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?
 
#477 ·
Matt,


MovieSwede referred not directly to Soap Operas, but to the "Soap effect" (aka Soap Opera Effect)- which as you know is the description many have given to the look of artificial frame creation/frame interpolation processing.


Also, it is fascinating how one can increase resolution in film (e.g. 70mm/Imax etc) and it becomes more real and immersive and believable...yet without the dreaded Soap Opera Effect.
 
#478 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens /forum/post/21998016


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.

But you have never seen a 3D film shot at 48 FPS and projected at either 48 or 96 FPS have you?


You are simply speculating like everyone else.


I have seen 70mm shot and projected at 60 FPS and it had no "soap opera" look to it.
 
#479 ·
Of course I have not seen it. What I have seen is 60fps shot footage shown at 60 and 120fps on home theater projectors and I really hated how it looked. I am not at all looking forward to 48fps from what I have read.
 
#480 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens /forum/post/21998694


Of course I have not seen it. What I have seen is 60fps shot footage shown at 60 and 120fps on home theater projectors and I really hated how it looked. I am not at all looking forward to 48fps from what I have read.

Home video is not the same as projected cinema, no matter how many people think it is.


And you really should read everything that was posted about "how it looked" and at what stage the footage was as far as production.


You haven't seen it. The footage had not gone through post-production . . . but it's going to suck.
 
#481 ·
Putting words in my mouth. Quite rude.
 
#482 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/21998308


I have seen 70mm shot and projected at 60 FPS and it had no "soap opera" look to it.

I've seen Showscan and it looked like very hi-def video. No visible grain, no 24fps cadence. Not a question of good or bad, just didn't look like a theatrical motion picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/21998812


You haven't seen it. The footage had not gone through post-production . . . but it's going to suck.

He didn't say it's going to suck, just that it will look closer the type of video we're used to seeing on TV. Whether that sort of look/cadence "sucks" will be up personal preference. Some people will like it, some people wont. But it will look closer to video (what we've become conditioned all our lives to think of as "video") than typical movies that we're used to. That much was pretty obvious from the comments after the Hobbit screening.
 
#483 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/21999848


I've seen Showscan and it looked like very hi-def video. No visible grain, no 24fps cadence. Not a question of good or bad, just didn't look like a theatrical motion picture.

You say that now, but what did you say leaving the theater after seeing Showscan?


I strongly doubt you had ever seen HD Video at that time.
 
#484 ·
I could care less about 48 vs 24 fps. AFAIK bluray will never support 48, and I will not be watching the Hobbit in theaters.


That being said, no matter how upset people are over the 48 fps, I think they are actually upset over the lack of post-production. Have any of you seen the extras for LOTR? There are plenty of 24fps shots without post production that look completely laughable...exactly like they were shot on a set. In fact, all the complaints I have heard about the 48fps in the hobbit could just as easily be said about the 24fps shots in the extras.


In short, I think the issues people are having are not the 48fps but the lack of post production (color grading, etc). Looking for something to blame, they decided to blame the 48fps.
 
#485 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/22001475


You say that now, but what did you say leaving the theater after seeing Showscan?


I strongly doubt you had ever seen HD Video at that time.

I had seen standard def video at the time, even compared TV shows that had shot using film and video (Police Story, Newhart), and Showscan felt more like video than film. Similar reaction to the comments from the Hobbit screening. I use the word "reaction" because this wasn't something I had to think about; the difference is noticable, reflexively.
 
#486 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sound dropouts /forum/post/22001941



That being said, no matter how upset people are over the 48 fps, I think they are actually upset over the lack of post-production. Have any of you seen the extras for LOTR? There are plenty of 24fps shots without post production that look completely laughable...exactly like they were shot on a set. In fact, all the complaints I have heard about the 48fps in the hobbit could just as easily be said about the 24fps shots in the extras.


In short, I think the issues people are having are not the 48fps but the lack of post production (color grading, etc). Looking for something to blame, they decided to blame the 48fps.

That is some valid and very important points.


Add to that; it was not only 48fps that was "a first" for those attending, but was the first time people saw 3D in 4K, with 4K for each eye, projected from new dual Christie Solaris 4K projectors at light levels that equals the light-levels of 2D movies.

They had also measured the light-levels at the edge of the silver screen and used Christie’s Pureformity Color™ to even the light-level from the edge towards the middle to not get higher light-levels (hot spot) in the center, which is the problem with silver screens.
http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=2784


And as mentioned; the film was not finished, the texture and grading was missing. Specially important in studio sets and close shots.

Typical that people said the wide outdoor scenes looked great.


Peter Jackson explained what they would do to the movie before it is finished.
Quote:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...nemacon-317755

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)."


Jackson is also lensing the movie – which is being shot in 3D, a first for the franchise – using Red Epic cameras with 3Ality Technica 3D rigs.


The Red Epic, Jackson explained, allowed him to shoot in 5K resolution. (5K refers to the number of horizontal pixels that compose a frame.) Today, movies are generally lensed and projected at 2K, though the industry is moving in the direction of 4K.

“It is very clean. On a 5K camera you are seeing very crisp pictures,” he said. “Part of the digital grading will give those incredibly sharp pictures a texture and a feeling that we want the film to have. We haven’t done that yet. What you saw [at CinemaCon, in terms of “crispness”] is partly due to the lack of motion blur (from the high frame rate) and partly due to the camera (in terms of resolution).”

So 48fps was a very small part of what impacted the impression of what people experienced that day.


Those that really want to see The Hobbit the way it is meant to be seen, should look for cinemas that have Dual 4K projection and HRF servers, and are properly calibrated to the screen.


Anybody else will not have the possibility to have any critical saying in how The Hobbit look.

But be shure that many will criticise The Hobbit and say it is "because of the 48fps.", even though they probably will not be aware that they saw the movie in single projection 2K 3D at 24fps, which will be at most cinemas throughout the world.
 
#487 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan /forum/post/22004023


And as mentioned; the film was not finished, the texture and grading was missing. Specially important in studio sets and close shots.

Typical that people said the wide outdoor scenes looked great.


Peter Jackson explained what they would do to the movie before it is finished.


So 48fps was a very small part of what impacted the impression of what people experienced that day.

If that were the case the 2D trailer of The Hobbit would have looked worse. The reason why the outdoor scenes looked better is that they are filmed in the real world with less studio props visible. The same happens in 50i productions.


You cant grade 48fps away.
 
#488 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sound dropouts /forum/post/22001941


I could care less about 48 vs 24 fps. AFAIK bluray will never support 48, and I will not be watching the Hobbit in theaters.


That being said, no matter how upset people are over the 48 fps, I think they are actually upset over the lack of post-production. Have any of you seen the extras for LOTR? There are plenty of 24fps shots without post production that look completely laughable...exactly like they were shot on a set. In fact, all the complaints I have heard about the 48fps in the hobbit could just as easily be said about the 24fps shots in the extras.


In short, I think the issues people are having are not the 48fps but the lack of post production (color grading, etc). Looking for something to blame, they decided to blame the 48fps.

Which extras? behind the scenes stuff is usually shot on video. They wouldnt waste reels of film for that stuff.
 
#491 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/22006421


To bad they couldnt color grade the entire movie then.
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)."
 
#493 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/22006878


Im very aware of the different things they did on LOTR. But colorgrading will not remove the videolook. Colorgraded 48P will look like colorgraded 48P.
"added texture, and we took out highlights."


So it isn't just colorgrading.


Plus, as always, you are forgetting it will be 48 FPS in 3D which has a totally different look altogether.

Quote:
Luckily there will be a 24P version that have the classic look.

Whatever floats your boat. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
 
#494 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/22006912

"added texture, and we took out highlights."


So it isn't just colorgrading.

Taking out highlights is very much colorgrading.

Quote:
Plus, as always, you are forgetting it will be 48 FPS in 3D which has a totally different look altogether.

Not forgetting anything, wrote some time ago that 48fps can work better in the 3D world, but the talk about colorgrading, takes time to adapt etc came after the reactions to the preview. That sound more like damage control to my ears.

Quote:
Whatever floats your boat. One man's junk is another man's treasure.

Hehe that quote reminds me of an old swedish(?) proverb.


"All that glitters is not gold"
 
#495 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/22006912


Plus, as always, you are forgetting it will be 48 FPS in 3D which has a totally different look altogether.

No it doesn't. Find someone that has a 3D display with the smooth motion feature and compare for yourself. Neither 3D nor colour grading changes the cadence back to the 24fps look that folks have become accustomed to. People who saw the Hobbit footage in 3D recognized this right away.
 
#496 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/22007150


No it doesn't. Find someone that has a 3D display with the smooth motion feature and compare for yourself. Neither 3D nor colour grading changes the cadence back to the 24fps look that folks have become accustomed to. People who saw the Hobbit footage in 3D recognized this right away.

Home video is not the same as projected cinema no matter how many times you say it is.
 
#497 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/22007065


Taking out highlights is very much colorgrading.

And adding texture? That is not colorgrading.

Quote:
Not forgetting anything, wrote some time ago that 48fps can work better in the 3D world, but the talk about colorgrading, takes time to adapt etc came after the reactions to the preview. That sound more like damage control to my ears.

Of course. That is the nature of your agenda.

Quote:
Hehe that quote reminds me of an old swedish(?) proverb.


"All that glitters is not gold"

LOL - a Swedish proverb?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_tha...rs_is_not_gold
 
#498 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/22007161


Home video is not the same as projected cinema no matter how many times you say it is.

Then find someone that has a 3D projector and sit close enough to get the viewing angle you see at a commercial cinema. Even with 3D, you're not going to make the smoother cadence go away.
 
#500 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/22007182


Then find someone that has a 3D projector and sit close enough to get the viewing angle you see at a commercial cinema. Even with 3D, you're not going to make the smoother cadence go away.

You seem to forget that showing native 24 FPS (like a Bluray) at 72/96/120 Hz on a video projector is not the same as projecting 48 FPS at either 48 FPS or 96 FPS.
 
#501 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/22007172


And adding texture? That is not colorgrading.

Adding textures can be done in several way, I dont know what type he is refering to.

Quote:
Of course. That is the nature of your agenda.

What agenda? You are taking this a little to serious do you?

Quote:
LOL - a Swedish proverb?

Did you miss the "?" I have no idea of the orginal source.
 
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