New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit - Page 11

post #301 of 942
4/26/12 at 1:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

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

Huh? They're going to shoot the 2-D version at 24 fps? Why would they do that?
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #302 of 942
4/26/12 at 1:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Huh? They're going to shoot the 2-D version at 24 fps? Why would they do that?

They are shooting 48 FPS 3D using two cameras (each is shooting at 48 FPS). For the 2D version they will use the footage from one camera and skip print (transfer every other frame) it to 24 FPS.
Reply
Reply
post #303 of 942
4/26/12 at 1:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

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).

And I have seen 100s of tv shows/movies that were in 50i. Not a single one had any benefit of the faster frame rate. Effects, sets and props just got easier to detect.
Reply
Reply
post #304 of 942
4/26/12 at 1:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

And I have seen 100s of tv shows/movies that were in 50i. Not a single one had any benefit of the faster frame rate. Effects, sets and props just got easier to detect.

Isn't 50i comparable to 25 FPS like 60i is to 30 FPS? Not that same when we are talking about 48 FPS.

Did you ever see Showscan? Or the IMAX HD (48 FPS) film; Momentum? To date, those are the only HRF processes
Reply
Reply
post #305 of 942
4/26/12 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Isn't 50i comparable to 25 FPS like 60i is to 30 FPS? Not that same when we are talking about 48 FPS.

50i is closer to 50P then 25P as 60i is closer to 60P then 30P. You get a resolution drop with interlace not frame drop. On a digital display 50i should be converted to 50P.

Quote:
Did you ever see Showscan? Or the IMAX HD (48 FPS) film; Momentum? To date, those are the only HRF processes

I havnt seen them, but one of my HD channel broadcasted everything in 720/50P.
Reply
Reply
post #306 of 942
4/26/12 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

50i is closer to 50P then 25P as 60i is closer to 60P then 30P. You get a resolution drop with interlace not frame drop. On a digital display 50i should be converted to 50P.

How can 50 or 60 fields per second be equal to 50 or 60 frames per second? We are talking about native not processed.

Quote:
I havnt seen them, but one of my HD channel broadcasted everything in 720/50P.

OK - so you have never seen a HFR movie. All your experience is coming from watching home video. IMO - not the same.
Reply
Reply
post #307 of 942
4/26/12 at 2:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

How can 50 or 60 fields per second be equal to 50 or 60 frames per second? We are talking about native not processed.

Unless my display is native interlaced I have to watch it processed. 50i displayed at 25P will look really strange unless you drop half the fields.

In terms of motion 50i will look like 50P if its displayed on a digital display.

Quote:
OK - so you have never seen a HFR movie. All your experience is coming from watching home video. IMO - not the same.

So 50fps isnt high enough? The other system may give a better experience, not much better in terms of motion. No matter what system you display your movie 50 fps is 50 fps.
Reply
Reply
post #308 of 942
4/26/12 at 2:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Unless my display is native interlaced I have to watch it processed. 50i displayed at 25P will look really strange unless you drop half the fields.

In terms of motion 50i will look like 50P if its displayed on a digital display.

So 50fps isnt high enough? The other system may give a better experience, not much better in terms of motion. No matter what system you display your movie 50 fps is 50 fps.

Again you are talking about 50i processed to 50P. That is not the same as 48 FPS native.

Plus we are talking about 48 FPS 3D which is definitely not the same as 24 FPS 3D processed to 60P (or 72P at a RealD theater)

There is more to the look of HFR movies then just motion.
Reply
Reply
post #309 of 942
4/26/12 at 2:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Again you are talking about 50i processed to 50P. That is not the same as 48 FPS native.

In terms of what it looks like on the screen it looks like 50P. It doesnt count what it looks like before it hits the viewers eyes. Todays movies are stored as 1 and 0. After processing the decoder sends out a signal. If the signal is 50P there is nothing interlaced left, and the material will look like 50P. The downside is a resolution drop compared to native 50P. But in terms of motion its 50P

1920*1080/50i = 1920*540/50p.

Quote:
Plus we are talking about 48 FPS 3D which is definitely not the same as 24 FPS 3D processed to 60P (or 72P at a RealD theater)

Im not talking about 3D/48fps, im talking about 2D/48fps.

Quote:
There is more to the look of HFR movies then just motion.

I certainly hope so, but it doesnt take away the look of 48fps.
Reply
Reply
post #310 of 942
4/26/12 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

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.

this could be the best response. 24fps per eye should make 3d much less harsh to view. didnt' catch whether the 10 minute promo was shown in 3d.
Reply
Reply
post #311 of 942
4/26/12 at 3:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

this could be the best response. 24fps per eye should make 3d much less harsh to view. didnt' catch whether the 10 minute promo was shown in 3d.

You mean 48 FPS 3D right?

The 10 minute promo was only shown in 3D
Reply
Reply
post #312 of 942
4/26/12 at 3:09pm
All this talk about 48 fps 3d sounds like a tacit admission that 24 fps 3d is inadequate.
Reply
Reply
post #313 of 942
4/26/12 at 3:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Im not talking about 3D/48fps, im talking about 2D/48fps.

Which in the case of THE HOBBITT does not apply seeing as it will only be shown at 48 FPS in 3D.

There are no known 48 FPS 2D productions in development, so all these HFR 2D discussions are pointless.
Reply
Reply
post #314 of 942
4/26/12 at 3:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

All this talk about 48 fps 3d sounds like a tacit admission that 24 fps 3d is inadequate.

As far as Peter Jackson, James Cameron and George Lucas are concerned - correct.
Reply
Reply
post #315 of 942
4/26/12 at 4:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

As far as Peter Jackson, James Cameron and George Lucas are concerned - correct.

Interesting admission that the 3D they and the rest of Hollywood have been pushing recently doesn't cut it.

"Don't worry folks! We'll get it right eventually!"
Reply
Reply
post #316 of 942
4/26/12 at 4:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

There is more to the look of HFR movies then just motion.

But the complaints about the Hobbit footage had to do with motion (temporal resolution). It's not like the images were at a visual resolution that no one had seen before, nor was it using a form of 3D that hadn't been seen before. So what was different this time that reminded some viewers of a soap opera? The 48fps cadence.
Reply
Reply
post #317 of 942
4/26/12 at 4:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Interesting admission that the 3D they and the rest of Hollywood have been pushing recently doesn't cut it.

"Don't worry folks! We'll get it right eventually!"

LOL - there are also proponents of HRF 2D so . . .

"After 100 years - We think we can get it right."
Reply
Reply
post #318 of 942
4/26/12 at 4:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

But the complaints about the Hobbit footage had to do with motion (temporal resolution). It's not like the images were at a visual resolution that no one had seen before, nor was it using a form of 3D that hadn't been seen before. So what was different this time that reminded some viewers of a soap opera? The 48fps cadence.

Depth of field
Reply
Reply
post #319 of 942
4/26/12 at 4:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Depth of field

What was unique about the depth of field of the Hobbit footage?
Reply
Reply
post #320 of 942
4/26/12 at 4:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Interesting admission that the 3D they and the rest of Hollywood have been pushing recently doesn't cut it.

Newer technology isn't an admission that the current tech "doesn't cut it", just that it can be improved upon (like everything else). That's like saying the upcoming Dolby Atmos sound system is an admission by Hollywood that discrete 7.1 theatrical sound just doesn't cut it.
Reply
Reply
post #321 of 942
4/26/12 at 4:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

What was unique about the depth of field of the Hobbit footage?

When you increase the frame rate, it increases the depth of field. Objects that normally are out of focus become in focus. This gives a more lifelike look to the footage. Like you have with 20/20 vision
Reply
Reply
post #322 of 942
4/26/12 at 5:40pm
Though Jackson wasn't at CinemeCon in person, he did tape an introduction and explained why he chose 48fps.

Quote:


As a filmmaker, I always want to create a strong sense of reality, to allow the audience to lose themselves in whatever the cinematic story is that I'm presenting. Shooting and projecting at 48 fps gives you the illusion that a hole has been cut in the wall of the cinema, and you're watching the story unfold with a heightened sense of reality. It's terrific for 3D; I've looked at the 48 fps dailies for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 3D for over a year now, and with the reduction in strobbing and flicker, it is a much more gentle experience on your eyes. 48 fps is not just limited to 3D. A film shot in 48 fps looks fantastic when projected in 2D, and converts well to 24 fps as well

http://www.reelz.com/movie-news/1373...-at-cinemacon/
Reply
Reply
post #323 of 942
4/26/12 at 7:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

When you increase the frame rate, it increases the depth of field. Objects that normally are out of focus become in focus. This gives a more lifelike look to the footage. Like you have with 20/20 vision

Depth of field is a function of the aperture; the smaller the opening, the greater the depth of field. On film cameras, increasing the frame rate means shorter exposures for each frame, which means you have to compensate by opening the aperture, thereby decreasing the depth of field.
Reply
Reply
post #324 of 942
4/26/12 at 8:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Depth of field is a function of the aperture; the smaller the opening, the greater the depth of field. On film cameras, increasing the frame rate means shorter exposures for each frame, which means you have to compensate by opening the aperture, thereby decreasing the depth of field.

The aperture is not the only deciding factor in depth of field. You also have the focal length of the lens and the distance from camera to object.
Reply
Reply
post #325 of 942
4/26/12 at 8:13pm
48 Frames Changes Everything

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/...ames_chang.php
Reply
Reply
post #326 of 942
4/26/12 at 8:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

The aperture is not the only deciding factor in depth of field.

I was addressing the only reason you gave, explaining why it was the opposite of what you claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

You also have the focal length of the lens and the distance from camera to object.

What was unique about the focal length of the lenses and distance from camera to object in the Hobbit footage?
Reply
Reply
post #327 of 942
4/26/12 at 8:19pm
Quote:


In his decade-ago Showscan experiments, Trumbull proved that faster frame rates produce increasing levels of emotional excitation.

“I set up a lab at Pomona College where we showed an identical movie filmed and projected at 24, 36, 48 frames, 60 frames and 72 frames a second,” he recalls. “We hooked each individual to electrocardiograms and encephalograms to measure galvanic skin response. Then we graphed out their responses and found that people responded much more favorably to the higher frame rate. From my own research, 48 frames per second is way better than 24, and 60 is way better than 48.”

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/...e-movies/all/1
Reply
Reply
post #328 of 942
4/26/12 at 8:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

I was addressing the only reason you gave, explaining why it was the opposite of what you claim. What was unique about the focal length of the lenses and distance from camera to object in the Hobbit footage?

LOL - I didn't see it so I can't answer you, other then to look at what people are saying about 48 FPS:

Quote:


It’s here that the mundane demo morphs into something rather remarkable. “The regular footage looks fine until you see how much more there is” in the 48-fps version, Schilowitz points out. “There’s less blur, the colors are brighter, the image is crisper and deeper.”

Plus my own experience seeing Showscan (Niagara Wonders)
Reply
Reply
post #329 of 942
4/26/12 at 8:48pm
Quote:


In his decade-ago Showscan experiments, Trumbull proved that faster frame rates produce increasing levels of emotional excitation.

The details of Trumbull's "experiment" are far too sketchy to assume it has any scientific validity. Reading that reminds me of the "experiments" conducted by a fanatical digiphobe years ago that "proved" digital audio was more "stressful" than analog.
Reply
Reply
post #330 of 942
4/26/12 at 9:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

I didn't see it so I can't answer you, other then to look at what people are saying about 48 FPS:

Instead let's look at what people are saying about the Hobbit footage: with no mention of depth of field, it leaves the smoother 48fps motion as the source of their discomfort (which was mentioned explicitly).
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread: