48fps Hobbit footage screened and generally hated!

Call me a hater, but I'm relieved it wasn't a "zomg! amazing!" reaction. I think I'm going to hate what it looks like. From 70 feet away I saw Star Wars playing on a TV at Best Buy and it was being smoothed out. I walked up to the TV to see if it really looked as bad as I thought from that far away. I called my wife over and the look on her face was disgust. They managed to make Star Wars look like someone shot it on their Canon Vixia camcorder. GROSS.

I love your work Mr. Jackson but seriously, I hope you fail on the whole 48fps thing. :/

Btw, I can't even imagine what VFX people are thinking with all this talk. The need to render TWICE as many frames makes my heart ache and probably makes their render farms cry.
 
Philip Bloom tweeted about this and many of us have been saying it since the days of ShowScan - people don't want hyper-real images when watching narrative film. Like film or digital at 24 frames, people are not perfect recorders of every moment in time. Missing details within time and space - whether you call it blur or lag or cadence or smear - is something we're accustomed to. I predict that this next generation enthusiasm for what really is ShowScan all over again will fade quickly and we'll be shooting all narrative at 24 fps (or so) as we should be.
 
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Film purists who will likely hate it, but also a big audience of videogame nuts who have grown up on super-fast frame rates.

At least Jackson had the foresight to shoot it in 48fps, not 60fps, so he can deliver a conventional 24fps version to conventional theaters.
 
Speaking for the gamer generation: no way.

It'll be PERFECT for CG, I mean there's no other way to go BUT 30P or better yet 60 for gaming. It makes the game seem more real. It's great that they pushed so hard but they're pushing with the wrong content. Show UP @ 48FPS in 3D and then you have people declaring high frame rates are the future. But, Live Action? Nah. We know those humans are real, we want them to look fake so we can believe that they are real.

duh. xD
 
Kholi said:
Speaking for the gamer generation: no way.

It'll be PERFECT for CG, I mean there's no other way to go BUT 30P or better yet 60 for gaming. It makes the game seem more real. It's great that they pushed so hard but they're pushing with the wrong content. Show UP @ 48FPS in 3D and then you have people declaring high frame rates are the future. But, Live Action? Nah. We know those humans are real, we want them to look fake so we can believe that they are real.

duh. xD
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've tried out the 120 hz motion on my projector on Avatar. For the CGI sequences I actually preferred it, but once it cut to scenes with real actors, it looks wrong.
 
This was a 2D screening right? Of course it looked that way. The whole point of the 48 fps was the whole "24 fps per eye" illusion. It will be a different story with 3D, I'm sure.
 
refocusedmedia said:
This was a 2D screening right? Of course it looked that way. The whole point of the 48 fps was the whole "24 fps per eye" illusion. It will be a different story with 3D, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

No, it was 3d--

"Saw the 10 minutes of raw The Hobbit footage in 48FPS 3D. Intriguing, the footage looks amazing, but the 48FPS experience is an odd change. – Alex Billington, Firstshowing

Oh no. Not a fan of 48fps. Oh no no no. [...] Listening to Cinemacon people – theater owners – this 48fps demo sold NOBODY. [...] THE HOBBIT, frankly, did not look cinematic. -Devin Faraci, BadassDigest

Saw ten minutes of Hobbit in 48fps 3D. Very exciting, but I’m now very unsure about higher framerates #CinemaCon -Peter Sciretta, SlashFilm

Saw 10 min of THE HOBBIT in 48fps. It’s def a drastic change from 24fps and many are not going to be on board with it. #thehobbit -Steve Weintraub, Collider

I had a feeling this 48fps stuff was gonna just look like amped up 120Hz on an HDTV, which looks awful. Seems to potentially be the case. -Kris Tapley, InContention

The fact is that 48 fps 3D is the most startlingly “real” 3D I’ve ever seen in my life. The downside for older types is that it’s too real. [...] In a word, 48 fps 3D looks like high-def video. It doesn’t look “cinematic”, lacking that filtered or gauzy look we’re all accustomed to. -Jeff Wells, HollywoodElsewhere"
 
I think it was 3D.

Personally, I haaaaate 120hz conversion on 2D.

However, with my 3D projector at home... I actually find that I turn 120hz conversion on for the 3D. 3D gets awful jittery at 24fps when they pan the camera.

Personally I think that the only way to decide if I really like 48fps 3D... is to just go and watch a whole darn movie shot that way.

I thank Mr Jackson for being brave enough to try it - and will go and see the movie in the way he recommends!

Trust the director. My 2c.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
I'm excited to see it for myself. Also, I'd prefer to hear reactions from the public who have no idea that it's playing at a different framerate. I wonder if any casual moviego-ers will even notice enough to mention the motion difference.
 
WTF!!!! .... Ok, I have very strong opinions about the higher frame rates thing; all mostly negative.... BUT, did anyone else note in that LA Times article that there were folks at that event hyping a 3D "Great Gatsby". I'm sorry, let me repeat that... A 3D "GREAT GATSBY"!!! Am I the only one here that the thought of that makes them sick to the stomach?! "The Great Gatsby" is one of the greatest novels of the 20th century and they shot a movie version of it in 3D.... WHY?!!!
 
David G. Smith said:
WTF!!!! .... Ok, I have very strong opinions about the higher frame rates thing; all mostly negative.... BUT, did anyone else note in that LA Times article that there were folks at that event hyping a 3D "Great Gatsby". I'm sorry, let me repeat that... A 3D "GREAT GATSBY"!!! Am I the only one here that the thought of that makes them sick to the stomach?! "The Great Gatsby" is one of the greatest novels of the 20th century and they shot a movie version of it in 3D.... WHY?!!!
Click to expand...

It's worse than that... they shot it in COLOR!

And I hear it has SURROUND SOUND.

For a serious movie? WTF. Gimmicks. It'll never work.

My 2c :P

With respect - I love your cat avatar and film cameras for that matter :)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
David G. Smith said:
That it Vilmos Squirrel!!
Click to expand...

That makes your picture 1000 times more awesome.

Considering it was already exceedingly awesome, now I think it is actually brighter than the sun.

BTW, saw Vilmos speak at the Close Encounters screening at Cinegear last year - he was just down to earth and awesome! Super cool. Although his "scurrying around and trying to bury things" routine didn't work 100% inside the Paramount Theatre... when he got outside all was good though.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Barry_Green said:
At least Jackson had the foresight to shoot it in 48fps, not 60fps, so he can deliver a conventional 24fps version to conventional theaters.
Click to expand...
Well, by the time The Hobbit arrives to theaters, 24 frame 35mm theaters won't be "conventional" anymore.

I meet hundreds of regular cinemagoers every day. I sell them their tickets and popcorn. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they want to watch a 3D version of a movie rather than a "regular" version if they have a choice (people still refer to 2D as "regular", they don't know what 2D is if you ask them).

The idea of 3D and 48fps is turning me off the idea of seeing it theatrically alltogether.
 
I like my strobing 24fps as much as the next guy.
But for 3D I'd rather have crisp 48fps with all the consequences. Motion blur in 3D kills my eyes.
3D simply doesn't play well with strobing and motion blur. (And shallow focus, for that matter.)
 
Hey everybody! Come see The Hobbit. Now with DOUBLE the frames! Dumb. My love of the jarring 24fps look will never die I'm glad others are seeing through this ploy, as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top