The Hobbit - Page 14 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #391 of 944 Old 04-28-2012, 05:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

When I showed her a blu ray for the first time, she thought it looked too clean and sharp. Unnatural, she once said.

I have never seen anyone, even total Blu-Ray newbies, have that reaction to a Blu-Ray movie on a display that is properly calibrated, without frame interpolation. Every person I know, including guests watching Blu-Rays on my projection screen, have loved the image over any DVD image.

I've yet to see a reaction of "Blu-Ray looks to clear and weird" that did not trace to the fact the display was poorly calibrated or, by far most likely, some sort of frame interpolation processing was activated on the display - and the person attributes that "too weirdly sharp and clear" look to Blu-Ray itself rather than the display device.

So I'm curious: do you use any motion smoothing/frame interpolation settings?
R Harkness is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #392 of 944 Old 04-28-2012, 05:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 103
^ My Elite 150fd has been professionally calibrated and there are no frame interpolated options on these displays. She just hates change, like many people, except she really has a problem with change. It's an extreme example, I know. However, human beings tend to not like change and problems with change incerease exponentially when they've gotten used to the same thing for such a long time.

David Budo
Dbuudo07 is offline  
post #393 of 944 Old 04-28-2012, 06:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Well I agree generally about the problem of "changes." It is a sobering reminder that virtually every advance or change, in this case dealing with the history of film, has come with people pushing back and a fare share of detractors. This issue with HFR may be yet another example and of course may come to be accepted.

However, that doesn't in of itself simply negate the substance of people's negative reactions. Whether we, or people in the future become accustomed to HFR as the norm, it's still a subjective fact that many people experiencing it NOW find it to be counterproductive to the believability of the viewing experience. "It's the future of film" type proclamations do not help this in any way, right now, if it still has the effect NOW of looking more fake to the current audience.

We'll have to see the finished product, though.
R Harkness is online now  
post #394 of 944 Old 04-28-2012, 06:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 103
Agreed. The final product will be the determining factor. Once you're engrossed in the film, the experience should be heightened by the realism and the beautifully created Middle Earth should be delivered in a more vivid and enveloping way. I was floored when I saw the trailer on a Barco projector in RealD. The 3D was leaps better than Avatar's in terms of depth, so I'm truly looking forward to seeing the final full product the way Jackson intended.

David Budo
Dbuudo07 is offline  
post #395 of 944 Old 04-28-2012, 08:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

However, that doesn't in of itself simply negate the substance of people's negative reactions.

The important word there is "reactions". It's not like people went into the demo wanting to find something negative, nor were their remarks an intellectual analysis that they pondered for a long time. Instead, many of the negative comments were a reflexive reaction to what they saw; and some of the comments weren't negative, merely pointed out that it looked more like TV than a typical theatrical movie. It's not a question of right or wrong, good or bad; it's just a lifetime of conditioning that makes us react a certain way, by reflex, to differences in cadence. A generation of viewers may grow up without that conditioning, but this current one isn't it.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #396 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 05:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
People always forget that not every technical improvment will be implemented and the people supporting this new technolgy will be proven right. 3D has failed several times earlier, faster framerate could have been implemented 50 years ago, cinerama failed, smell-o-vision etc. Just because its closer ot real life, doesnt equal that it improves the movie experience. Is the next step that we cut music in the movies because there is no music in real life? Should we stop having soundeffects in space because there is no sound in space?

The filmmaking skills of today has been centered around 24P 2D for so long, that the entire process of making movies need to change if a new format should work. We had artificial lighting that 100% aimed for making the 2D content look 3D. Depth of field to create sense of depth on a 2D screen. We can create unrealistic fighting scenes look believable by changing the framerate during recording, we can create slow motion effects that work seemless with non slow motion fps.

When I watched Avatar in 3D, the scenes that looked best for the 3D format was actually the scenes with long depth of field. Because it felt more real. When we have scenes with the more classic depth of field it didnt work as good, it was like my eyes wanted to focus themself but the filmmaker had already decided the focus for me.

So just adding an extra camera and double the framerate will not work if you handle the rest of the movie like a 2D movie. You must rethink everything to make the illusion work. Just like they did when sound came, or colors for that matter (or cinerama), its not just business as usual. You must give the new format a soul of its own.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #397 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 07:26 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
With any cinema technical advancement, there is always a learning curve. It takes time to experiment with what works and what doesn't work and how to use the new process to advance story-telling to the point that the technical advancement becomes transparent to the audience. It has to be a tool and not a gimmick for it to survive and flourish.

Someone has to be the first to use it. And that someone's creation is going to be put under a microscope. They couldn't have picked a better person; Peter Jackson or a creation; THE HOBBIT to usher in HFR movie production. It's long overdue.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #398 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 08:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 103
^ +1

David Budo
Dbuudo07 is offline  
post #399 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 08:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,092
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 369
Something "new" can mean "improved", but I see people often make the mistake of assuming that "new" must mean "improved". Not so.
RobertR is online now  
post #400 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 09:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 103
I can also see people confusing change with a bad thing until they get used to it and have a hard time going back. This is a normal reaction and I'll reserve judgment for the final product. When I first watched Avatar, the 3D took about 10 minutes to settle into. After that, any discomfort or unease completely vanished and I was brought into the world as Cameron intended. That was only for the first viewing. I saw it another 7 times in different formats and had no issues at all.

David Budo
Dbuudo07 is offline  
post #401 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 10:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,092
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

I can also see people confusing change with a bad thing until they get used to it and have a hard time going back.

I've argue that for years with vinylphiles.
RobertR is online now  
post #402 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 10:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Capture above 24fps isnt anything new to be adapted to. The reason its called the soap opera effect is that soaps was often shoot in 50i/60i. It was actually expensive to shoot 24fps.

People have watched +48hz content for so long, it shouldnt be any problem watching this. And I dont think color grading is the problem.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #403 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 12:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Sean Nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vancouver BC, Canada
Posts: 3,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
View this 30p capture full-frame on your monitor while panning your eyes to try to read the signs going by:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdKVOASKOkc

Are you folks seriously trying to tell me that the even worse 24fps is something to be desired? And before you start arguing "shutter angle" remember that a large shutter angle masks the stroboscopic effect by increasing the motion blur in each frame, resulting in even less legibility.

Really, this is what people want? I don't think so.

The idea that people are "used" to this is just stupid, IMHO. It's something they put up with, not something they want. Give them a better option and the traditional "cinematic look" will soon be as popular as scratchy old analogue records.
Sean Nelson is offline  
post #404 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 01:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Yes many of us prefer something worse then 30p. Just like we prefer colors that are desaturated, depth of field that is limited, grain in the image, lens flares, soundeffects, music etc. These are just tools to tell a story. Its like complaining on a painting , that its bad because it doesnt look like a photo.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #405 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 01:42 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Something "new" can mean "improved", but I see people often make the mistake of assuming that "new" must mean "improved". Not so.

"Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder"

"One man's junk is another man's treasure"
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #406 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 02:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Yes many of us prefer something worse then 30p. Just like we prefer colors that are desaturated, depth of field that is limited, grain in the image, lens flares, soundeffects, music etc. These are just tools to tell a story. Its like complaining on a painting , that its bad because it doesnt look like a photo.

Honestly, that argument is weak. 24 frames were the most cost-effective way to shoot movies with high quality film and it became the standard. Digital doesn't have this limitation and we can finally move past this comprimise. Don't say it is an artistic choice and that people don't want to see everything on screen. Why would movie makers strive for such high quality special effects if they weren't trying to fool the audience that what they're seeing is as close to being real as possible? Obviously they can grade the colours and make their own adjustments, which is fine. However, 24fps has not been an artistic choice. It's been the comprimised standard that everyone has grown accustomed to. For example, colour, surround sound, widescreen, just to name a couple. These were all enhancements, as HFR is.

David Budo
Dbuudo07 is offline  
post #407 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 02:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
HFR has been rejected before because of artistic reason. While economy was a factor in the beginning, studios could very well have implemented HFR if they wanted to 40 years ago.

But when you film inside a studio HFR is less forgiving when it comes to protecting the illusion that is film. Because every little detail that isnt right will be much more obvious.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #408 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 03:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Nelson View Post


The idea that people are "used" to this is just stupid, IMHO.

Er..no...it's actually a fact that people are used to the look of 24fps for movies. It's the fact that explains the poor reactions to the Hobbit footage, and the many poor reactions to frame interpolation on HDTVs.

Whether this changes in the future or not, it's a fact now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Nelson View Post

It's something they put up with, not something they want.

Yes and no. Yes it's an artifact from the original limitations of film. Yes there are some attractive things about the concept of HFR, at least in theory, getting rid of blur etc.

But currently, IF the choice is between an image that makes it harder to believe what's happening on screen (HFR), it's a fact that many people actually want the lower frame rate. All the shouting of "Luddites" and it's theoretical advantages won't mean squat if in fact people find it is off-putting and reduces their ability to enjoy the drama on screen.

Many of us have displays with optional frame interpolation which mimicks just the qualities you get with a higher frame rate, and the look is excactly as many people described from the Hobbit preview.

I've tried watching movies with the frame interpolation on, on my projector. Pans lose the blur, camera movement and on screen movement is smoother and clearer, the image looks clearer and more detailed. All wonderful sounding stuff and all the stuff attributed to higher frame rates. But for me it brings a marked reduction the cinematic feeling, and in believability. It looks cheap. Like actors on sets, not a real world. (And it also doesn't look as the cinematographer intended it either).

So you are wrong: I'm aware of the look of higher frame rates. I do indeed want to watch 24ps.

(Maybe that will change some day, but it's a fact at this time).
R Harkness is online now  
post #409 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 03:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,092
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post


But currently, IF the choice is between an image that makes it harder to believe what's happening on screen (HFR), it's a fact that many people actually want the lower frame rate. All the shouting of "Luddites" and it's theoretical advantages won't mean squat if in fact people find it is off-putting and reduces their ability to enjoy the drama on screen.

It's a real problem, no matter how much people are labeled old reactionaries. Which would most people rather have: A picture so real it's obvious that the objects in the scene are props and sets, and the makeup people are wearing shows clearly as such, or a picture with just enough UNreality to it that what they see on screen is more believeable?

To help answer this question, let me ask another question: What would the result be if the technology existed to make images SO real that they were indistinguishable from actually being on the set?
RobertR is online now  
post #410 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 03:32 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Er..no...it's actually a fact that people are used to the look of 24fps for movies. It's the fact that explains the poor reactions to the Hobbit footage, and the many poor reactions to frame interpolation on HDTVs.

Whether this changes in the future or not, it's a fact now.

Do not pretend that all reactions to THE HOBBIT footage were "poor" or negative. That would be an outright lie.


Quote:


Yes and no. Yes it's an artifact from the original limitations of film. Yes there are some attractive things about the concept of HFR, at least in theory, getting rid of blur etc.

But currently, IF the choice is between an image that makes it harder to believe what's happening on screen (HFR), it's a fact that many people actually want the lower frame rate. All the shouting of "Luddites" and it's theoretical advantages won't mean squat if in fact people find it is off-putting and reduces their ability to enjoy the drama on screen.

Many of us have displays with optional frame interpolation which mimicks just the qualities you get with a higher frame rate, and the look is excactly as many people described from the Hobbit preview.

I've tried watching movies with the frame interpolation on, on my projector. Pans lose the blur, camera movement and on screen movement is smoother and clearer, the image looks clearer and more detailed. All wonderful sounding stuff and all the stuff attributed to higher frame rates. But for me it brings a marked reduction the cinematic feeling, and in believability. It looks cheap. Like actors on sets, not a real world. (And it also doesn't look as the cinematographer intended it either).

So you are wrong: I'm aware of the look of higher frame rates. I do indeed want to watch 24ps.

(Maybe that will change some day, but it's a fact at this time).

This is a common misnomer. Thinking that multiplying existing frames is the same as shooting and presenting at 48 FPS.

It's like saying you can upscale a DVD to 1080P. A Bluray is 1080P also so they must be the same right? 1080P = 1080P.

So you can go see THE HOBBIT at a theater in 2D and 24 FPS. Me - I want to see it in 3D at 48 FPS. And there is no reason in the world for people like you to deny me that because you have some nostalgic love for a crippled cinema process that is 75+ years old.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #411 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 03:40 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

It's a real problem, no matter how much people are labeled old reactionaries. Which would most people rather have: A picture so real it's obvious that the objects in the scene are props and sets, and the makeup people are wearing shows clearly as such, or a picture with just enough UNreality to it that what they see on screen is more believeable?

You are making a bad assumption. That the production team would allow that to happen. Oh wait - sorry - that happens ALL THE TIME and has nothing to do with HFR or 24 FPS. It's just sloppy production values.

Quote:


To help answer this question, let me ask another question: What would the result be if the technology existed to make images SO real that they were indistinguishable from actually being on the set?

That was Douglas Trumbull's concept behind BRAINSTORM
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #412 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 03:47 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

HFR has been rejected before because of artistic reason. While economy was a factor in the beginning, studios could very well have implemented HFR if they wanted to 40 years ago.

Actually no - Studios couldn't implement HFR 40 years ago if they wanted to. They need (just like today) the blessing and cooperation of the theater owners, who didn't give a hoot about any artistic reasons. Showscan was frightfully expensive and they wanted nothing to do with it. It was ALL about economy.

Quote:


But when you film inside a studio HFR is less forgiving when it comes to protecting the illusion that is film. Because every little detail that isnt right will be much more obvious.

Each new cinema process has new requirements. And as you have repeatedly said, they have been shooting in HFR for quite some time . . . 1080 x 60i. So why is that OK . . . but for 1080 x 48P - there are all kinds of issues

"Hoist with his own petard"
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #413 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 03:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,092
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post


That was Douglas Trumbull's concept behind BRAINSTORM

What concept? That he thought he could make people literally believe that they weren't watching a movie? That could not be literally true.

Quote:


Oh wait - sorry - that happens ALL THE TIME and has nothing to do with HFR or 24 FPS. It's just sloppy production values.

The potential problem is that this will change what constitutes "sloppy production values" to an unreasonably high level.
RobertR is online now  
post #414 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 04:15 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

What concept? That he thought he could make people literally believe that they weren't watching a movie? That could not be literally true.

Never saw BRAINSTORM huh?

Quote:


The potential problem is that this will change what constitutes "sloppy production values" to an unreasonably high level.

Innocent . . . . until proven guilty . . . not the other way around.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #415 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 04:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Actually no - Studios couldn't implement HFR 40 years ago if they wanted to. They need (just like today) the blessing and cooperation of the theater owners, who didn't give a hoot about any artistic reasons. Showscan was frightfully expensive and they wanted nothing to do with it. It was ALL about economy.

Filmreels are already running at duplicate frames. It would be easy to create a new hfr format. One of their problem was that the filmmakers didnt like the estetic look of hfr.

Quote:


Each new cinema process has new requirements. And as you have repeatedly said, they have been shooting in HFR for quite some time . . . 1080 x 60i. So why is that OK . . . but for 1080 x 48P - there are all kinds of issues

"Hoist with his own petard"

They still have a problem with 50i/60i productions, they look fake. But since they dont even pretend that they are making an Epic. They get away with it.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #416 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 04:27 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Filmreels are already running at duplicate frames. It would be easy to create a new hfr format. One of their problem was that the filmmakers didnt like the estetic look of hfr.

You honestly believe that native 24P shot and shown double flashed is the same as natively shot 48 FPS shown at 48 FPS?

BTW - THE HOBBIT will be shown 48 FPS 3D double flashed to 96 FPS per eye. The highest today is RealD which is 24P triple flashed to 72 FPS per eye.

So how many filmmakers saw Showscan? You got a list?

Quote:


They still have a problem with 50i/60i productions, they look fake. But since they dont even pretend that they are making an Epic. They get away with it.

They look fake . . . to you. You really should use . . . IMO . . . more often in your posts.

I know there are some who will go to a movie and specifically look for errors and mistakes. I wonder how can you lose yourself in the story while at the same time concentrating on finds errors and mistakes.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #417 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 04:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,092
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Never saw BRAINSTORM huh?

Did that. Never talked to anyone who saw the movie who believed he was "there". Did you really think that?

Quote:


Innocent . . . . until proven guilty . . . not the other way around.

But the case WILL go to trial, and a guilty verdict won't require unanimity.
RobertR is online now  
post #418 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 04:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Sean Nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vancouver BC, Canada
Posts: 3,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

It's a real problem, no matter how much people are labeled old reactionaries. Which would most people rather have: A picture so real it's obvious that the objects in the scene are props and sets, and the makeup people are wearing shows clearly as such, or a picture with just enough UNreality to it that what they see on screen is more believeable?

What you are describing is exactly what happened when the broadcast industry switched from SD (standard definition) to HDTV. Exactly. See: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1...406700,00.html

Did this force the industry to stick with SD? Of course not. Instead they beefed up the props and makeup to cope with it.

Why on earth would anyone here think that the movie industry is going to be any different?
Sean Nelson is offline  
post #419 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 04:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

You honestly believe that native 24P shot and shown double flashed is the same as natively shot 48 FPS shown at 48 FPS?

were did I write 24p?

Quote:


BTW - THE HOBBIT will be shown 48 FPS 3D double flashed to 96 FPS per eye. The highest today is RealD which is 24P triple flashed to 72 FPS per eye.

So? The problem here isnt the lack of frame.

Quote:


So how many filmmakers saw Showscan? You got a list?

was showscan even first on this.

Quote:


They look fake . . . to you. You really should use . . . IMO . . . more often in your posts.

Yes, those BBC production were all praised for their fantastic sets the last 30 years.

Quote:


I know there are some who will go to a movie and specifically look for errors and mistakes. I wonder how can you lose yourself in the story while at the same time concentrating on finds errors and mistakes.

the trick is to watch good movies. They use to come in 2d only.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #420 of 944 Old 04-29-2012, 04:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Sean Nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vancouver BC, Canada
Posts: 3,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Yes many of us prefer something worse then 30p.

I have a hard time believing that you actually watched that clip, tried to read the writing that was panning by, and say that it's the way you'd prefer to see that material.

Your arguments sound like those of an "analog purist" - too invested in the past to accept new, better ways of doing things. History will pass such people by.
Sean Nelson is offline  
Reply Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

Tags
Blu Ray Movies , The Lord Of The Rings The Motion Picture Trilogy The Fellowship Of The Ring The Two Towers The Retur

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off