AVS Forum banner
60K views 943 replies 129 participants last post by  Franin 
#1 ·
 http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2009...hobbittrilogy/
Quote:
For a few months now, we've all been wondering why there's been such a cloud of secrecy from Guillermo and PJ regarding progress on The Hobbit. Well, today we got wind of what could be the biggest story so far about this much anticipated film: a report that negotiations are under way for a third film!

Interesting....Hobbit was never meant to be as deep as LOTR. Do we really need 3 movies for what essentially is a children's novel?
 
#377 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens /forum/post/21960973


What's he going to do? Say, "Oh, ok. I will only release it at 24fps"


No, of course not. He's going to defend his decision and hope he makes a billion dollars.

That's true, but at least he could have said something like "don't worry, the finished film won't have a soap opera, videoish look to it. It'll look cinematic". Instead we get this "this is what I'm giving you. Get used to it" attitude.
 
#378 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR /forum/post/21961032


That's true, but at least he could have said something like "don't worry, the finished film won't have a soap opera, videoish look to it. It'll look cinematic". Instead we get this "this is what I'm giving you. Get used to it" attitude.

Because in some people's viewpoint it will still look 'videoish', not in terms of colour grading look (or other techniques used in cinema), but in terms of motion. Not that that's a bad thing, it's probably the only frame of reference people have for highish frame rates. - ie. it will have more realistic/accurate motion.
 
#379 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/21960916


Peter forgets that alot of people have watched 50i/p drama for some time. Its really nothing new watching faster fps.

For movies it is, ie; those seen in a theater and not on a television. The last HFR movie (Hollywood production) was 1956's Around the World in Eighty Days shot and shown in 30 FPS Todd AO

Quote:
Thats exactly the reason why we dont need 48fps in the first place. Once you drawn into the movie, technology can rest.

The reason 48 FPS is needed, is to get people back into theaters. Show them something they can't see in their homes.
 
#381 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/21961369


For movies it is, ie; those seen in a theater and not on a television. The last HFR movie (Hollywood production) was 1956's Around the World in Eighty Days shot and shown in 30 FPS Todd AO

30fps is closer to 24 then 48. And just because it is in a theater do not make 48 fps look like its not 48. If I watch 720/50p in my hometheater does it look less videoish?

Quote:
The reason 48 FPS is needed, is to get people back into theaters. Show them something they can't see in their homes.

Making epic movies look like Fawlty Towers is not the answer.
 
#382 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/21961615


30fps is closer to 24 then 48. And just because it is in a theater do not make 48 fps look like its not 48. If I watch 720/50p in my hometheater does it look less videoish?

Unknown - haven't seen a finished movie showing in 48 FPS 3D yet. Have you?

Quote:
Making epic movies look like Fawlty Towers is not the answer.

Peter Jackson and James Cameron disagree with you. Both are wildly successful movie makers . . who are you?
 
#388 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR /forum/post/21962008


As you said earlier, there are far too many variables involved to accept that as scientific "proof" that 3D is wildly popular.

I don't ever remember saying 3D was "wildly popular."


But there is some proof of it's recent popularity, or at least success - that chart I posted. Of course, if you don't like 3D, then you will come up with all kinds of reasons to try to play it down. Just like you tried to do with Trumbull's frame rate testing procedure.
 
#389 ·

Quote:
I reached out to Steve Schklair of 3ality Technica for his thoughts on the subject as Peter Jackson is using their 3D rigs on his production.


Here's what Steve had to say:


"Every change in cinema technology has come with negative comments and naysayers. This includes the advent of color, sound, digital, and 3D. If you remember back to the early days of digital, there was a company selling a process that would artificially insert weave, grain, scratches and dirt into a pristine digital image so that it would have a “film look”. Motion artifacts in 2D are distracting, and in 3D they are especially distracting. Shooting HFR makes for better images and sharper less distracting pictures. Because it does not look like what people are used to, it comes with the same detractors as did color, sound, digital, and 3D. I agree with Peter Jackson in that you have to see an entire movie at 48 and not just a few minutes. When you become immersed in the story, the difference in look will become secondary to the story. Eventually, like all new technologies in our business, it will become the accepted norm. History shows that to always be true."
http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2012/0...-can-only.html
 
#390 ·
I agree in that people don't like change. It's always the same. It takes time and ten minutes of cut up, incomplete footage will not do it. My Elite ups 24fps to 72fps and it looks fantastic. My girlfriend is one of those people who don't like change. When I showed her a blu ray for the first time, she thought it looked too clean and sharp. Unnatural, she once said. Two weeks of back and forth DVD to blu ray watching and she refuses to by anything but blu rays now (if she has the option between DVD and blu ray). It's all about the amount of time it takes for people to adjust. I adjust very quickly.
 
#391 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 /forum/post/21962356


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?
 
#392 ·
^ 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.
 
#393 ·
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.
 
#394 ·
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.
 
#395 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21962648


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.
 
#396 ·
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.
 
#397 ·
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.
 
#400 ·
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top