48fps Hobbit footage screened and generally hated!
- Thread starter Batutta
- Start date
robmneilson
Veteran
Hopefully the theater owners won't try to double the price of the ticket, with double the FPS!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Not quite sure why you say that. I'm saying that 3D is a fad that is quickly going to die off, and that faster frame rates are simply not going to be adopted as the norm. Which leaves 24fps 2D theaters (conventional theaters) as pretty much the only thing that will be here a couple years from now. A higher percentage will be digital projection instead of film prints, of course, but they'll be 24fps 2D.
Which is what I was saying that Jackson did right -- by shooting 48fps and not 60, he can easily release a 2D 24fps version which should look "normal" and play in "normal" theaters easily enough.
TheReverend
Well-known member
I agree completely with Barry here. Jackson made a gamble, but not one that can't be fixed. If the movie ends up testing terribly at 48fps, it's likely there will be a 24fps version that will show up. And even if there isn't, I'm glad because if I want to make a 24fps version of the film for me to watch, I can without losing much quality.
I'm definitely of the video game generation so I feel that I can talk here from experience. The thing that people don't get is that gamers don't dig "reality", they dig fantasy. That's the whole point of games, even the more "realistic" they get, like CODMF3 or the like. But gamers when it comes down to it, don't really want realistic, they want to be fooled into believing the fantastic world that you put in front of their eyes. They want you to tell them, "this is real!", and they want to believe it and run with it. In COD, it looks and behaves like reality, but it isn't. Death is temporary, gun recoil is minimized, falling distances are unrealistic, human limitations are constantly overlooked... All in the name of making a fun reality.
The same is true in the movies. The "fantasy" is more important than the reality. And 48fps DOESN'T DELIVER THE FANTASY. It looks so real and life like (like news or TV), that there is no imagination, no break between reality and fantasy. The dwarf doesn't looks so fantastical if I can see that it looks a costume. The action doesn't look as good when it isn't undercranked... The reason is because we don't want to see reality, we want to see something "better" than reality.
This is also why with CGI-type movies or games that the framerate can go through the roof. We can already tell it's fake, so high frame rates don't affect the "fantasy" feel of the piece. 120fps for Cars 5 would look mind blowing, because it would be even more "fast" and realistic. 120fps Inception would be insulting. You would hate it cause it would look TOO real.
Barry_Green
Moderator
You know what -- I'm really looking forward to seeing this projected in 48fps 3D.
Because then, we will have the ultimate, definitive, absolute perfect test case to once and for all settle the eternal arguments that we get around here -- that 24fps was and is "an archaic choice that was only chosen because it was the slowest rate that sound could be played back at", that faster frame rates and reality are the future and what people actually want, that the "film look" is only through lighting and has nothing to do with frame rate, etc.
Well, here we'll have the chance to settle that once and for all. Here will be the biggest-budget, best-lit, best-production-designed film anyone could possibly hope for. If it's "all about lighting" then the 48fps thing should look just as much like a movie as the 24fps version, right? And if 24fps is an "old, archaic, unwanted holdover from a bygone era" then audiences should prefer the 48fps version, right? And if they do, even if a few of us old-timer purists argue for 24fps' "superiority", if the audiences by and large embrace and enjoy the 48fps version, then that should settle the debate once and for all. And if the general public at large rejects the 48fps version and vastly prefers the 24fps version, then that should settle the argument definitively too.
So thanks to Peter Jackson, we should soon be able to put at least a couple of endless internet debates to rest! :thumbsup:
Because then, we will have the ultimate, definitive, absolute perfect test case to once and for all settle the eternal arguments that we get around here -- that 24fps was and is "an archaic choice that was only chosen because it was the slowest rate that sound could be played back at", that faster frame rates and reality are the future and what people actually want, that the "film look" is only through lighting and has nothing to do with frame rate, etc.
Well, here we'll have the chance to settle that once and for all. Here will be the biggest-budget, best-lit, best-production-designed film anyone could possibly hope for. If it's "all about lighting" then the 48fps thing should look just as much like a movie as the 24fps version, right? And if 24fps is an "old, archaic, unwanted holdover from a bygone era" then audiences should prefer the 48fps version, right? And if they do, even if a few of us old-timer purists argue for 24fps' "superiority", if the audiences by and large embrace and enjoy the 48fps version, then that should settle the debate once and for all. And if the general public at large rejects the 48fps version and vastly prefers the 24fps version, then that should settle the argument definitively too.
So thanks to Peter Jackson, we should soon be able to put at least a couple of endless internet debates to rest! :thumbsup:
cpc
Well-known member
I believe these are amongst the chief causes for headaches. Plus the possible difference between the convergence and the focus planes of the eye. This doesn't happen in normal life and strains the brain.
TheReverend said:
Have in mind that 48fps conformed through blending to 24fps doesn't look like anything actually shot in 24fps. Conforming through blending is like applying a smoothing filter on motion samples. You can see the fluid result in The Hobbit teaser trailer (all over the internet). It is 48-to-24 converted.
And on the games thing, one clarification. High framerates in games really have more to do with responsiveness of controls and masking dropped frames (dropped frames are less noticeable if you run at a high framerate already) than any desire for hyper-realism.
While I don't really care for 3D movies, and do believe that cinema and 3D images are incompatible, I think that if 3D movies are gonna stay around, they better be 48fps (or more). Here are my more detailed thoughts on why 48 fps is good for 3D.
simonpwood
Well-known member
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/cinemaconnews.php?id=89583
They say " Everything looks crystal clear but it also looks a little too perfect and lifelike and because of that clarity, the fact that we're looking at sets and actors in costumes and make-up seems much more obvious. One of the nice things about film is that it adds a glossy look that smooths out the rough spots in sets, costumes and make-up.
I'd probably compare the look a bit to the old "Doctor Who" television shows in terms of it looking a lot like it was shot on television cameras, which may be hard to adjust to for those used to a certain way of watching films for 80 odd years."
Looks like an old Dr. Who episode!? Thats a helluva insult!
Hopefully this will kill the idea of 60fps in its infancy, and drive another nail in 3D's coffin.
They say " Everything looks crystal clear but it also looks a little too perfect and lifelike and because of that clarity, the fact that we're looking at sets and actors in costumes and make-up seems much more obvious. One of the nice things about film is that it adds a glossy look that smooths out the rough spots in sets, costumes and make-up.
I'd probably compare the look a bit to the old "Doctor Who" television shows in terms of it looking a lot like it was shot on television cameras, which may be hard to adjust to for those used to a certain way of watching films for 80 odd years."
Looks like an old Dr. Who episode!? Thats a helluva insult!
Hopefully this will kill the idea of 60fps in its infancy, and drive another nail in 3D's coffin.
Last edited:
bruceallen
Well-known member
You make it sound like it's a debate between 24fps and 48fps. On DVXuser it seems more like:
One bunch just wants filmmakers to have options when they make their movies - 24fps, 48fps, 60fps, 2D, 3D... personal choice of the filmmaker. Sure, many want to try out 48fps, 3D, etc because it seems better to them than 24fps 2D - and they've given their reasons. But they're not trying to stop everyone from doing 24fps if they want to. It's very different from a TV manufacturer setting their TV to smooth everything by default. That's about forcing a look on people. This is about freedom.
The other is like just this angry "KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR 24FPS 2D CINEMA! I WANT THIS 3D HIGH FRAME RATE CRAP TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS SO THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE ANYTHING ELSE THAN 24FPS 2D." mob.
If you're in favor of creative choice for filmmakers, it's a no-brainer which stand to take.
I'm surprised how little empathy and respect for fellow filmmakers' creative choices there is here.
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Barry_Green
Moderator
That was not his intention. In an interview he said he shot 48 frames specifically so that he could deliver a 24fps master if desired. He shot at a 270 degree shutter angle, splitting the exposure time between that which we would normally associate with 24p and that which you would normally associate with 48fps; it would result in a 1/64 exposure. To deliver a nearly perfect 24fps master, he will just have to drop every other frame (step printing).
Barry_Green
Moderator
Wow, you sure just took the opportunity to paint me in a pretty bad light. Thanks.
Now, if you'd be so kind, please re-read what I wrote. I didn't take a stance on either side. I just pointed out the continuous debates we've had here, and that this would be a perfect, unbiased, absolute test bed for people to see and determine what exactly it is that they like. It is a best-case scenario, better than any we could have hoped for. And my hope is that once people empirically can settle, once and for all and forever, which they prefer -- then they can get back to making something, instead of fretting and arguing about it. It's an opportunity to shine a brilliant spotlight of truth into a dusty argument-filled corner of the web, sweep out the misinformation, and establish a (hopefully) indisputable reference point so that people can know, once and for all and forever, what the absolute answer is.
If you can point out how that makes me somehow wanting to stop someone from doing something, or "KILL" something, I'd be quite curious to see the logic that gets you to that point.
For the record, I know which argument Barry is talkin' about. It's the one where people say that the audience can't tell the difference between 24P and 30P, or worse, 24P and 60P.
This crops up every so often and a lot of people are convinced that "24P is just because 24P is, and when 30P is a standard 24P will die because of judder, stuttering, so on and so forth."
It's that debate that he's referring to (I think, anyway) and to me, yeah, this is a good chance to settle that. There will be no excuses if it makes it to theaters at 48P, and people watch it, then there's a backlash to the soap opera look.
On the other end, I guess I already said it, but I'd like to see them use this in a more effective place... tell Pixar to render out ten minutes of UP @ 48P and show it.
This crops up every so often and a lot of people are convinced that "24P is just because 24P is, and when 30P is a standard 24P will die because of judder, stuttering, so on and so forth."
It's that debate that he's referring to (I think, anyway) and to me, yeah, this is a good chance to settle that. There will be no excuses if it makes it to theaters at 48P, and people watch it, then there's a backlash to the soap opera look.
On the other end, I guess I already said it, but I'd like to see them use this in a more effective place... tell Pixar to render out ten minutes of UP @ 48P and show it.
Well, having played games for almost my whole life (started with Mario, in the good days.) - I've never really cared much about the frame rates, other than attempting to get the highest frame rates my graphics cards could possibly produce (mostly about bragging ability...). But I'd say that our PC screens play a massive role in how we interpret frame rates. I'm play at like 30cm from a 22 Inch HD LCD screen. That's massively different from a 35mm projection on a huge screen in a dark cinema.
I was skeptical when I first heard about this (still am), but I don't know if I'd trust some of the views being published. Best to see it for myself...
Also, I've never had much of an issue with 24fps for 3D (me having problems with 3D itself is another conversation). Couldn't figure out what PJ was hating on.
I was skeptical when I first heard about this (still am), but I don't know if I'd trust some of the views being published. Best to see it for myself...
Also, I've never had much of an issue with 24fps for 3D (me having problems with 3D itself is another conversation). Couldn't figure out what PJ was hating on.
Having witnessed these countless conversations and threads, I sure would like to say: I'm really looking forward to the discussion that develops after the film shows. We'll all be queuing twice to see the film in 48fps and 24fps.
Cosimo Bullo
Veteran
Calling BS. That's not what Barry seemed to be saying at all. Maybe tone it down a notch?
Barry_Green
Moderator
I know I will. I think it's such an ideal test bed, and if two of the most successful filmmakers in history (Jackson & Cameron) are touting the higher frame rate as cinema's future, then I will certainly give them the respect of at least viewing what they made, as they intended it to be seen. I haven't been a believer in 3D, but I certainly saw Avatar in 3D, because if anyone was going to do it right it was James Cameron.
So if 3D and higher frame rates makes that much of a difference to the viewing experience, I will absolutely give Peter Jackson the benefit of the doubt and see it as he intended it to be seen. I view it as respecting the director's vision. I am not a fan of higher frame rates for narrative, and I don't really care for 3D, but I will experience the experience as he intended. But I will also be very interested to see how the 2D/24fps version plays, because I think it will likely feel much more like his prior trilogy.
If there's going to be a revolution in frame rates and/or 3D, I think The Hobbit is going to be what sparks it; proponents of higher frame rates couldn't ask for a better test case, and proponents of 3D probably couldn't ask for a better showcase (since Avatar, at least). I think higher frame rates and 3D are going to be given the fairest, best chance (if not the most stacked deck) they could ask for. So now I'm doubly curious to see how audiences react.
I could have predicted the tweets from that second article, but let's remember that the screening of the 10 minutes took place at CinemaCon (which is probably a renaming of the former ShoWest convention), and that's a convention for theater owners and other such people in the business, not general audiences. So you're talking about a probably sophisticated audience who's very well versed in the whole digital projection, 3D, and higher frame rates debate. What I'm most interested in seeing is the reaction of the general public to each version.
ErikTande
Well-known member
john threat
Carbonite Member
Hey! I just hear old people in here whining. Lemme listen again? Yup.
48 FPS rocks!!!!
A new way of doing things and telling stories!
Have fun doing 24fps dinos. I guess you'll be doing 8FPS next as purist.
48 FPS rocks!!!!
A new way of doing things and telling stories!
Have fun doing 24fps dinos. I guess you'll be doing 8FPS next as purist.
What?? It's cat and mouse, has been for decades, still will be for long. I've yet to run a game and say "Well, this graphics hasn't improved for a few years now." If anything, I'm thinking about the newest AMD and Nvidia offerings and how I can get my hands on them. If hardware has reached a point of being able to sustain what the programmers dream off, then why continue releasing high-end premium gaming new cards that ARE being bought?
There can still be more...