The Hobbit - Page 10

i read the novel like 5 times and i wanna see this film. is this going to be in 3D ?

Yes - it is being shot in 3D at 48 FPS - the first commerical film to do so.

nice i'm definitely gonna go watch this movie. thanks for the info

amazing how he can shoot a film at 48fps and not be able to accurately transfer the ee of fotr.

These impressions are looking pretty negative. Moviegoers claim that it looks like BBC video, that the sets look fake, motion interpolation, that it looks like a soap opera.

Were the screenings in 2D or 3D?

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

From THR link:

Hmm, I don't know... this is one of those things I'm gonna have to see for myself. Perception is just too subjective (hah).

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

Wrote this over a year ago in this very thread:
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)?

http://www.slashfilm.com/cinemacon-t...eron-promised/
The change from 24 frames per second to 48 frames per second is HUGE. It completely changes what every image looks like, the movements, the tone, everything is different.

It looked like a made for television BBC movie.

It looked like when you turn your LCD television to the 120 hertz up-conversion setting.

It looked uncompromisingly real — so much so that it looked fake.

More noticeable in the footage was the make-up, the sets, the costumes. Hobbiton and Middle Earth didn’t feel like a different universe, it felt like a special effect, a film set with actors in costumes. It looked like behind the scenes footage.

The movement of the actors looked… strange. Almost as if the performances had been partly sped up. But the dialogue matched the movement of the lips, so it wasn’t an effect of speed-ramping.

It didn’t look cinematic. Not at all, even with a top filmmaker like Peter Jackson at the helm.



Seriously....what were they expecting?

This is incredibly disappointing to hear. I hope they come to their senses before it's too late.

For a lot of people "cinematic" means that anything moving on the screen looks "stroboscopic". I don't see that as a plus, but based on videography forums I frequent where people argue the relative benefits of 24p vs. 30p vs 60p there seem to be a surprising number of people out there that do.

I'm reserving judgement on this until I see the finished product for myself.

All this controversy has to be good for “The Hobbit”. Hopefully it will generate a lot of free marketing and raising awareness of the film.

Most of the general commentary on the topic is pretty moot. Very few people have seen the actual footage. Those that did, saw a 10 minute show reel with lots of cuts, not the best basis on which to form an opinion.

The film will actually be released in traditional 24fps, 2D film print edition too. So those that have a real issue with the aesthetics can see it that way anyway.

Film is not just a visual medium, the visuals should be in service of the narrative. We like to experience good stories, with strong visuals. The actual look and feel of a film is less important than the quality of the story telling and how it is served by those visuals. People put up with watching movies transmitted in 4:3 pan and scan 60hz interlaced NTSC on 20” TVs for decades and still enjoyed them.

You might not like the aesthetics of the 48fps, 3D 4K digital projection of “The Hobbit”, but if it is a well executed story then to dismiss it only due to the aesthetic is foolish.

Ishtar* and Heaven’s Gate* didn’t suddenly become good films because they were shot on film, with good production design and projected at 24fps. The story telling still sucked. “The Hobbit” won’t be a disaster in 48fps if the story telling is good. (*insert poor film of choice, I assume you get my point.)

You can even see it twice, once in 48fps 3D and then 24fps 2D and at least have a subjective opinion based on the full evidence before you pronounce the folly of 48fps digital cinema, if that is the way you see it.

Yes that has been my critisism for years about shooting at faster frame rates. 24P will help mask fake stuff.

In sweden alot of made for television drama has been shoot on 50i video the last 30 years. And they all looked extremly fake in their studio setting. Despite nothing really looked wrong it still didnt look right.

Just swithing between 50i and 25P on a videocamera made wonders for the estetics.

Because they are shooting increased frames per second instead of having the display make fake in-between frames.
And a lot of people do like the smooth motion feature, others don't, not necessarily because they don't like hi-motion, but because they are fake frames instead of higher fps shot by the camera.

Ah, hell. Ain't nothin' gobs of DNR can't fix when the BD comes out. So what if a few fingers and hobbit toes are missing.

This.


It was not finished footage. Has anyone ever seen a film before color grading, etc? It looks a lot more "real" or "fake", however you want to describe it, than the final product.

I'm sure some won't like the 48fps look, but you can't please everyone. The irony being that 24fps only became the standard due to cost concerns, not artistic reasons.

Maybe I deal with change better than most due to working in IT for almost 3 decades.

Let's all hope that Jackson damn well DOES fix the look in the finished film. It certainly won't help if he adopts Lucasesque "I don't give a rat's ass how many people I piss off, my opinion is the ONLY thing that matters" tunnel vision, and declares anyone who doesn't agree with him to be some sort of reactionary Luddite.

That's possible, but I doubt people can tell real frames from fake frames while in motion. The reaction to the Hobbit footage demonstrates that smooth motion, even when not derived via interpolation, still makes some people uncomfortable. I really do think it boils down to cadence and that we've been conditioned to associate smoother motion with video/TV.

24fps may have been cost in combination with quality (or we would have 1 fps). But on the other hand 48fps could have been the standard 40 years ago. But was dropped because of estetics reason (well economy had a play as usual)


This isnt about technology, its not about making a car go twice as fast on half the fuel. 48fps gives film a certain look that have a certain videoish quality to it. In art its not just about recreating what the eye can see, its to create emotions in people that watch the movie.

Take a movie like 300 as an example. The characters doesnt look real, the setting doesnt look real, the creatures doesnt look real. Why is it important that the PQ looks real? The only thing 48fps can do is remind us how fake everything is.

LOL. I was thinking the same thing. Some people just enjoy complaining I guess. It's pretty silly if you ask me. I'm looking forward to it.

I don't understand these comments. Are you saying that a previous success guarantees a filmmaker lifelong immunity from criticism? Of ANY kind whatsoever?

Sounds like the attitude some people have towards the maker of a certain space opera- "he's a movie god, and don't you dare question him".

No. What I am saying is we should be a little more optimistic considering what he accomplished with LOTR. He should also be allowed to do his job as a director and create this film in his own vision as he did with LOTR and not be distracted my some fans POV.

Have some faith in an accomplished director. Nothing is guaranteed but he has a proven track record with LOTR so am I optimistic.

Fellowship: 5/5
Two Towers: 4/5
Return: 3/5
King Kong 2/5

Of course everyone WANTS the movie to be good, so talk of being "unoptimistic" makes no sense. "Optimism" should not be used as an excuse to dismiss genuine, legitimate concerns, however. Moviemakers are fallible human beings, not some object to have "faith" in (again, "faith" smacks of viewing them more as gods than people). Peter Jackson's efforts will be judged by what he puts on screen, not on "belief" in him.

I disagree. Movies today look totally fake due to the limitations of the camera lenses. The human eye far exceeds even the very best camera lens when it comes to focus and depth of field, let alone panning.

What HFR (High Frame Rate) movies will do is make movies more real to the audience. This inturn will heighten the audiences emotions. I have already seen this when I saw Showscan (70mm @ 60 FPS).

Also keep in mind that THE HOBBITT's 48 FPS will be 3D only.