48fps 3D preview of 'The Hobbit' gets mixed reaction at CinemaCon - Page 5

Luddites

I would just like to say that every time Zack and Slater fought on Saved by the Bell, it was always really tense (and shot on video of course).

There's a difference between embracing change and embracing the suggestion that film should aim to simulate a window, and that everyone should adopt that view. That is sterility.

I support the freedom to express one's self using whatever tool they feel like using.

Yeah, that luddite Claude Monet! He should have painted more photoreal. It would have been so much better! :/

No, but one should have the OPTION to paint in whatever style they chooses and not be artificially limited by inferior equipment. You can make a 24fps film using a 48fps system but you can't make a 48fps out of a 24fps system. Let the director/producer decide how THEY want to present their art. If you don't like higher frame rates then it's your right to protest by not patronizing.

+1

As do I. But many of the people complaining about 48 frame do not appear to share that sentiment. It is these "sticklers" for preserving the status quo that I am talking about in my post!

By the way, you say "There's a difference between embracing change and embracing the suggestion that film should aim to simulate a window", but what is wrong with the concept of the screen as a window into an alternative reality? That's precisely why I go to the movies, to experience something that ordinary life cannot provide but I still want it to look and sound as real as possible! Why would anybody more interested in movies as entertainment than art not want that?

I honestly think that Directors such as Peter Jackson and James Cameron may well have similar opinions to mine which is why they are keen on faster frame rates and 3D.

Oh and since you raised the subject of Monet, I prefer the work of John Constable but based on my earlier posts that should not really surprise you.

I wasn't referring to you.

I see. You described them though as "people who prefer 2D and 24 frame," which is a pretty big group, considering few people really know what a movie at higher than 24fps will look like.


There's nothing wrong with it as a tool, but it would be boring if it was a standard. It seemed you were asking for wide adoption of the technique. Maybe I'm taking it too literally- it sounded to me like you were wanting a one-time configuration.

I wasn't clear enough. I should have said people who want 2D and 24 frame and nothing else!

One-time configuration! Definately not.

I fail to see how it doesn't eventually take over as the standard. I'm sure a lot of people lamented the demise of black and white, and you still have the occasional art film that goes that route...but by and large, say about 10 years from now, 24fps is going to be a rarity. Its practically a certainty. People will no longer accept 24fps once they're accustomed to 48fps.

Remember when LPs were replaced by CDs? Some of the results were a step backward, sounding harsh and abrasive in their pristine digital quality. Yes, early 48fps movies could repeat that error and give up that otherworldly quality that helps deliver the fantasy. But, good directors will learn how to use the extra bandwidth in 48 fps, and we will be rewarded with movies they could not have made well without it.

I am not a fan of the soap opera effect and dont use it on my tv but somehow i feel that this is a step in a better direction and it seems fitting that it will used for The Hobbit. I look forward to the clarity it will display

I am not convinced that a setting on a tv where artificial frames are created by software in the TV is comparable to real frames in 48FPS footage to be honest.

Having see some 48 frame footage I think it looked more or less the same as 24 frame but smoother where fast motion was concerned. That seems like a positive step forward to me and let's be realistic, film makers have a whole host of post production tools at their disposal to create and sort of effect they want, including motion blur, reverse wheel rotation etc. 48 frame just removes a limitation that 24 frame imposes on filmmakers, it in no way limits their creativity however as opponents to the new rate imply.

Your analogue is broken since it should be digital film (at 24fps) replacing analog (film, redundant but....) film.

Now we have digital 24 fps bring superseded by digital 48 fps. A closer analogue would be comparing CD's 44.1Khz to HD audio at 96Khz (DVD-A, TrueHD, DTS MA or HD downloads).

The difference being that 48fps will be a staggering and obvious difference to everyone who sees it, whereas the difference between 44 and 96khz is barely audible.

I would like to point out that many people have already (virtually) seen what the hobbit will look and move like, in 3d sports, documentary, and video broadcasts. And in PAL territories those shot in 720p50 will almost be indistinguishable from footage shot at 48 fps. From what I've seen, it looks/feels like enhanced video (@60fps) rather than enhanced 3d film (24fps). Perhaps a 3d framerate of 30 or 36fps would eliminate the strobing, but obviously it wouldn't directly convert to 24fps. However even though I say that high framerate 3d looks closer to a video broadcast than narrative film, I think that interpretation is mostly just conditional and probably by the end of the movie everyone will have gotten used to it. Also, high-integrity lighting, camera, and effects work go a long way.

I'm just kind of disappointed they chose 48fps instead of 60fps. It might make it easier for theaters, but it makes it more difficult for home users. We'll need new gear to directly play that frame rate back - it doesn't divide evenly into 120hz, and even in plasmas that have a 48hz or 96hz mode, it probably won't be able to accept the signal. We'll need new displays, an updated HDMI spec, probably new receivers too. Sigh.

Everyone seems to be hoping that some movie magic will stop it from looking like video. I watched Hook the other day. Theres an example of movie with really basic lighting and color timing. At 48fps this movie will look exactly like a real life broadway show, and that isnt a good thing.

But there's a flip side to that--cgi creatures like gollum and trolls and dragons will look like they exist on a real stage, and that is very convincing in a different way. Ever seen those geico commercials (I think the "larry king" and some nature ones) where they rendered the gecko in video parameters? It looked amazingly real, and in 3D that'll be even more lifelike. But I also don't totally agree that'll look like a broadway show since the cameras are more tuned to a film-like latitude, as opposed to any video cameras people have seen (which have been used in 3d sports, tv, etc) that I referred to. When the movie will be cut down to 24 fps it'll look very close to any movie filmed at 24 fps (3d or not) because film cameras conventionally use a 180 degree shutter angle, where literally half the time the light isn't being captured anyway.

Just in case you aren't up on current events () 48 FPS and higher will be used for 3D only. No plans for 2D.

So tell me the last time you saw a HFR 3D movie (48 frames/sec or higher).

Well, if 48 fps catches on it can be utilized for 2D as well. In fact, it might even be more easily accepted if it was utilized for 2D films to start.

Coming right out of the gate with 48 fps on top of 3D could be a bit overwhelming to the senses since we're soooo used to 2D and 24 fps.

Where 3D is quite inappropriate for many genres, 48 fps/2D could give an interesting look or feel to them.

3D is appropriate for any genre. Hugo proved that.

One of the major reasons James Cameron and Peter Jackson are using 48fps is to reduce the motion blur during camera swings that is more disruptive to 3D content. It's going to be more effective and worthwhile when combined with 3D than 2D.

That remains to be seen. Either way, not going to happen. THE HOBBIT will be the first 48 FPS movie .


Actually, according to Peter Jackson, it's the opposite. 48 FPS 3D is easier on the eyes causing less negative side affects like eye strain and headaches then 3D shot at 24 FPS.


No such thing as a genre where 3D is inappropriate. Like saying there is a genre where 2.40 widescreen would be inappropriate.

Dont see what your point is. Are you also saying that you cant judge what 24fps looks like if you havent seen it in 3D?

Also, if HFR is good then it isnt gonna be just for 3D. Its already failed if thats the case. Jackson certainly doesnt feel that way.

3D is more for nature, fantasy/sci-fi, action/adventure, and animated films. It's another "special effect" in a way.

3D for serious dramas? I don't think so. It would be an absolute distraction. 48 fps might be interesting for that genre, perhaps.

I think we`ll see alot of experimenting when it comes to higher frame rates.

Now that'll be interesting.

Absolutely. You're entitled to your personal opinion, but this generalization that you're making does not apply as a majority rule. If the filmmaker knows what they're doing, 3D doesn't distract from a story. Quite the opposite--it immerses the viewer and make them feel like they're there with the characters.

Old:
Dial M for Murder
Hondo

Recent:
Dolphin Tale
Hugo
Titanic

Upcoming:
Life of Pi
The Great Gatsby

Pretty decent 3D dramas, no?

Titanic was an adventure movie more than a straight drama. Hugo was a fantasy film. The Great Gatsby is a weird Baz Luhrmann anachronistic mash up and not a "regular" drama.

Dial M For Murder had some typical "wow the audience," gimmicky pop-out cinematography that goes hand-in-hand with 3D. It too wasn't played as a normal drama.

You really think 3D for stories like Good Will Hunting, Schindler's List, or Saving Private Ryan would have been appropriate?

That may SEEM to be truth based on the efforts of man. But that's because man sucks. In the hands of a good filmmaker, 3D is appropriate for any genre.