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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/21968138
I'll take your word for it but I've never heard coarse but even motion referred to as judder, just uneven motion (irrespective of whether it was coarse or smooth).
You learn to shoot in ways that avoid intrusive judder in film school ...it was a long time ago now for me, but as we all shot film back then, it was always something you had to account for. There are sections in Cinematographer hand books devoted to judder and how to shoot in a way to avoid it.
I just saw a movie projected on film recently, and there was judder.
Then the collective geek squad panty bunch is overblown, I assume? Want your Hobbits to appear "film-like"? See it in 2D, I guess (I can live with that)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwebb1970 /forum/post/21968531
Then the collective geek squad panty bunch is overblown, I assume? Want your Hobbits to appear "film-like"? See it in 2D, I guess (I can live with that)
SMPTE has not defined the standard for HFR yet. And Cameron's AVATAR 2 & 3 are years away. Would not surprise me to see both 48 and 60 as a standard. LOL - could be as high as 72 FPS - who knows what will happen a year or two from now. Depends on the success at the BO for THE HOBBIT and if the public shows a preference for HFR 3D.
Quote:
TV shows apples to bricks really? how so?
I dont think shooting at higher frame rates will succeed but lets say it did then you can bet that TV shows would follow suit.
How would they accomodate the increase in required bandwidth? 3D-TV isn't the same as 3D in theaters. It has half the resolution per eye that theaters show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/21968939
How would they accomodate the increase in required bandwidth? 3D-TV isn't the same as 3D in theaters. It has half the resolution per eye that theaters show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21968436
You learn to shoot in ways that avoid intrusive judder in film school ...it was a long time ago now for me, but as we all shot film back then, it was always something you had to account for.
They would have to be modified. IMAX experimented with 48 FPS back in 1992, called IMAX HD. It was a bust due to high print costs and wear and tear on the projectors and prints.
Not sure the current IMAX 15/70 installations could handle the size of the prints - twice as large/long as a regular IMAX print for a 2 hour movie.
This would be perfect for me. Ill watch it first in a 3D 48fps digital theater, then compare it with the 3D 24fps Imax theater. Assuming the movie is good enough to watch twice...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssjLancer /forum/post/21978434
This would be perfect for me. Ill watch it first in a 3D 48fps digital theater, then compare it with the 3D 24fps Imax theater. Assuming the movie is good enough to watch twice...
That higher frame rate is something only seen with 'video' on TV, which soap operas were photographed with. So society has pretty much fixed that look with soap operas and now with the advent of higher frame rates, it looks 'wrong' to our eyes.
For me, I see ad advantage of 48 fps for when the camera pans or tilts, or during fast moving action sequences. Douglas Trumball is experimenting with a method to do just that, keeping the looks 24fps 9that preserves the fantasy of film) while giving filmmakers the ability to have the clarity and lack of stutter/jidder for certain movements.
Not quite right. Soap Operas did not create extra frames. There was no way to do that before the advent of modern HDTV's. But movement at so many frames per second, plus the flat look of video cameras, made that higher frame rate look like crap. So 48fps has the same psychological effect.
More than that, those whpo are seeing it say the mind boggling clarity makes the film sets look just like that... sets. Costumes look like costumes and not the outfit worn by the character.
Yet 70mm films do not suffer from that because they were shot at 24fps. I've been fortunate enough to see numerous 70mm films on the big screen and they are remarkably realistic and never stage-play in appearance.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
AVS Forum
34M posts
1.5M members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!