48fps Hobbit footage screened and generally hated!

This all reminds me of a story Orson Welles told. When he went to see his first talking motion picture, his father grabbed him by the arm halfway through and marched him out saying "This ruins movies forever!". While I fully expect that I may not like it, I'm not going to be so quick to say it's just going to be a fad. 3D doesn't look like it's going away any time soon and many thought it would. However, I don't see 3D taking over completely either. It will probably stay as it is now, used primarily for CGI films and big summer blockbusters. 48p will probably evolve along similar lines.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
Not as long as warriors like Nolan keep fighting the good fight...
Click to expand...

Even though I love Nolan, and I generally agree with him (especially on 3D), his rigidness with regards to digital is starting to both irritate and disappoint me: http://www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Articles/1202-Spring-2012/DGA-Interview-Christopher-Nolan.aspx

hgf4 said:
He even says he wishes Raging Bull and Taxi Driver had been in 3-D. :(
Click to expand...

I'm actually laughing really hard at this right now... oh, wait, no... now I'm crying. I'm crying really hard right now...
 
Guess ATTACK OF THE CLONES 3D will fail at the boxoffice next summer then.


I mean, it's not going to be any good.






Because it's not 48fps.
 
Last edited:
CallaghanFilms said:
It's not going to be any good
b/c it's Attack.
Of.
The Clones.
Click to expand...

This.

On Nolan/film - digital can now surpass film in most ways that would be considered 'ideal'. Cleaner, higher resolution, more accurate. Like having a handheld IMAX machine (Epic). It doesn't have that romantic organic artifact vibe though.
 
How sick would it be to watch a Ghibli Feature film @ 48FPS. That is not even a question, that is a fact.
 
Kholi said:
How sick would it be to watch a Ghibli Feature film @ 48FPS. That is not even a question, that is a fact.
Click to expand...
Well, that's something you could easily accomplish today (sort of). Just watch an existing Ghibli DVD on a 120fps motion-smoothing TV, and see if you prefer it. Not an absolutely ideal comparison, but it should definitely get you in the ballpark.
 
I dont know about you guys but I allready know the words to the song..just looking if I can get a costume for the movie !


"Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold,

To Dungeons Deep and Caverns Old,

The Pines were Roaring on The Heights,

The Winds were Moaning in the Night,

The Fire was Red, it Flaming Spread,

The Trees Like Torches Blazed with Light."
 
“The minute it started people wanted three things: color, sound and depth,” Scorsese said. “You want to recreate life.”

Yep, but REAL depth :)

NHK demonstration of Super Hi-Vision at IBC was "more" 3D than most 3D movies and made 10x bigger impression- at least on me :)
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, that's something you could easily accomplish today (sort of). Just watch an existing Ghibli DVD on a 120fps motion-smoothing TV, and see if you prefer it. Not an absolutely ideal comparison, but it should definitely get you in the ballpark.
Click to expand...


I've seen that. Looks abit weird but very smooth. I prefer the 24fps though. The actual drawn animation cells are only about 8-12 max I believe? The rest is interpolated up to 24fps.

I agree for gaming it's great.

But I like general stuttery slowness of 24/25p for drama - there's a quality to it I like that moves into our unconcious/dream state. I only hate 24fps during very quick movements and fast tilts/pans... maybe there can be variable fps? So it ramps up to 48/60/120 for high movement scenes but back to 24fps for drama?
 
http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/04/the-hobbit-debuted-some-footage-in-48-fps-and-everyone-hated-it

All of you clever critics there and not one person had the wherewithal to say, “Frame Rate? More like FRAME RAPE!” I mean talk about a missed opportunity.
Click to expand...
:grin: :grin: :grin:

Barry_Green said:
So thanks to Peter Jackson, we should soon be able to put at least a couple of endless internet debates to rest!
Click to expand...
True- (and no, Barry's not saying one way or the other- the jury's still out...)
Then, if he's available, maybe we can get Jackson to squelch some of the other endless debates around here... :happy:

But seriously (or at least physiologically), some have said the frequencies may wreak havoc on the brain.

I wonder if the Persistence of Vision effect will be altered, or overloaded? Could 24fps be a sweet spot of PoV, and instead of the brain holding the previous still frame for 1/24th sec until the next still frame, there's a new frame, and another new frame, and another, and another!!!

Could 48-60fps mess with how the brain the processes the images, that's it's not just an acquired taste? A strobe light is certainly not as pleasant as a tungsten light.

But yeah, gotta see the two versions back to back...
 
This is somewhat off-topic, but Tuesday night I drove an hour-and-a-half to Ann Arbor to see Salmon Fishing in the Yemen and The Raid: Redemption. My local theater uses digital, but the Michigan Theater and the State Theater that I saw the two films at project film.

I can't even tell you how excited I got when the projection bulb flickered on and the previews started rolling on glorious 35mm. Throughout Salmon, I felt giddy because it's been months since I've seen a 35mm print. The Raid was shot on an AG-AF100, but projected on 35mm and I've gotta say, it looked a lot better that way. The grit of that bright, speckled print added so much to the 100-minute escape I paid $8 to go on.

The world's moving to digital. That's just how it's going to be. Maybe not in my lifetime, but at some point film will become a thing for museums and vaults (read a great article a week or two ago about the thousands of film prints being stored at some USC or UCLA vault). It's disappointing, but I'm not going to cry over it. And as soon as I'm able to work on a level where it's feasible, I plan and hope to shoot only film. 35mm or Super 16. I've got an old Super 8 camera, but y'know... Super 8 is a thing of the past. <grin>

-JMT
 
Michael Traven said:
The world's moving to digital. That's just how it's going to be. Maybe not in my lifetime, but at some point film will become a thing for museums and vaults (read a great article a week or two ago about the thousands of film prints being stored at some USC or UCLA vault). It's disappointing, but I'm not going to cry over it. And as soon as I'm able to work on a level where it's feasible, I plan and hope to shoot only film. 35mm or Super 16. I've got an old Super 8 camera, but y'know... Super 8 is a thing of the past. <grin>

-JMT
Click to expand...
It will absolutely happen in your lifetime, unless you plan on leaving us within the next 5 years.
 
It really also depends on the digital projector settings too. Some projectors I could see blocky pixels in the front row (urgh! Who chooses to sit there? Neck ache...) whilst in other digital screenings I couldn't see jagged pixels- they're rounded or finely blurred.

The thing I don't like about ole film projections is seeing the reel changes (dots on the top right corner) and softness. Maybe their projectors were getting old, or the projectionist himself got too old to remember to focus...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top