be 100% real. since fanboys like to complain about CGI in every fantasy movie. so is it with CGI different? since movies are not meant to be real why is it wrong if the CGI shadow is 4 % darker then on the live action plate?

The Lord of the Rings trilogy didn't look 100% real, it looked like a film, yet visual effects like Gollum have to maintain a sense of consistency within the created world and appear to interact with the characters. Gollum had to look like he was there with the characters in the location or it would have destroyed the illusion of the artificial world. By exposing all of the seams of filmmaking, the 48fps destroys that illusion (judging from most of the reactions to the footage).

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

I have friends who hate anyting above 24fps, I on the other hand, like it. Avatar 2 and 3 are supposed to get this treatment as well.

 

[Caekzor]

I'm all for this new Format. I like more Frame rates, i got an LED Samsung because I didn't like the motion blur in the old TV.

People always **** on the New and Unfamiliar before giving it more of a chance.
I saw a TV years ago with more frame rates and i couldn't stop starring at it, it was soo expensive, i still haven't seen a TV like that but it felt soo real like they were in a window and not on a television.

I like New and innovative things, I like different, I like progress, i like experimenting. Give me a break people don't like it, sounds like a bunch of old stuck in what there used to cause they can't adjust. I don't want things to stay the same i want it to change.

I can't wait to see the Hobbit shot like this. I want it 'more real'. I need more out of a film experience than just seeing peoples faces stretched out 20feet on a screen.

Reading stuff like this makes me sad. I ****ing hate the motion smoothing setting on new TVs. Messes with my eyes and completely ruins the look and feel of films for me.

I love the "film look". To me that also feels like viewing through a window. But a window into another world.

I don't want to feel like I'm chilling on my couch, looking out my front window and watching things take place on my front lawn like a stage play.

That may seem more "real" because it looks like it's "right there" but at the same time it's going to feel less genuine.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Reading stuff like this makes me sad. I ****ing hate the motion smoothing setting on new TVs. Messes with my eyes and completely ruins the look and feel of films for me.

I love the "film look". To me that also feels like viewing through a window. But a window into another world.

I don't want to feel like I'm chilling on my couch, looking out my front window and watching things take place on my front lawn like a stage play.

That may seem more "real" because it looks like it's "right there" but at the same time it's going to feel less genuine.

Once again, people need to stop thinking that The Hobbit will look like the motion smoothing on the TVs at Best Buy. The two are completely different.

Motion smoothing is an attempt for TVs to overcome the issues that 24fps have when being watched on a TV with a 120hz refresh rate. The TV analyzes each frame and interpolates entirely new frames in between. In other words, every other frame you see is artificial. THAT'S why it looks bad. Because it's a FAKE image created by the TV.

Filming at 48fps is entirely different, and the result will be entirely different because every frame will be actual, honest to god real footage; not a bunch of artificial pixels a TV magically came up with to try and compensate for a higher refresh rate.

 

[Kane52630]

Alright lets put this into perspective since several people in here are losing their sh** for no reason, forget the 3d and the 48 fps.

Look at this trailer again and tell me how is this something you see on your front lawn like a stage play.


[YT]G0k3kHtyoqc[/YT]


Yeah, I rest my case.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Nobody is 'losing their ****'.