or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit - Page 18

post #511 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

OK, but can you understand that there are people for whom it won't look "better"? Or is that something you're simply not willing to accept?

Of course I accept it. It will be a subjective issue. I have already said that a long time ago in this thread.
post #512 of 944
i don't know which is more baffling, the endless debate on the avatar thread or this one of 24 vs. 48 fps.

me, since it will be available in both formats for viewing, i'll just wait till christmas before i form an opinion.
post #513 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

It will be a subjective issue.

Agreed. But since it will be subjective, how can you claim it will look "better"? Unless you believe that your subjective preference = objective superiority?
post #514 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Agreed. But since it will be subjective, how can you claim it will look "better"? Unless you believe that your subjective preference = objective superiority?

I am posting my opinion, just like when you say that 24 FPS is "better"
post #515 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

I am posting my opinion, just like when you say that 24 FPS is "better"

Where did I ever say that?
post #516 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Where did I ever say that?

I am surprised you would ask such a question. Just reviewing your posts throughout this thread, it's as obvious as the nose on your face.
post #517 of 944
I just think this backpedaling is hilarious.

2011: "It'll look like 50/60i video, like 60fps HDCam, like smoothmotion on TVs"
No it wont!!
2012: "It looks like 50/60i video, like 60fps HDCam, like smoothmotion on TVs"
You cant trust these bloggers with an agenda!!
post #518 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

I am surprised you would ask such a question. Just reviewing your posts throughout this thread, it's as obvious as the nose on your face.

Quote one of my posts were I said 24 FPS is "better".
post #519 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Quote one of my posts were I said 24 FPS is "better".

LOL - it's in every one of your posts when the subject comes up.
post #520 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

LOL - it's in every one of your posts when the subject comes up.

So not a single quote. Thought so.
post #521 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

So not a single quote. Thought so.

LOL - I could pick anyone of your posts at random. Maybe you should be more objective when you reread them.
post #522 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

LOL - I could pick anyone of your posts at random.

You can't, otherwise you would have done so by now.
post #523 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

You can't, otherwise you would have done so by now.

Why waste my time. I have better things to do.

So instead, let me ask you this . . . do you believe you are objective when it comes to the subject of 48 FPS?
post #524 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Why waste my time. I have better things to do.

Sure, sure, Lee...that's why you've spent so much time going back and forth with Sanjay on this.

He called your bluff.
post #525 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Why waste my time. I have better things to do.

Still no quote of me saying what you claimed I said. Matt already called you out for putting words in his mouth. I just provided another example. Which demonstrates that it isn't a one-time mistake on your part but a deliberate strategy. You really ought stick to the facts and stop making things up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

So instead, let me ask you this . . . do you believe you are objective when it comes to the subject of 48 FPS?

Objective about what? Frame rate? People's reaction?
post #526 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Still no quote of me saying what you claimed I said. Matt already called you out for putting words in his mouth. I just provided another example. Which demonstrates that it isn't a one-time mistake on your part but a deliberate strategy. You really ought stick to the facts and stop making things up.

Try post #282 Page 10

Quote:


Objective about what? Frame rate? People's reaction?

It was a very simple question . . .

So instead, let me ask you this . . . do you believe you are objective when it comes to the subject of 48 FPS?

Try answering it as it stands.
post #527 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Try post #282 Page 10

Let's try. Here's the entire contents of that post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssjLancer View Post

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.

Wrote this over a year ago in this very thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

48fps. Could end up looking like that SmoothMotion feature on modern TVs. Not quite as smooth as 60fps (video), but almost.

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)?

Where in that post do I say "24 FPS is better", as you claimed I said?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

It was a very simple question . . .

So instead, let me ask you this . . . do you believe you are objective when it comes to the subject of 48 FPS?

Try answering it as it stands.

Still don't know which aspect of 48 FPS you're asking about. For example, I was objective when stating that 48 FPS has a different cadence than 24 FPS.
post #528 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Let's try. Here's the entire contents of that post: Where in that post do I say "24 FPS is better", as you claimed I said?

"48fps. Could end up looking like that SmoothMotion feature on modern TVs. Not quite as smooth as 60fps (video), but almost."

Quote:


Still don't know which aspect of 48 FPS you're asking about. For example, I was objective when stating that 48 FPS has a different cadence than 24 FPS.

The finished look of 48 FPS 3D - what you will see in the theater in December when THE HOBBIT opens. Does that clarify it for you?
post #529 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

"48fps. Could end up looking like that SmoothMotion feature on modern TVs. Not quite as smooth as 60fps (video), but almost."

Where in that sentence do I claim that "24 FPS is better", let alone mention 24 FPS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

The finished look of 48 FPS 3D - what you will see in the theater in December when THE HOBBIT opens. Does that clarify it for you?

Clarify what? I haven't seen the Hobbit footage, so all I can go on is commentary from those who saw it.
post #530 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Where in that sentence do I claim that "24 FPS is better", let alone mention 24 FPS?

Let me ask you this - are you a proponent of SmoothMotion? It will clarify my point. That is why I am asking you this question.

Quote:


Clarify what? I haven't seen the Hobbit footage, so all I can go on is commentary from those who saw it.

And those commentaries were both positive and negative weren't they?
post #531 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Let me ask you this - are you a proponent of SmoothMotion?

"Proponent" as in pushing people to use it? I've never advocated either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

And those commentaries were both positive and negative weren't they?

Said as much a couple weeks back:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

That was the common theme, irrespective of whether it was being expressed as a positive or negative.
post #532 of 944
I have motionflow set to high on a 240hz tv....i like that look.

My question is being blu can only handle 24fps will the hobbit blu look like other blus on this setting or that it was 48 converted down to 24 make it look different ?
post #533 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcowboy7 View Post

My question is being blu can only handle 24fps will the hobbit blu look like other blus on this setting or that it was 48 converted down to 24 make it look different ?

Its will look close, technically it will have slightly more stutter because of the shutter rate they used, but its to Little to really notice.

look at the trailer and you see how the BD will look in terms of motion.
post #534 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Its will look close, technically it will have slightly more stutter because of the shutter rate they used, but its to Little to really notice.

look at the trailer and you see how the BD will look in terms of motion.

Yea but if i watch the trailer i cant watch it thru motionflow.
post #535 of 944
Well, this is certainly a lively thread. I think there are several factors that can be distilled from what has and is to transpire between now, through theatrical release, and to BD.

First, "colorgrading" can't come close to accurately describing what goes on with regards to image manipulation for the LOTR movies. The exception is the more simple scenes such as we saw in the interior sets of the first trailer of The Hobbit. That's all pretty straightforward stuff. Once they step out into Middle Earth locales, it will probably follow the tradition established in the LOTR movies; massive manipulation.

Next, I think it is clear that the 3D experience will be one movie, and the 2D may be a very different experience. We don't even know for sure if they will use the same frame rate. It is possible that the 2D will be 24fps.

I think we have to look at The Hobbit with some understanding that it will be an important step in 3D R&D...whether broadly accepted or criticized extensively will determine the next steps in the evolution (or vice versa) of 3D. They have stuck their necks out pretty far to give it their best shot. We'll see how it turns out. But either way, I won't be having a cow over it.
post #536 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

Next, I think it is clear that the 3D experience will be one movie, and the 2D may be a very different experience. We don't even know for sure if they will use the same frame rate. It is possible that the 2D will be 24fps.

As I undestand the 48fps version will be 3D. 2D will be 24fps, the 35mm version will be 24fps for natural reason, and I guess some 3D version will be 24fps aswell.
post #537 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

2D will be 24fps

Multiple articles say there will also be a 2D 48fps but Lee says there wont be so someone(s) is gonna be way off.
post #538 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcowboy7 View Post

Multiple articles say there will also be a 2D 48fps but Lee says there wont be so someone(s) is gonna be way off.

Not only do the digital projectors need an upgrade for 48 FPS, but so do the servers (READ: $$$). We know all 35mm presentations will be 24 FPS as will IMAX 15/70 and 15/70 3D. Digital IMAX 3D can of course be 48 FPS or 24 FPS. The only question is the Digital 2D presentations.
post #539 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

But either way, I won't be having a cow over it.

I'm a recovering cow-passer.
post #540 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Not only do the digital projectors need an upgrade for 48 FPS, but so do the servers (READ: $$$). We know all 35mm presentations will be 24 FPS as will IMAX 15/70 and 15/70 3D. Digital IMAX 3D can of course be 48 FPS or 24 FPS. The only question is the Digital 2D presentations.

All projectors are ready for HFR, but they need a new HFR Integrated Media Block (IMB) server.
The whole point of showing clips from The Hobbit at Cinemacon was to demonstrate HFR for cinema owners, managers and projectionists, nothing else.

I saw some time ago a quote from a CEO of one of the largest cinema chains (can't find the link or remember the name) say they would upgrade 2500-2700 screens for HFR IMB's. That was only one chain (believe they used Christie projectors).

Barco and Sony is also "hardselling" HRF solutions.

The upgrade is about $10000.- a screen.

Reading various reports from the cinema industry, my impression is that we will see that a lot of screens that will be HFR enabled by December.

Quote:
Barco made cinema history by projecting 3D movie footage at an astonishing 120 fps in a special presentation at the CinemaCon Directors' Luncheon. The demonstration used two stacked Barco projectors to show a combined 240 fps projection driven by a single Qube XP-I server to send 120 fps per eye.
http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=2817

Almost more interest in HRF upgrades than 4K upgrades from cinema owners, (guessing HFR is less expensive than 4K DLP, and that 4K DLP is more expensive than Sony 4K) even though there will most likely only be two HFR movies in the next two years (Hobbit 1&2), but several 4K releases.

Sony had installed 13000 4K projectors worldwide at the end of April. Christie and Barco needs to push harder for 4K installs.

But the studios and film makers also have a big responsibility to make more 4K movies and 4K releases.

Spiderman (Sony) might get a 4K release, and maybe Gatsby, but Prometheus supposedly only get 2K release, even if it is shot in 5K like The Hobbit.

James Bond;"Skyfall" is a movie franchise that could have pushed more 4K into the cinemas, and so could Avengers, but they both chose to shoot the movies with 2 megapixel cameras.

A lot of producers and film makers seems to have settled into some kind of "lazy comfort zone" of 2K digital and is unwilling to push for better image quality by utilising the 4K tools that are available.

It is a rather sad situation at the moment and lower my respect for a good part of the "upper parts" of the movie maker society, like Directors and DoP's that don't push harder for improving image quality, but in many cases work against 4K by ignorance and spreading misinformation.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home