New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit - Page 23

post #661 of 942
12/6/12 at 12:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I just went through almost all the available Rotten Tomatoes reviews mostly out of interest regarding the 48fps issue. The overwhelming impression is that the issues raised by the original preview screenings remain. Over and over the look is referred to as
"Like TV. Like a BBC television program, or home movie, rather than a film." And usually with some distaste for the look.
Yuck.
I'm going to see it because I want to judge for myself, but given I detest the look of frame interpolation available on most new displays on movies, I'm not going in with hopes high. (And I say this as someone once utterly obsessed with trying to see Douglas Trumbull's Showscan).
It will be interesting to see how this technology plays out.

I'm hoping it is like frame interpolation. I can't wait to see 48fps.
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #662 of 942
12/6/12 at 12:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthrsg View Post

So it's clear we will all hate this movie like Prometheus and TDKR. Can we start in on Star Trek already?
+1 biggrin.gif
Reply
Reply
post #663 of 942
12/6/12 at 1:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthrsg View Post

So it's clear we will all hate this movie like Prometheus and TDKR. Can we start in on Star Trek already?

tongue.gif

Overall, I actually really enjoyed Prometheus........TDKR I will find out in about an hour. cool.gif Star Trek sounds like it is going to be variable aspect so I already know that one will be horrible! biggrin.gif

As far as the Hobbit and this 48fps 3d............it sounds very similar from a few I have talked to who have seen it already to what I get on my projector when I enable FI/CMD for movies which does not sound good to me to be honest. I dont like the effect this has on film. I do however like FI for animated movies, but the Hobbit is not animated obviously. Still going to go see it in 48fps 3d I think and I am trying to keep an open mind even in light of how much I do not like this type of effect for film and live action type movies. We will see........
Edited by Toe - 12/6/12 at 1:48pm
Reply
Reply
post #664 of 942
12/6/12 at 1:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Yeah, some totally confusing, abstract art film... like Hellboy. rolleyes.gif

That was his work? Didn't know that.
Reply
Reply
post #665 of 942
12/6/12 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

tongue.gif
Overall, I actually really enjoyed Prometheus........TDKR I will find out in about an hour. cool.gif Star Trek sounds like it is going to be variable aspect so I already know that one will be horrible! biggrin.gif
As far as the Hobbit and this 48fps 3d............it sounds very similar from a few I have talked to who have seen it already to what I get on my projector when I enable FI/CMD for movies which does not sound good to me to be honest. I dont the effect this has on film. I do however like FI for animated movies, but the Hobbit is not animated obviously. Still going to go see it in 48fps 3d I think and I am trying to keep an open mind even in light of how much I do not like this type of effect for film and live action type movies. We will see........

You should be excited about 48fps. 24fps film is dead. The look of film that we have been accustomed to for 80 years is done. There's is a new paradigm that we might as well get used to.
Reply
Reply
post #666 of 942
12/6/12 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthrsg View Post

So it's clear we will all hate this movie like Prometheus and TDKR. Can we start in on Star Trek already?

don't forget all the hate world war z is generating
Reply
Reply
post #667 of 942
12/6/12 at 2:15pm
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post


You should be excited about 48fps. 24fps film is dead. The look of film that we have been accustomed to for 80 years is done. There's is a new paradigm that we might as well get used to.

Have you seen anything in 48FPS? Consensus seems to be negative.

Reply
Reply
post #668 of 942
12/6/12 at 2:39pm
VADER: (a whisper)
Luke, help me take this mask off.

LUKE:
But you'll die.

VADER:
Nothing can stop that now. Just for once...
let me look on you 48FPS with my own eyes.
Reply
Reply
post #669 of 942
12/6/12 at 2:48pm
I've never been a Tolkien fan, yet am still interested in seeing this. The so-called "videowy look" was perfectly fine 20 years ago when people were trying to emulate film with their video projects. And the look is even OK for a project here and there, but personally I wouldn't like all future movies to have this visual style.
Reply
Reply
post #670 of 942
12/6/12 at 3:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

I'm hoping it is like frame interpolation. I can't wait to see 48fps.

*Holds up garlic and cross*
Reply
Reply
post #671 of 942
12/6/12 at 3:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

*Holds up garlic and cross*

No, no, no.

This!

Reply
Reply
post #672 of 942
12/6/12 at 7:20pm
Not sure if this has been discussed but Im wondering if anyone knows what resolution the hobbit master will be released to the theaters in-2k or 4k. I know it was filmed in 5k but I dont believe its possible to release a 4k master of the hfr 3d version. Been looking everywhere for an answer to this.
Reply
Reply
post #673 of 942
12/6/12 at 10:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydrunk View Post

Not sure if this has been discussed but Im wondering if anyone knows what resolution the hobbit master will be released to the theaters in-2k or 4k. I know it was filmed in 5k but I dont believe its possible to release a 4k master of the hfr 3d version. Been looking everywhere for an answer to this.

Dont know what they use for theater, but remember that the camera uses a single cmos sensor, that only uses 25% of its pixels for red, 25% for blue and 50% for green. While a digital projector can use 100% of its pixels for each color. Now the demosaic filter will of course improve the image, its not 5K of actual information in the image. And then we can add the issue of camera lenses.
Reply
Reply
post #674 of 942
12/7/12 at 12:48am
what exactly is your point? Its either going to be a 2k or a 4k master release, it was shot in 2 x 5k dual 3d cameras. My point is Im hoping for a 4k master so we can get the best pic.
Reply
Reply
post #675 of 942
12/7/12 at 2:03am
My point is that you will be fine with 2k 48fps 3d. Because the 5k camera isn't 4:4:4.
Reply
Reply
post #676 of 942
12/7/12 at 2:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

I'm hoping it is like frame interpolation. I can't wait to see 48fps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

You should be excited about 48fps. 24fps film is dead. The look of film that we have been accustomed to for 80 years is done. There's is a new paradigm that we might as well get used to.

I'm still not sure if you're joking or not...


As I've said before I'm somewhat curious to see the film at 48fps, I've seen 48fps footage and it might not really look like frame interpolation, but it might not look good over the course of an entire film either. So I'm simply curious. So far, people seem fairly unimpressed though. And declaring 24 fps dead is a bit, um, premature...
Reply
Reply
post #677 of 942
12/7/12 at 3:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydrunk View Post

Not sure if this has been discussed but Im wondering if anyone knows what resolution the hobbit master will be released to the theaters in-2k or 4k. I know it was filmed in 5k but I dont believe its possible to release a 4k master of the hfr 3d version. Been looking everywhere for an answer to this.
There are some contradictory info being posted within the film industry community, but the seems that by those best informed makes it most likely that it is only 2K 3D.

The reasons might be several.
1: There is not enough time to render out 4K HFR 3D to reach cinemas in time for opening. (I believe the production really wish they had some extra months before locking off the post production). Even IMAX might resort to up-rez for those locations that have 4K projectors.
2: The The servers and IMBs are upgraded to 2K 48fps 3D, but are not able to handle the increased data amount of 4K 48fps 3D. This might change for the next instalment.
3: The 4K DLP projectors should be able to handle 4K 48fps 3D = 96fps without internal processor-board upgrades, but are limited by the before mentioned IMBs, but the Sony 4K projectors are not able to handle 4K 3D at all, and maybe not even 96fps because the Lcos panels are to slow. I am in doubt that the Sony Lcos will ever be able to do 4K 3D at all. By this I mean 4K 3D with full 4K resolution for each eye in HFR 3D.
Best solution anyway both for DLP and Lcos is dual stack projections.

All the 3 point are pure speculations for my part. Would be interesting if someone else had more accurate information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Dont know what they use for theater, but remember that the camera uses a single cmos sensor, that only uses 25% of its pixels for red, 25% for blue and 50% for green. While a digital projector can use 100% of its pixels for each color. Now the demosaic filter will of course improve the image, its not 5K of actual information in the image. And then we can add the issue of camera lenses.
Actually; The demosaicing lowers the image resolution together with the OLPF. Red EPIC 5K gives 4.5K measurable resolution after demosaicing. 5120 (h) x 2700 (v) = 13.8MP, cropped to 5120 x 2133 for 2.40:1 for regular cinema release. Probably sub-sampled to 4K after demosaicing before cropping, because they need the full frame-height for IMAX.
Edited by coolscan - 12/7/12 at 3:36am
Reply
Reply
post #678 of 942
12/7/12 at 8:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

There are some contradictory info being posted within the film industry community, but the seems that by those best informed makes it most likely that it is only 2K 3D.
The reasons might be several.
1: There is not enough time to render out 4K HFR 3D to reach cinemas in time for opening. (I believe the production really wish they had some extra months before locking off the post production). Even IMAX might resort to up-rez for those locations that have 4K projectors.
2: The The servers and IMBs are upgraded to 2K 48fps 3D, but are not able to handle the increased data amount of 4K 48fps 3D. This might change for the next instalment.
3: The 4K DLP projectors should be able to handle 4K 48fps 3D = 96fps without internal processor-board upgrades, but are limited by the before mentioned IMBs, but the Sony 4K projectors are not able to handle 4K 3D at all, and maybe not even 96fps because the Lcos panels are to slow. I am in doubt that the Sony Lcos will ever be able to do 4K 3D at all. By this I mean 4K 3D with full 4K resolution for each eye in HFR 3D.
Best solution anyway both for DLP and Lcos is dual stack projections.
All the 3 point are pure speculations for my part. Would be interesting if someone else had more accurate information.
Actually; The demosaicing lowers the image resolution together with the OLPF. Red EPIC 5K gives 4.5K measurable resolution after demosaicing. 5120 (h) x 2700 (v) = 13.8MP, cropped to 5120 x 2133 for 2.40:1 for regular cinema release. Probably sub-sampled to 4K after demosaicing before cropping, because they need the full frame-height for IMAX.

What about a 4k 2d verson, there should be no issues with either the sony or dlp projection system or space concerns with the imb's, correct?
Reply
Reply
post #679 of 942
12/7/12 at 9:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydrunk View Post

What about a 4k 2d verson, there should be no issues with either the sony or dlp projection system or space concerns with the imb's, correct?
It shouldn't.
Question is; Have they made a 4K 2D version?
The cost of render 4K CGI/VFX is supposedly very high and time consuming, and there is a lot of it in The Hobbit.
If they haven't had the time, or taken the time for 4K VFX renders, they might use the next 12 months for that.
Peter Jackson said in the Colbert report yesterday that he has more or less finished editing the part 2.
I'm sure there will be a 4K HFR 3D version at some point, but maybe not at the moment.
Reply
Reply
post #680 of 942
12/7/12 at 1:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Actually; The demosaicing lowers the image resolution together with the OLPF. Red EPIC 5K gives 4.5K measurable resolution after demosaicing. 5120 (h) x 2700 (v) = 13.8MP, cropped to 5120 x 2133 for 2.40:1 for regular cinema release. Probably sub-sampled to 4K after demosaicing before cropping, because they need the full frame-height for IMAX.
Is that 4.5K measurable resolution for each of the colour channels or just greyscale? How could you have 4.5K of measurable resolution in the red/blue channels if they only captured 25% of 5K's of colour info for those channels?
Reply
Reply
post #681 of 942
12/7/12 at 2:46pm
For those who missed it, Steven Colbert this week had Serkis, Freeman, McKellen, and PJ on his show for interviews.

Apparently, Colbert is a Tolkien uber-geek and he and his family were invited by PJ to NZ to watch some of filming.
Reply
Reply
post #682 of 942
12/7/12 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

It shouldn't.
Question is; Have they made a 4K 2D version?
The cost of render 4K CGI/VFX is supposedly very high and time consuming, and there is a lot of it in The Hobbit.
If they haven't had the time, or taken the time for 4K VFX renders, they might use the next 12 months for that.
Peter Jackson said in the Colbert report yesterday that he has more or less finished editing the part 2.
I'm sure there will be a 4K HFR 3D version at some point, but maybe not at the moment.

got his off another hobbit thread in here:
"well, supposedly Peter Jackson had all visual effects rendered at 4k, HFR, and 3D. Hence the need for two supporting studios to cover the massive bill. The master, at least, seems to be all that and the kitchen sink. I would assume, due to the high cost to the theater chains per screen to get ready for 48 fps and 3D, the new equipment will accommodate the best as currently possible. However, the passive 3D enabled 4k displays themselves may only support 2k for each eye. That will be the only roadblock. For passive 3D you'd need 8k projectors to get 4k for each eye. That won't be happening any time soon."
Reply
Reply
post #683 of 942
12/7/12 at 8:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydrunk View Post

However, the passive 3D enabled 4k displays themselves may only support 2k for each eye. That will be the only roadblock. For passive 3D you'd need 8k projectors to get 4k for each eye. That won't be happening any time soon."
If we assume 4K=3840x2160 and 2K=1920x1080, a passive 3D display would give more than 2K worth of pixels per eye.
Passive 3D displays split the number of pixels in half between the left and right eyes. eg. a 4K display which split the lines between the left and right eyes would be 3840x1080 for each eye. That's still twice the number of pixels as a 1920x1080 ("2K") display. So to get a full 4K worth of pixels in passive 3D for a display which splits the number of pixels in half between the eyes, you'd only need a display with half the number of pixels of an "8K" (7680x4320) display, or if you used an 8K (7680x4320) passive display, that would give you twice as many pixels per eye as a 4K (3840x2160) active display..
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 12/7/12 at 9:06pm
Reply
Reply
post #684 of 942
12/7/12 at 9:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

If we assume 4K=3840x2160 and 2K=1920x1080, a passive 3D display would give more than 2K worth of pixels per eye.
Passive 3D displays split the number of pixels in half between the left and right eyes. eg. a 4K display which split the lines between the left and right eyes would be 3840x1080 for each eye. That's still twice the number of pixels as a 1920x1080 ("2K") display. So to get a full 4K worth of pixels in passive 3D for a display which splits the number of pixels in half between the eyes, you'd only need a display with half the number of pixels of an "8K" (7680x4320) display, or if you used an 8K (7680x4320) passive display, that would give you twice as many pixels per eye as a 4K (3840x2160) active display..

I should have left those last couple sentences out, I was referring to the topic we were talking about the 4k master. Its twice as many as 2k(which also splits the 2k in half) but its still not 4k like active shutter would be and there arent any displays with half the number of an 8k so we would have to wait for an 8k to get at least 4k(even though it would be more) worth of pixels in a passive system.
Reply
Reply
post #685 of 942
12/11/12 at 8:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

There are some contradictory info being posted within the film industry community, but the seems that by those best informed makes it most likely that it is only 2K 3D.
The reasons might be several.
1: There is not enough time to render out 4K HFR 3D to reach cinemas in time for opening. (I believe the production really wish they had some extra months before locking off the post production). Even IMAX might resort to up-rez for those locations that have 4K projectors.
2: The The servers and IMBs are upgraded to 2K 48fps 3D, but are not able to handle the increased data amount of 4K 48fps 3D. This might change for the next instalment.
3: The 4K DLP projectors should be able to handle 4K 48fps 3D = 96fps without internal processor-board upgrades, but are limited by the before mentioned IMBs, but the Sony 4K projectors are not able to handle 4K 3D at all, and maybe not even 96fps because the Lcos panels are to slow. I am in doubt that the Sony Lcos will ever be able to do 4K 3D at all. By this I mean 4K 3D with full 4K resolution for each eye in HFR 3D.
Best solution anyway both for DLP and Lcos is dual stack projections.
All the 3 point are pure speculations for my part. Would be interesting if someone else had more accurate information.
Actually; The demosaicing lowers the image resolution together with the OLPF. Red EPIC 5K gives 4.5K measurable resolution after demosaicing. 5120 (h) x 2700 (v) = 13.8MP, cropped to 5120 x 2133 for 2.40:1 for regular cinema release. Probably sub-sampled to 4K after demosaicing before cropping, because they need the full frame-height for IMAX.

You are wrong. I have just found out that there are 4k masters and they are only available in imax 3d and imax hfr 3d which there are only 58 of in the Us. there is only one in my state and I called the theater and spoke with the manager for a bit and they do have a imax Hfr 3d 4k master. Why in the world are the only 4k version on IMAx where the dolby atmos isnt. Please, if someone knows of a IMaX HFR 3d theater using atmos please post here.
Reply
Reply
post #686 of 942
12/12/12 at 12:10am
Just got back from a The Hobbit screening, Gotta say I was let down. It had a VERY VERY similar pacing to LOTR 1 but with eh eh CGI.

Not even tempted to go back and watch the ATMOS version. I'll add more details later.

Forgot to say 3D HFR was BLAH
Reply
Reply
post #687 of 942
12/12/12 at 2:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydrunk View Post

You are wrong. I have just found out that there are 4k masters and they are only available in imax 3d and imax hfr 3d which there are only 58 of in the Us. there is only one in my state and I called the theater and spoke with the manager for a bit and they do have a imax Hfr 3d 4k master. Why in the world are the only 4k version on IMAx where the dolby atmos isnt. Please, if someone knows of a IMaX HFR 3d theater using atmos please post here.
You might be right. But important to note; This a 4K versions up-converted from the 2K version. They are not original 4K renders from the 4K camera capture with 4K renders of VFX/CGI according to all sources in the movie industry.

IMAX also shows a film print; 98 Reels of Film For ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ In IMAX



I'm not sure that seeing The Hobbit first time on the largest of IMAX screens is the best way to see the film even if the projection is a 4K up-convert. This based on someone that saw Skyfall that also has a 4K up-convert (but from a lower resolution camera source) on the large IMAX screen and complained about repeated Pixelation.
A smaller screen might be preferable.
.
.
Edited by coolscan - 12/12/12 at 2:03pm
Reply
Reply
post #688 of 942
12/12/12 at 8:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

You might be right. But important to note; This a 4K versions up-converted from the 2K version. They are not original 4K renders from the 4K camera capture with 4K renders of VFX/CGI according to all sources in the movie industry.
IMAX also shows a film print; 98 Reels of Film For ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ In IMAX

I'm not sure that seeing The Hobbit first time on the largest of IMAX screens is the best way to see the film even if the projection is a 4K up-convert. This based on someone that saw Skyfall that also has a 4K up-convert (but from a lower resolution camera source) on the large IMAX screen and complained about repeated Pixelation.
A smaller screen might be preferable.
.
.
thats imax film 3d theres also digital too though. also its 58 theatres in the world are playing it at 4k only 30 in the US in 19 states, theres one in my state, i spoke with the manager at the theater and he said it is a 4k master. from the way he was talking and explaining things i could tell he wasnt a dumb kid but knew what he was talking about. I didnt even ask if it was digital or film, im going to call back. i also have an email in to imax to see if any of the 30 theatres in the US also have atmos. Ive spent literally 50 plus hours just in the last 3 weeks going over all this stuff with all of these combos of hobbit versions( 2d, 3d-with reald, expand, dolby3d-, imax digital 2d, imax digital 3d, imax digital hfr 3d, imax film 2d, imax film 3d, imax film hfr 3d, 3d w/hfr, then some have atmos some dont, dolby 7.1, some have 4k some dont some have dbox some dont, real imax, liemax etc. plus all of the combos created between these- its a mess) and the technology that goes with. I have no idea why that had to make it so confusing for the customer. Think how the average joe must feel!
Reply
Reply
post #689 of 942
12/14/12 at 10:19am
just came back from the 48FPs screening and the movie looked amazing!

at the very beginning it looks like the movie is sped up. also the first 20 minutes are boring. after that your eyes start to adjust and the movie looks gorgeous. the detail is incredible. also no more panning problems when camera goes from top right to bottom left for example. everything stays crystal clear.

only a few occasions occured that the swords became a blur when it was moving very fast. but other then that. i really like to hear someone say this movie does not look better then anything else you have seen before.
once you goutisde and see the valley. the inside of the orcs, goblins cave. unbelievble detail. so much going on and everything stayed sharp.
smeagel looked better then ever.

there is no movie that looks as good as the Hobbit by far.

if you dont like the hobbit that is fine. to each your own. but in term of visuals. there is nothing i have seen before that can match this movie in detail.

actually if you liked the lord of the rings movie you will like this too. there aint much difference on that part. i liked the lord of the rings movies and i liked this too.

anyway i hope we will see more 3D 48 FPs movies from now on.

if i am not mistaken James cameron is also a big believer in 48FPS. so hopefully the next avatar will also have this 3D with 48fps.

now i just wonder how the movie would look like in 48FPs and then 2D.
Reply
Reply
post #690 of 942
12/14/12 at 10:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by d3code View Post

just came back from the 48FPs screening and the movie looked amazing!
at the very beginning it looks like the movie is sped up. also the first 20 minutes are boring. after that your eyes start to adjust and the movie looks gorgeous. the detail is incredible. also no more panning problems when camera goes from top right to bottom left for example. everything stays crystal clear.
only a few occasions occured that the swords became a blur when it was moving very fast. but other then that. i really like to hear someone say this movie does not look better then anything else you have seen before.
once you goutisde and see the valley. the inside of the orcs, goblins cave. unbelievble detail. so much going on and everything stayed sharp.
smeagel looked better then ever.
there is no movie that looks as good as the Hobbit by far.
if you dont like the hobbit that is fine. to each your own. but in term of visuals. there is nothing i have seen before that can match this movie in detail.
actually if you liked the lord of the rings movie you will like this too. there aint much difference on that part. i liked the lord of the rings movies and i liked this too.
anyway i hope we will see more 3D 48 FPs movies from now on.
if i am not mistaken James cameron is also a big believer in 48FPS. so hopefully the next avatar will also have this 3D with 48fps.
now i just wonder how the movie would look like in 48FPs and then 2D.
Did the theater you seen it in actually project it at 48FPS?
Not all are capable.....

Last night at about 6pm I drove by a local theater and there were already about 50 people camped out for the midnight showing....tents and everything (it was really cold).
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread: