New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit - Page 13

post #361 of 942
4/27/12 at 12:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2009...hobbittrilogy/
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?

LMAO

Personally I think the work merits it. Why the lowly vision of The Hobbit?
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #362 of 942
4/27/12 at 12:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Oh, I thought he was comparing formats that people would actually watch (isn't that what you said you were excited by?). So he wasn't trying to sell something called Showscan, only recommending filming at faster frame rates?

He was developing Showscan. The tests were to determine how fast he would set the frame rate which he wanted to increase from the antiquated 24. The tests showed that peoples emotions heightened as he advanced the frame rates. He choose 60 instead of 72 because the change from 60 to 72 was marginal in peoples reactions.

Quote:


Exactly. Would people be "more excited" by non-"helicopter" type shots in 48 fps?

Think . . continuity.

Quote:


Ok, then, do 70 mm, changing the one variable (frame rate), while maintaining the double blind conditions. Oh, and no emphasis on "helicopter" type shots.



That defeats the purpose of the tests. I don't care what process you use, shooting two people sitting at a table discussing the weather accomplishes nothing.

Quote:


The bottom line is that Showscan went nowhere, which is an indication that 48 fps per se (as you were so quick to emphasize) has hardly been a successful selling point.

Different processes and different costs involved. The cost of Showscan was 65mm @ 60 FPS production and 70mm @ 60 FPS prints along with modified projectors for presentation. - BIG expense. The cost of Digital 48 FPS 3D - very small increase in production cost (over 24 FPS 3D) and a software upgrade to those existing digital projectors that can handle 48 FPS 3D
Reply
Reply
post #363 of 942
4/27/12 at 12:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post


That defeats the purpose of the tests. I don't care what process you use, shooting two people sitting at a table discussing the weather accomplishes nothing.

Then the conclusion would have to be that:

NO movie using Showscan can have ANY static scenes in it. ALL scenes must be kinetic, "helicopter" type shots, else (as you say), it "accomplishes nothing". Rather a significant limitation on moviemaking.

By the way, I think the (rather static) desert scene in Lawrence of Arabia where Omar Sharif makes his initial appearance is pretty spectacular without the use of 48 fps, but then again, David Lean filmed it without "raising the heart rate" as his primary goal.


Quote:


Different processes and different costs involved. The cost of Showscan was 65mm @ 60 FPS production and 70mm @ 60 FPS prints along with modified projectors for presentation. - BIG expense. The cost of Digital 48 FPS 3D - very small increase in production cost (over 24 FPS 3D) and a software upgrade to those existing digital projectors that can handle 48 FPS 3D

So the ONLY objection to Showscan was cost? I guess we'll see what happens with "low cost" 48 fps.
Reply
Reply
post #364 of 942
4/27/12 at 1:08pm
I have an idea that's kind of out there, but what if they just didn't shoot it in 3D? Hmmm...
Reply
Reply
post #365 of 942
4/27/12 at 1:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Then the conclusion would have to be that:

NO movie using Showscan can have ANY static scenes in it. ALL scenes must be kinetic, "helicopter" type shots, else (as you say), it "accomplishes nothing". Rather a significant limitation on moviemaking.

LMAO! The idea was to heighten the audiences reactions . . . when approproiate. Not give them all heart attacks by a constant barrage of action scenes.

Quote:


By the way, I think the (rather static) desert scene in Lawrence of Arabia where Omar Sharif makes his initial appearance is pretty spectacular without the use of 48 fps, but then again, David Lean filmed it without "raising the heart rate" as his primary goal.

Funny you should mention that scene. Are you aware that they developed a very special lens just for that scene? They couldn't shoot it with existing lenses.

Quote:


So the ONLY objection to Showscan was cost? I guess we'll see what happens with "low cost" 48 fps.

Yes - when it came to theater owners implementing it.
Reply
Reply
post #366 of 942
4/27/12 at 1:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

I have an idea that's kind of out there, but what if they just didn't shoot it in 3D? Hmmm...

Ohhhhh a 3D hater!

Psssst . . . THE HOBBITT is being shot in 3D. But there will be 2D presentations so you can sleep better now. No need to fret. Of course, if you want to see it in 48 FPS, then you will have to see it in 3D.
Reply
Reply
post #367 of 942
4/27/12 at 1:59pm
I hate 3D and am proud of it.
Reply
Reply
post #368 of 942
4/27/12 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

I have an idea that's kind of out there, but what if they just didn't shoot it in 3D? Hmmm...

And an awesome idea it is sir.
Reply
Reply
post #369 of 942
4/27/12 at 4:43pm
without having seen any 48 fps media, i'll take a flyer and venture i'm going to love it. hey any tech that makes video material better viewing is alright with me.

i loved the 3d in avatar, loved growing up with those cinerama flicks, so if this is the latest greatest i'm all in.

i'm sure after color grading, fx, and a few tricks in processing the material a lot of the objections people voiced on the 10 minute flyer will be dissipated.
Reply
Reply
post #370 of 942
4/27/12 at 5:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

So in all the interviews and previews that Jackson has made about his working on THER HOBBITT has he even mentioned a 24 FPS version of it? You can always make stuff up - but that doesn't substitue for the truth.

http://scifimafia.com/2012/04/peter-...-at-cinemacon/

See Jackson quote where he mentions that it converts well to 24fps. Doesn't mean he likes it per se, but he has mentioned it.
Reply
Reply
post #371 of 942
4/27/12 at 7:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

So in all the interviews and previews that Jackson has made about his working on THER HOBBITT has he even mentioned a 24 FPS version of it? You can always make stuff up - but that doesn't substitue for the truth.

Mention it? Didnt he show us the a 24fps version when the movie was unveiled?


I have no doubt that when people watch this you'll have a few that dont like it, while most will think it looks amazing. But heres the thing.. back in 2006 when I showed some friends the Godfather in trumotion they thought it was the greatest thing ever. Even bought new tvs shortly after. Fast forward to today and they hate it.
No doubt 48fps will wow, but will it last? who knows.
Reply
Reply
post #372 of 942
4/27/12 at 7:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennem View Post

http://scifimafia.com/2012/04/peter-...-at-cinemacon/

See Jackson quote where he mentions that it converts well to 24fps. Doesn't mean he likes it per se, but he has mentioned it.

So he hasn't discussed his 24P version, as Movie Swede was alluding to - he just said 48 FPS converts well to 24.

Got it.
Reply
Reply
post #373 of 942
4/27/12 at 11:39pm
Jackson responds to the negative reactions to the preview screening:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansit.../news/?a=58742
Reply
Reply
post #374 of 942
4/28/12 at 7:19am
Quote:


Nobody is going to stop. This technology is going to keep evolving. At first it’s unusual because you’ve never seen a movie like this before

Peter forgets that alot of people have watched 50i/p drama for some time. Its really nothing new watching faster fps.

Quote:


A couple of the more negative commenters from CinemaCon said that in the Gollum and Bilbo scene [which took place later in the presentation] they didn’t mind it and got used to that. That was the same 48 frames the rest of the reel was. I just wonder if it they were getting into the dialogue, the characters and the story. That’s what happens in the movie. You settle into it.

Thats exactly the reason why we dont need 48fps in the first place. Once you drawn into the movie, technology can rest.
Reply
Reply
post #375 of 942
4/28/12 at 7:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Jackson responds to the negative reactions to the preview screening:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansit.../news/?a=58742

Uh Oh. I'm detecting the Lucas-like attitude I mentioned earlier.
Reply
Reply
post #376 of 942
4/28/12 at 7:40am
What's he going to do? Say, "Oh, ok. I will only release it at 24fps"

No, of course not. He's going to defend his decision and hope he makes a billion dollars.
Reply
Reply
post #377 of 942
4/28/12 at 8:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

What's he going to do? Say, "Oh, ok. I will only release it at 24fps"

No, of course not. He's going to defend his decision and hope he makes a billion dollars.

That's true, but at least he could have said something like "don't worry, the finished film won't have a soap opera, videoish look to it. It'll look cinematic". Instead we get this "this is what I'm giving you. Get used to it" attitude.
Reply
Reply
post #378 of 942
4/28/12 at 9:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

That's true, but at least he could have said something like "don't worry, the finished film won't have a soap opera, videoish look to it. It'll look cinematic". Instead we get this "this is what I'm giving you. Get used to it" attitude.

Because in some people's viewpoint it will still look 'videoish', not in terms of colour grading look (or other techniques used in cinema), but in terms of motion. Not that that's a bad thing, it's probably the only frame of reference people have for highish frame rates. - ie. it will have more realistic/accurate motion.
Reply
Reply
post #379 of 942
4/28/12 at 10:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Peter forgets that alot of people have watched 50i/p drama for some time. Its really nothing new watching faster fps.

For movies it is, ie; those seen in a theater and not on a television. The last HFR movie (Hollywood production) was 1956's Around the World in Eighty Days shot and shown in 30 FPS Todd AO

Quote:


Thats exactly the reason why we dont need 48fps in the first place. Once you drawn into the movie, technology can rest.

The reason 48 FPS is needed, is to get people back into theaters. Show them something they can't see in their homes.
Reply
Reply
post #380 of 942
4/28/12 at 10:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

The reason 48 FPS is needed, is to get people back into theaters.

I'd phrase it differently. It's a way to prop up a format (new and improved 3D!) that people are showing fading enthusiasm for.
Reply
Reply
post #381 of 942
4/28/12 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

For movies it is, ie; those seen in a theater and not on a television. The last HFR movie (Hollywood production) was 1956's Around the World in Eighty Days shot and shown in 30 FPS Todd AO

30fps is closer to 24 then 48. And just because it is in a theater do not make 48 fps look like its not 48. If I watch 720/50p in my hometheater does it look less videoish?

Quote:


The reason 48 FPS is needed, is to get people back into theaters. Show them something they can't see in their homes.

Making epic movies look like Fawlty Towers is not the answer.
Reply
Reply
post #382 of 942
4/28/12 at 11:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

30fps is closer to 24 then 48. And just because it is in a theater do not make 48 fps look like its not 48. If I watch 720/50p in my hometheater does it look less videoish?

Unknown - haven't seen a finished movie showing in 48 FPS 3D yet. Have you?

Quote:


Making epic movies look like Fawlty Towers is not the answer.

Peter Jackson and James Cameron disagree with you. Both are wildly successful movie makers . . who are you?
Reply
Reply
post #383 of 942
4/28/12 at 11:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

I'd phrase it differently. It's a way to prop up a format (new and improved 3D!) that people are showing fading enthusiasm for.

LOL - and I would phrase THAT differently . . .

It's a way to improve the 3D format, which people will flock to if done right.
Reply
Reply
post #384 of 942
4/28/12 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

LOL - and I would phrase THAT differently . . .

It's a way to improve the 3D format, which people will flock to if done right.

Which implies they're not flocking to it now.
Reply
Reply
post #385 of 942
4/28/12 at 12:29pm
Peter Jackson Responds to 'Hobbit' Footage Critics, Explains 48-Frames Strategy

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...nemacon-317755
Reply
Reply
post #386 of 942
4/28/12 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Which implies they're not flocking to it now.

Depends how you interput the following:

Reply
Reply
post #387 of 942
4/28/12 at 2:03pm
As you said earlier, there are far too many variables involved to accept that as scientific "proof" that 3D is wildly popular.
Reply
Reply
post #388 of 942
4/28/12 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

As you said earlier, there are far too many variables involved to accept that as scientific "proof" that 3D is wildly popular.

I don't ever remember saying 3D was "wildly popular."

But there is some proof of it's recent popularity, or at least success - that chart I posted. Of course, if you don't like 3D, then you will come up with all kinds of reasons to try to play it down. Just like you tried to do with Trumbull's frame rate testing procedure.
Reply
Reply
post #389 of 942
4/28/12 at 2:27pm
Quote:


I reached out to Steve Schklair of 3ality Technica for his thoughts on the subject as Peter Jackson is using their 3D rigs on his production.

Here's what Steve had to say:

"Every change in cinema technology has come with negative comments and naysayers. This includes the advent of color, sound, digital, and 3D. If you remember back to the early days of digital, there was a company selling a process that would artificially insert weave, grain, scratches and dirt into a pristine digital image so that it would have a “film look”. Motion artifacts in 2D are distracting, and in 3D they are especially distracting. Shooting HFR makes for better images and sharper less distracting pictures. Because it does not look like what people are used to, it comes with the same detractors as did color, sound, digital, and 3D. I agree with Peter Jackson in that you have to see an entire movie at 48 and not just a few minutes. When you become immersed in the story, the difference in look will become secondary to the story. Eventually, like all new technologies in our business, it will become the accepted norm. History shows that to always be true."

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2012/0...-can-only.html
Reply
Reply
post #390 of 942
4/28/12 at 4:25pm
I agree in that people don't like change. It's always the same. It takes time and ten minutes of cut up, incomplete footage will not do it. My Elite ups 24fps to 72fps and it looks fantastic. My girlfriend is one of those people who don't like change. When I showed her a blu ray for the first time, she thought it looked too clean and sharp. Unnatural, she once said. Two weeks of back and forth DVD to blu ray watching and she refuses to by anything but blu rays now (if she has the option between DVD and blu ray). It's all about the amount of time it takes for people to adjust. I adjust very quickly.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread: