or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › 'The Hobbit' will not be widely released in 48 FPS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'The Hobbit' will not be widely released in 48 FPS - Page 2

post #31 of 266
Lee, you realize we're not seeing the boxed sets of the extended versions for about five years, right? That was the point he was getting at. You did say it would be "years" before we saw a standard change, if ever.
post #32 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by javanpohl View Post

Lee, you realize we're not seeing the boxed sets of the extended versions for about five years, right? That was the point he was getting at. You did say it would be "years" before we saw a standard change, if ever.

Again - it depends on if the industry moves away from 24 fps and embraces HFR.

Ever heard of Deep Color? wink.gif
Edited by Lee Stewart - 8/8/12 at 9:26pm
post #33 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ten8yp View Post

I'm guessing that my equipment is not whats needs to be added to currently... I would have to believe that my hardware can be improved via firmware updating.
As far as non-hardware improvements... I dont pretend to know HOW. Not my job... but I do know that I cant stand it right now and wouldn't spend extra money on it in the theater.

So you think that if your CEM announces at 2013 CES they are introducing a 3DTV that wll be 144hz (72hz per eye), you will be able to get this as a firmware upgrade? I strongly doubt that.
Quote:
Suggestions for 3D movie manufacturers:
Make an entire movie in REAL 3D
Give me 3D WITHOUT glasses

Native 3D versus conversion to 3D will always be a budget consideration. Conversion will improve over time. It has gotten much better than it was just 3 years ago. Most people don't even realize that almost all native 3D productions have some conversion shots. More than you know.

Auto 3D (no glasses) is YEARS away from being perfected. And if the very best Auto 3DTV came out tomorrow, your displays could not be upgraded. You would have to replace them.
Edited by Lee Stewart - 8/8/12 at 9:45pm
post #34 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by javanpohl View Post

Anybody happen to know what projectors they had on hand for the comic-con material and, more importantly, if they could natively project 48 fps (or, more likely 96 fps)? I'm holding on to the hope that the negative reactions were caused by frame interpolation and not necessarily the 48 fps. I say this because I have long been looking forward to increasing the frame rates for movies but have also abhorrently despised the dreaded "soap opera" look... I'll take panning blur over the soap opera look any day, so I hope this isn't really the trade-off.

No frame interpolation - native 48 fps (AFAIK, they would use either Christie or Barco professional digital projectors.) Series 2 projectors can be upgraded to handle 48 FPS 3D. Series 1 projectors can't. But neither can handle 4K 48 fps 3D. That would require all new projectors and supporting hardware.
Edited by Lee Stewart - 8/8/12 at 9:44pm
post #35 of 266
Producer Jon Landau: Filmmakers, Not Studios, Should Decide the Fate of Higher Frame Rates

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/producer-jon-landau-frame-rates-siggraph-peter-jackson-trumbull-360089
post #36 of 266
If the director finance the movie in its own. He is free to release it any way he can. Otherwise the studio have an input on how the movie is supposed to make a profit.
post #37 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by espodo View Post

"The footage I saw looked terrible … completely non-cinematic," wrote Devin Faraci at Badass Digest. "The sets looked like sets … sets don’t even look like sets when you’re on them live, but these looked like sets. The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely.”

I look at the end goal of Audio/Visual giving the perception of the user visually being in the movie and audibly hearing what they think is real sound produced by what is going on in the movie. Fighting against this evolution seems counterintuitive and will only hurt the progression of technology.

3D is a prime example. Poor implementation back in 19XX turned a lot of people off and portrayed it as simply a gimic. Since Avatar, 3D popularity has exploded and there is now enough consumer interest (demand) to drive production of said technology. Now, if 3D would have been implemented better way back in the day and enough interest would have been generated for companies to realize profit potential, maybe at this point in time today we would have 3D displays without the need of glasses… Individuals with an audience, such as Devin Faraci, who interpret the technology based on their own shallow interpretation, obviously have some industry influence. It’s game changers and pioneers (think Steve Jobs) who have a vision on the end game in mind that end up changing the industry. Peter Jackson needs put less stock in what a few “industry professionals” or focus groups have to say and press forward if he wants to truly make his mark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

Film is a very literal medium. The more closely that medium approximates reality, the more literal it becomes. This becomes a real problem when we are trying to get an audience to suspend disbelief while viewing subject matter often plucked from literature, which of course is a FAR LESS LITERAL medium.

But on a movie taking place in a fantasy world populated by wizards and dragons and Hobbits, the additional visual realism can easily interfere with our ability to appreciate what we are seeing. In other words, we begin to feel like we are watching actors performing on a set instead of characters experiencing life in an imagined world.

Guess our feeble minds aren’t ready for that yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob McLaughlin View Post

Whatever keeps me in the story and in the film. If 48fps takes me out of the picture, I don't want it, at least not right now. However, I think this may be a case of filmmaking technique needing to catch up with the technology. In the early days of sound (and color, for that matter) the sheer novelty of the new technology was jarring not just to viewers, but the people creating the films--it took a while to make it an effective tool in the arsenal of the filmmakers.

Excellent post! As with any new technology it may take a few attempts to perfect a certain technique. Take the iPhone and compare the original iPhone to the 4S. 5 Years separate the iPhone from the 4S but they literally seem worlds apart from tech advancement standpoint. The key is to implement the 48fps techinique now, go through a few lessons learned and improve the implementation for future releases. Everything has a learning curve and there is constant room for improvement.

Sorry for my rant… I just hate to see technology/techniques meant to advance a field get shut down because people are scared of it… Look back in history, I bet cavemen freaked when that one guy showed them how to make fire.

OOOoooo it's Magic
post #38 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post


Guess our feeble minds aren't ready for that yet.

As long as we're dealing with projection on a screen (and not some type of virtual reality where the viewer is actually in the film), there will always be times when LESS LITERAL = MORE CONVINCING.

My point was that we need directors to decide whether the higher frame rate actually advances what they are trying to accomplish with a particular film, or merely distracts from it. In my opinion, a film like Black Hawk Down would benefit from the added realism (just to give one example), while a film like the Hobbit would require a thicker layer of abstraction between itself and the audience during most scenes. This has nothing to do with audiences being "ready" for it, and everything to do with the way the human visual system sends information to the brain and the way that information is interpreted in various formats. Obviously, this is Jackson's decision (given whatever latitude the studio has given him) and not mine, but audiences will determine the success of whatever decision he makes. Lots of directors make bad decisions... that's why the good ones are few and far between.
Edited by gremmy - 8/9/12 at 6:57am
post #39 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

As long as we're dealing with projection on a screen (and not some type of virtual reality where the viewer is actually in the film), there will always be times when LESS LITERAL = MORE CONVINCING.
My point was that we need directors to decide whether the higher frame rate actually advances what they are trying to accomplish with a particular film, or merely distracts from it. In my opinion, a film like Black Hawk Down would benefit from the added realism (just to give one example), while a film like the Hobbit would require a thicker layer of abstraction between itself and the audience during most scenes. This has nothing to do with audiences being "ready" for it, and everything to do with the way the human visual system sends information to the brain and the way that information is interpreted in various formats. Obviously, this is Jackson's decision (given whatever latitude the studio has given him) and not mine, but audiences will determine the success of whatever decision he makes. Lots of directors make bad decisions... that's why the good ones are few and far between.

So far, HFR has only been used for 3D, where it is most needed. Many think that HFR will be used for 2D. There are no productions scheduled that are contemplating using HFR.

I believe your argument of "LESS LITERAL = MORE CONVINCING" does not apply simply because 3D to begin with looks totally different than 2D does.
post #40 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

I believe your argument of "LESS LITERAL = MORE CONVINCING" does not apply simply because 3D to begin with looks totally different than 2D does.

I would have been inclined to agree with you if that article hadn't specifically mentioned that the sets looked like sets...

I have never seen a 3D presentation in 48fps, so obviously I cannot judge this for myself and like the rest of us am merely trying to piece things together given what I know of those formats I have seen and what others have reported of this particular presentation.
post #41 of 266
Anybody who is or has been waiting for the hobbit movie will se it in whatever frame rate it is released in.
Frame rate is not a big deal to the average movie goer.

I suspect is is a transition that people would get used to in one sitting.
For me, I would want to see it the way it was meant to be seen if I am watching it in the theater.

So I for one, will not go to see it if they change the frame rate. I will just wait until it hits BD.
post #42 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Again - it depends on if the industry moves away from 24 fps and embraces HFR.
Ever heard of Deep Color? wink.gif

Yes, we have. I bet most of us have many devices that are Deep Color ready, so it was already adopted (HDMI 1.3) prior to any material.
post #43 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

I would have been inclined to agree with you if that article hadn't specifically mentioned that the sets looked like sets...

You are forgetting that the footage shown at Comic Con had no post production work done on it. Not a good reference to judge.
Quote:
I have never seen a 3D presentation in 48fps, so obviously I cannot judge this for myself and like the rest of us am merely trying to piece things together given what I know of those formats I have seen and what others have reported of this particular presentation.

I have seen HFR 2D (Showscan) but never HFR 3D. I don't believe they will be the same. Maybe someone who has seen the film ride; T2: Battle Across Time can chime in. AFAIK, that is one of the few higher than 24 fps 3D presentations; 70mm @ 30 fps.
post #44 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Spankenstein View Post

Yes, we have. I bet most of us have many devices that are Deep Color ready, so it was already adopted (HDMI 1.3) prior to any material.

Tons of devices that are Deep Color ready - but no content right? Deep Color is not in the current specs for BD. Increase the color depth - storage requirements go up - just like increasing the frame rate. H.265 could be used to encode DC and still work within the current 50GB DL BD limit. But is Hollywood going to sign off on that - giving consumers professional level quality? IMO - no.
post #45 of 266
I will either see it in 48fps or not at all. To strip it down is no different than to release a film in "Pan and scan" rather than the original aspect ratio. It was shot in 48fps, therefore many scenes will lose their intended emotion and feel when shown otherwise, just as cutting the sides of the image does in many shots that were composed with widescreen in mind. Jackson planned every moving, swooping camera shot with 48fps in mind. Do not see it unless you can see it in 48fps!
post #46 of 266
Completely rubbish. Nolan intended his latest Dark Knight's to be viewed in 15/70 IMAX but we don't even have a fake IMAX where I live.
I saw the movies at my regular theater and enjoyed them. Who the **** are you to say that I should be staying home instead?
post #47 of 266
The secret to a really good Photoshop fake is to put imperfection back into the photo. Blur. Noise. Raster. When you see a Photoshop fake that's too perfect, it sticks out like a goiter on a swimsuit model.

Same thing with working on a soundstage. Once you work on a commercial or film interior set, you can't help but "see" the limitations of the set build in every movie you watch. When Dorothy et al start dancing their way down the yellow brick road, you can't help but notice that that the edit cuts right before they bonk their collective noses on the painted cyclorama wall.

My point: A little illusion is a good thing. Film works as a medium because of a defect/limitations on the processing handshake between the eye and the brain. Apparently there is a point of diminishing return -- a Laffer Curve -- on resolution; another Uncanny Valley.

Can we agree that maybe -- in this case -- more is not necessary better? Do we really need 2160p resolution on our projectors and TVs? Granted, 30 fps might have been a better film standard than 24 fps, but 48fps? Really?

I guess I'm turning into Dana Carvey's Grumpy Old Man. "When we was kiddies we put a candle behind some hand puppets and acted out shadowplays of Jane Austin novels... and we LIKED IT!"
post #48 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

You are forgetting that the footage shown at Comic Con had no post production work done on it. Not a good reference to judge.

I'm not forgetting it. Also, I'm not the one judging it. The implication that I got from the article was that the people who actually saw it thought the sets looked like sets specifcially because of the 48 fps. This fits with what I know of higher frame rates on 2D material. There was also the suggestion that post production work might help... but if that's the case, I'm curious what type of production work that would be. Would it be work specifically aimed at toning down the visual impact of the higher frame rate?Certainly if post production work always helped in this regard, regardless of the framerate, these people would be used to seeing "sets that look like sets" and would not have attributed it to the framerate -- either that or the people actually collecting the data would have known.

But either way, until one of us actually sees a 3D film at 48 fps, this is all speculation. Perhaps we can both agree to reserve judgment for the time being.
Edited by gremmy - 8/9/12 at 10:43am
post #49 of 266
I'm not familiar with all 3D techniques so my question is: will it be 24 fps per eye for 48 fps movie?
post #50 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post

I just hate to see technology/techniques meant to advance a field get shut down because people are scared of it…
You're starting from a couple of false assumptions. What makes you think that higher frame rates will "advance" the field of filmmaking? Why does not liking the HFR look mean that people are "scared of it"?
post #51 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

You are forgetting that the footage shown at Comic Con had no post production work done on it. Not a good reference to judge.
.


Excellent point, Lee.

Counterpoint: When filmmakers have to perform special effects on the practical effects and stagecraft to make them look real... That's quite a rabbit hole we've tumbled down.

I'm no friend of the Studio Suits, but when the budget gets a line item to CGI the practical effects, I can't blame them for calling Bee Ess on a director.
post #52 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

I'm not familiar with all 3D techniques so my question is: will it be 24 fps per eye for 48 fps movie?

Either 48 fps per eye or 96 fps per eye.
post #53 of 266
I think the Omega 3D static dual passive projection system would work for the new release at any frame rate

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1407101/official-omega-3d-passive-projection-system-thread
post #54 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by cshawnmcdonald View Post

Excellent point, Lee.
Counterpoint: When filmmakers have to perform special effects on the practical effects and stagecraft to make them look real... That's quite a rabbit hole we've tumbled down.
I'm no friend of the Studio Suits, but when the budget gets a line item to CGI the practical effects, I can't blame them for calling Bee Ess on a director.

Post Production is done on ALL movies. A large part of it is Color Grading (Correction)
post #55 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickboy2k View Post

So I for one, will not go to see it if they change the frame rate. I will just wait until it hits BD.

This was stated earlier in the thread, but I will repeat for emphasis: Blu-ray does not support 48 fps.

If you refuse to watch this movie in any format other than 48 fps, and you don't live near one of the two theaters that will play it in that format, then I guess you will never see this movie.
post #56 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Either 48 fps per eye or 96 fps per eye.
96 fps per eye for 48 fps movie!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

This was stated earlier in the thread, but I will repeat for emphasis: Blu-ray does not support 48 fps.
If you refuse to watch this movie in any format other than 48 fps, and you don't live near one of the two theaters that will play it in that format, then I guess you will never see this movie.
Let's hope you'll be able to buy it online and download it.
post #57 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

96 fps per eye for 48 fps movie!?

Nothing more than a double flash. You do you they triple flash 24 fps 3D now right? 144Hz - 72Hz per eye (RealD 3D)
Quote:
Let's hope you'll be able to buy it online and download it.

Native 48 fps 3D? I doubt it.
post #58 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

This was stated earlier in the thread, but I will repeat for emphasis: Blu-ray does not support 48 fps.
A fw update would be possible would it not?
Quote:
If you refuse to watch this movie in any format other than 48 fps, and you don't live near one of the two theaters that will play it in that format, then I guess you will never see this movie.
Never is a pretty definite word. Im sure there will at least be a 48fps digital release.
post #59 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssjLancer View Post

A fw update would be possible would it not?

Could you use a FW update to make your BD SAL player a 3D BD SAL player? No you couldn't.
Quote:
Never is a pretty definite word. Im sure there will at least be a 48fps digital release.

And which 3DTV display can handle 48 fps?
post #60 of 266
Quote:
The higher-frame rate version of the movie will play in "all major markets in North America," domestic distribution chief Dan Fellman says, but only in select theaters

“We're going to New Zealand at the end of the month to meet with Peter. We are in line with him to have a platform release, and we'll present a couple of choices,” Fellman said. He added that the studio plans to follow a similar strategy in international markets. Imax will additionally have a number of theaters playing a 48fps 3D version of the film.

Jackson’s The Hobbit is the first major motion picture to be shot at a higher frame rate of 48fps. Proponents of high frame rates say it creates a more lifelike image and truer illusion of continuous movement, in particular by improving 3D and action sequences by eliminating or greatly reducing motion artifacts such as blur.
Quote:
Series 2 projectors from Barco, Christie and NEC will be able to show a movie at 48fps with a currently available software upgrade and a piece of hardware called an “integrated media block” with 48 fps support. Don Shaw, senior director, product management, Christie Entertainment Solutions, estimated that from a technology standpoint, it might be possible to get to as many as 5,000-10,000 such installations completed worldwide by the end of the year.

Fellman reported that the option of digital cinema satellite delivery is not yet ready to accommodate a 48fps movie, and so The Hobbit’s initial release will use a 48fps Digital Cinema Package (the digital equivalent of a film print) shipped to theaters on hard drives..

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/siggraph-2012-warners-bros-the-hobbit-48fps-360464
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › 'The Hobbit' will not be widely released in 48 FPS