Another nail in the coffin for film - Page 5 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 172 Old 04-11-2012, 01:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mr. wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land of the pumas
Posts: 3,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 47
wow, blew me away.

absolutely gorgeous!

neflixis our nemesis
mr. wally is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 172 Old 04-24-2012, 03:00 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
CinemaCon 2012: Fox Will Stop U.S. 35mm Film Distribution Within Two Years

Quote:


Twentieth Century Fox has become the first major Hollywood studio to officially notify theater owners that it will distribute all of its films domestically in a digital format wthin the next year or two, bringing an end to 35mm film prints.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ibition-315688
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #123 of 172 Old 04-24-2012, 04:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 322
Seems apropos to this thread:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118053075

http://www.reelz.com/movie-news/1373...-at-cinemacon/

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movi...pp-gatsby.html

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column...-lacking-37254

There are many reports on Peter Jackson's preview of The Hobbit shown at it's higher frame rate (48 fps). Turns out it's getting quite mixed reviews, with many people reporting it looked "too crisp/too real" such that it no longer looks like a movie but a cheaper, filmed stage play.

""Some of the closeup shots looked like an old soap opera on TV," ...

IGN reported: "So what does 48fps movie footage look like as opposed to your usual 24fps theatrical movie experience? In this reporter's opinion, it looks like live television or hi-def video. And it didn't look particularly good. Yes, this is shocking, but I was actually let down by the Hobbit footage, as were a number of the other journalists that I spoke with afterward."

This outcome shouldn't be too surprising, given the distaste many of us have for frame interpolation on TVs and projectors, which produce a similar effect by effectively aping a higher frame rate.

Interesting times ahead for the direction of greater image quality in movies...

Rich H


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R Harkness is offline  
post #124 of 172 Old 04-24-2012, 06:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1012 Post(s)
Liked: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

This outcome shouldn't be too surprising, given the distaste many of us have for frame interpolation on TVs and projectors, which produce a similar effect by effectively aping a higher frame rate.

Not surprising at all. Wrote this over a year ago in the Hobbit thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

48fps. Could end up looking like that SmoothMotion feature on modern TVs. Not quite as smooth as 60fps (video), but almost.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=145

If people didn't like how the smooth motion feature looks on a TV then why were they expecting to like it any better on a big screen (where there is an even greater expectation of 24fps cadence)?

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #125 of 172 Old 04-24-2012, 06:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Most of us welcomed the increase in resolution that came along with HDTV. Right at this point there isn't a whole lot of visible difference between 1080i60 HDTV and 1080p24 from BluRay. There is of course SOME differences due to lossy MPEG2 compression and the interlacing artifacts seen on moving objects.

For the next video advance I would rather see a higher frame rate than additional resolution. The facts are that once you get about 1 diagonal screen size away from a flat panel, you can't tell if it's 1080p or Quad HD. But you can easily distinguish the higher frame rate as smoother motion with fewer artifacts.

I'm not anybody hung up on the "look" of movie film. Video is a different medium, is all.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #126 of 172 Old 04-24-2012, 06:14 PM
 
lwright84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Were those screenings in 3D? I would imagine they would look that way in 2D, but there was a valid reason behind doing 48 fps for 3D.
lwright84 is offline  
post #127 of 172 Old 04-25-2012, 09:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
adpayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Camp Lake,WI
Posts: 1,507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

There are many reports on Peter Jackson's preview of The Hobbit shown at it's higher frame rate (48 fps). Turns out it's getting quite mixed reviews, with many people reporting it looked "too crisp/too real" such that it no longer looks like a movie but a cheaper, filmed stage play.

""Some of the closeup shots looked like an old soap opera on TV," ...

Only when discussing "movies", would "too crisp/too real" be considered a bad thing. I wonder if the same thing happened decades ago with advancements in photography. "It's not fuzzy enough."

I understand concerns based on personal tastes, but to compare hi-res images to "an old soap opera" is laughable. Those shows were standard definition, and blurry compared to today.

I'm in my 50's, but I love the FI on my projector. I don't use the full blown setting on feature films, but it is so nice to not see stutter/judder during every panning shot.

My view is that in coming years 24fps will be a thing of past. Younger people will be used to, and prefer, a smoother look to films.

Art
adpayne is online now  
post #128 of 172 Old 04-25-2012, 09:57 AM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 13,745
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 476 Post(s)
Liked: 812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Most of us welcomed the increase in resolution that came along with HDTV. Right at this point there isn't a whole lot of visible difference between 1080i60 HDTV and 1080p24 from BluRay. There is of course SOME differences due to lossy MPEG2 compression and the interlacing artifacts seen on moving objects.

For the next video advance I would rather see a higher frame rate than additional resolution. The facts are that once you get about 1 diagonal screen size away from a flat panel, you can't tell if it's 1080p or Quad HD. But you can easily distinguish the higher frame rate as smoother motion with fewer artifacts.

I'm not anybody hung up on the "look" of movie film. Video is a different medium, is all.

Yes and no on this one. I'd like to keep "film" or movies at 24fps whenever possible. However, I could see some great benefits to 48fps for live recordings of things. Auto racing and sports would greatly benefit, imo. Stuff like that. I would like to get a bump up in resolution someday though. I know I would benefit from 4k resolution on my screen.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

 

Plan9Reloaded Co-host

Listen to the Plan9Reloaded Gaming and Technology Podcast (may contain NSFW language)


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- direct pod link


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- main website

Scott Simonian is online now  
post #129 of 172 Old 04-25-2012, 10:02 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Yes and no on this one. I'd like to keep "film" or movies at 24fps whenever possible. However, I could see some great benefits to 48fps for live recordings of things. Auto racing and sports would greatly benefit, imo. Stuff like that. I would like to get a bump up in resolution someday though. I know I would benefit from 4k resolution on my screen.

ESPN HD - 1280 x 720 x 60 frames/sec
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #130 of 172 Old 04-25-2012, 10:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post

Only when discussing "movies", would "too crisp/too real" be considered a bad thing.

The fact is that movies were never intended to look like "real life". They were always intended to look like an artistic interpretation of real life. There's about 80 years worth of films that define for people what a movie should look like. That's going to be difficult for 48 fps advocates to overcome.
RobertR is online now  
post #131 of 172 Old 04-25-2012, 10:18 AM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 13,745
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 476 Post(s)
Liked: 812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

ESPN HD - 1280 x 720 x 60 frames/sec

Ahhh.. Good catch. I didn't even know anyone actually did broadcast (or record) at those rates. Not that I watch any sports though.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

 

Plan9Reloaded Co-host

Listen to the Plan9Reloaded Gaming and Technology Podcast (may contain NSFW language)


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- direct pod link


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- main website

Scott Simonian is online now  
post #132 of 172 Old 04-25-2012, 11:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post

Only when discussing "movies", would "too crisp/too real" be considered a bad thing.

Yes, because movies are an art form, a mediation of reality. Always has been. Directors and cinematographers have for decades and decades made decisions as to how much they want you to see, how soft or sharp or detailed they want for the movie, or "real" or unreal etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post

I wonder if the same thing happened decades ago with advancements in photography. "It's not fuzzy enough."

It's not an issue of "it's not fuzzy enough" per se. There have been large frame film formats that have produced extraordinary resolution and sharpness for much of film's history. And a good blu-ray transfer can produce incredible sharpness and detail on home systems (sometimes I can't believe how clear and detailed movie images are on my RS55 projection set up).

However, there is something about the motion of 24fps that seems to still produce an artistic effect, a mediated reality, in which the artistic choices of sets, lighting, acting, makeup somehow blend coherently and believably together into the film-world on screen.

What I (and others, I think, whether they realize it or not) am talking about is the distinction between "realistic" and "believable." When we are talking about an artificial art form, that is trying to convince us that what is on screen is believable, "realistic" in terms of reproducing an unvarnished reality look, does not always suit that goal. A simple example would be a make-up job in a horror film that looks entirely believable on film, but if it were reproduced "realistically" in terms of how it actually looks if you are staring at the actor, you see the pancake makeup, or seams, or waxiness of the prosthetics etc, and though it now looks more "realistic" in terms of being so vivid it's like you are on the set with the actor, it has actually become less BELIEVABLE, ruining the very reason for the make up, and the intent, in the first place.

This is why many who saw the Hobbit footage reported disappointment: they said the sets that had looked believable on the previous LOTR movies shot at 24fps now looked like actors standing on sets, and hence lost BELIEVABILITY despite looking "more real, like you are right there."

People can be confused by this experience (you see this confusion in so many of the reports). "48fps is supposed to look more real, and it DOES look more real...but...why does it actually look LESS believable?"

I encountered this long ago even just calibrating settings on my plasma with standard movies. I set a goal to calibrate for sheer realism - the most realistic image I could get. It was amazing just how realistic an image I pulled out of my display. But over time I started to realise that, although things looked more real, I had a harder time actually "buying" what was happening on screen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post


I understand concerns based on personal tastes, but to compare hi-res images to "an old soap opera" is laughable. Those shows were standard definition, and blurry compared to today.

That is missing the point of the comparison. The issue is the 48fps footage produces the same EFFECT on those viewers as watching those old soap operas shot on video. And part of that effect not only had to do with video's contrast characteristics, but with the same issue: Old Soaps shot on video had "high motion" in terms of the video frame/field rate vs film, hence the sensation of extra clarity despite video not having the resolution of film.

That's something we always noticed when switching on Soap Operas - that the character of the image on video had an unvarnished, "too real," actors standing in sets quality that made them seem cheaper and less believable.
Exactly the effect being reported for the Hobbit at 48fps (some also likening it to the reduction in believability you get when you switch from watching LOTRs on film, to the behind the scenes extras shot on HD video...suddenly it doesn't feel like a believable world).

So it's good to keep in mind the difference between image realism and believability in terms of a viewer believing the STORY and drama being offered in a movie.

Can this issue be overcome in 48fps? I hope so. I like the idea of added benefits of a higher frame rate (having shot short films for many years, before getting into film sound, dealing with the low frame rate of film when blocking camera movement was always a curse as much as a blessing).

Cheers,

Rich H


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R Harkness is offline  
post #133 of 172 Old 04-25-2012, 11:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 386
That's a superb post, Rich. We can only hope that Peter Jackson is fully cognizant of these issues and will not push 48 fps regardless of the believeability factor.
RobertR is online now  
post #134 of 172 Old 04-25-2012, 01:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1012 Post(s)
Liked: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

People can be confused by this experience (you see this confusion in so many of the reports). "48fps is supposed to look more real, and it DOES look more real...but...why does it actually look LESS believable?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post

My view is that in coming years 24fps will be a thing of past. Younger people will be used to, and prefer, a smoother look to films.

I think the confusion comes down to cadence (temporal resolution), since visual resolution is no longer an issue with digital vs film. It's not that 24fps is more believable than 60fps or that 60 is more realistic than 24. Most of the people viewing the 'Hobbit' footage have spent a lifetime being conditioned to see a higher frame rate as video/TV and a lower frame rate as film. At this point in their lives, it's a reflex reaction.

Anecdotally, I've noticed that younger people aren't as bothered by this, maybe because their exposure to various cadences has been more mixed (movies, TV, YouTube, video games, motion smoothed displays, etc). The cadence distinction that we take for granted may evaporate in the next generation or so.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #135 of 172 Old 04-25-2012, 02:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,086
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

That's a superb post, Rich. We can only hope that Peter Jackson is fully cognizant of these issues and will not push 48 fps regardless of the believeability factor.

He already shot the movie at 48 fps. I'm not sure that removing the extra frames for conversion to 24 fps will undo the "video" look. If you take a soap opera and frame-rate convert it to 24 fps, it still looks like a soap opera.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #136 of 172 Old 04-25-2012, 02:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

He already shot the movie at 48 fps. I'm not sure that removing the extra frames for conversion to 24 fps will undo the "video" look. If you take a soap opera and frame-rate convert it to 24 fps, it still looks like a soap opera.

Uh oh....this could be trouble. It would be a huge shame if a lot of people turn out to hate the look of this movie because of the frame rate issue.
RobertR is online now  
post #137 of 172 Old 04-25-2012, 02:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
adpayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Camp Lake,WI
Posts: 1,507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

However, there is something about the motion of 24fps that seems to still produce an artistic effect, a mediated reality, in which the artistic choices of sets, lighting, acting, makeup somehow blend coherently and believably together into the film-world on screen.

I understand, and can appreciate, what you are saying. However, 24fps was not initially chosen for its artistic effect. It was done to save money, as film was expensive. I fully agree about "mediated reality", but that is also achieved via color grading, filters, etc.

Since I've had access to FI, I prefer something in between the regular 24fps look, and video. Mostly due to the smoothness of motion. I can't stand stuttering panning shots anymore. I enjoy the look of film otherwise.
adpayne is online now  
post #138 of 172 Old 04-25-2012, 03:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post

I I prefer something in between the regular 24fps look, and video. Mostly due to the smoothness of motion. I can't stand stuttering panning shots anymore. I enjoy the look of film otherwise.

I'm with ya there.

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #139 of 172 Old 04-26-2012, 11:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 4,021
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post

I understand, and can appreciate, what you are saying. However, 24fps was not initially chosen for its artistic effect. It was done to save money, as film was expensive. I fully agree about "mediated reality", but that is also achieved via color grading, filters, etc.

Since I've had access to FI, I prefer something in between the regular 24fps look, and video. Mostly due to the smoothness of motion. I can't stand stuttering panning shots anymore. I enjoy the look of film otherwise.

Not only film but you can put a better quality stream on a DVD and BD if you use 24 fps. It saves space too and the players have always been able to interpolate for that. Same with scripted TV. Many network streams, especially NBC, would flag that the transport file was 24 (actually 23.97) fps.
Brian Conrad is offline  
post #140 of 172 Old 04-26-2012, 12:59 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 Josh Z View Post

He already shot the movie at 48 fps. I'm not sure that removing the extra frames for conversion to 24 fps will undo the "video" look. If you take a soap opera and frame-rate convert it to 24 fps, it still looks like a soap opera.

What is the difference between shooting a movie (with a digital camera) at 24 FPS then transferring to 35mm film at 24 FPS and shooting at 48 FPS and "skip printing - transferring every other frame" to 35mm film at 24 FPS?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #141 of 172 Old 04-26-2012, 01:11 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
Qube Cinema Brings 120 fps 3D to CinemaCon

Quote:
Streaming High Frame Rate Stereoscopic Content from One DCP to Dual Projectors

Today at CinemaCon, Qube Cinema demonstrated dual-projector 120 fps stereoscopic 3D playback during the Filmmaker’s Lunch with a panel that included Ang Lee and Martin Scorsese.

The demonstration used two stacked Barco projectors to show a combined 240 fps projection driven by a single Qube XP-I server sending 120 fps per eye to the Qube Xi IMBs in the two projectors. The demonstration featured test footage from the Fraunhofer Institute.

“Delivering two streams of 120 fps from a single source is a first in digital cinema,” said Eric Bergez, Qube Cinema’s director of sales and marketing for the Americas. “Qube is not only showing that technology for the new HFR films is ready but demonstrating how far this technology can take you with currently shipping products.”

“When you see HFR 3D at 48 and 60 fps for each eye, you can really appreciate the tremendous improvement over 3D at 24 fps,” said Rajesh Ramachandran, president of Qube Cinema, “but 120 fps 3D truly blows everything else away. Filmmakers can now be truly liberated from the barriers that technology has imposed - with no visual artifacts."

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=2794
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #142 of 172 Old 04-26-2012, 02:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Matt_Stevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 13,818
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
The shutter angle is hugely important here.

Vimeo is the home of the Super8 Shooter...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Matt_Stevens is offline  
post #143 of 172 Old 04-28-2012, 09:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 110
I find it strange that people are quoting comments about The Hobbit footage. The comments talking about unrealistic sets would make absolute sense since the footage hasn't gone through colour grading and is essentially unfinished. Personally, I think it was either a bad idea to show this footage or a great marketing ploy if they show some fully completed footage soon. The finished film will be the final say and if it all works out, there will be some avs'ers eating words...

David Budo
Dbuudo07 is offline  
post #144 of 172 Old 04-29-2012, 03:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 43
The paradigm for what constitutes "good photography" in a movie is bound to change. The production of movies on film is ending. The distribution of movies on film prints is ending. In a few years, the only place one could even see film as a standard of comparison is in a museum.

I personally became aware of the potential of HD video when viewing the BBC series Planet Earth on HD-DVD and on my first 120Hz display in 2007. It was the first time I had the utterly convincing illusion that my HDTV was a window into another part of the Earth.

MY new paradigm for "good video" has been whatever most resembles real life since that moment. It is HD video shot at a high frame rate and displayed on a very high refresh display, as to better replicate the smooth analog motion of reality.

Losing the "look of film" is like removing a sheet of dirty glass that has always been between us and the movie.

I realize thaty everyone has an opinion here, and many opinions will differ from mine. But comparing a display image to real life is the new paradigm for "good".

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #145 of 172 Old 04-29-2012, 06:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Matt_Stevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 13,818
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

I find it strange that people are quoting comments about The Hobbit footage. The comments talking about unrealistic sets would make absolute sense since the footage hasn't gone through colour grading and is essentially unfinished. Personally, I think it was either a bad idea to show this footage or a great marketing ploy if they show some fully completed footage soon. The finished film will be the final say and if it all works out, there will be some avs'ers eating words...

You don't seem to understand how the RED camera works. Everything will already be graded. Everything. You shoot with the RED, a colorist works on it and then it is edited.

And there is no way in hell Jackson would present that footage without making special, final tweaks to it. Not a chance.

Vimeo is the home of the Super8 Shooter...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Matt_Stevens is offline  
post #146 of 172 Old 04-29-2012, 07:32 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

You don't seem to understand how the RED camera works. Everything will already be graded. Everything. You shoot with the RED, a colorist works on it and then it is edited.

And there is no way in hell Jackson would present that footage without making special, final tweaks to it. Not a chance.

Quote:


Jackson also explained the footage presented at Cinemacon would look different once it goes through the post-production process.

Because production is not scheduled to wrap until July, the customary postproduction that affects the overall look of a film has not yet been done, so the clips were unfinished. They were not yet color corrected, nor had the visual effects been completed. (In various scenes the actors were shown performing in front of a greenscreen.)

Jackson explained that his original The Lord of the Rings used various postproduction techniques to create a certain look for the movies, including extensive digital color grading, added texture, and we took out highlights."

We'll do the same with The Hobbit, to make it consistent and give it the feeling of otherworldliness - to get the mood, the tone, the feel of the different scenes, he said. We are certainly going to experiment with different finishing techniques to give the 48 frames a look that is more organic. But that work isn't due to start until we wrap photography in July (both Hobbit films are being shot simultaneously)."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...nemacon-317755
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #147 of 172 Old 04-29-2012, 07:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 110
^ thank you Lee.

And I do know how the RED cameras work, Matt.

David Budo
Dbuudo07 is offline  
post #148 of 172 Old 04-29-2012, 08:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 386
I'm a little confused by what's shown in the Hobbit trailer online. I don't notice anything all that "different" from other movies (I guess we'll have to stop saying "films" pretty soon). Was that footage shot ar 24 fps? Converted? Manipulated?
RobertR is online now  
post #149 of 172 Old 04-29-2012, 11:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

I'm a little confused by what's shown in the Hobbit trailer online. I don't notice anything all that "different" from other movies (I guess we'll have to stop saying "films" pretty soon). Was that footage shot ar 24 fps? Converted? Manipulated?

Filmed at 48fps and removed half the frames in post.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #150 of 172 Old 04-29-2012, 11:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Filmed at 48fps and removed half the frames in post.

Ok. Sounds like those of us who aren't in love with 3D have hope for the movie to look good.
RobertR is online now  
Reply Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

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