Hobbit: Overly detailed 5K and HFR failing to please

Lol none of the Hobbits is finished and distributed in 5K. Its just plain 2K, I wish it would be 4K! I couldnt wait to see Hobbit in 4K and than bang, there was no 4K copy distributed... What a disapointment!
And 3D 48fps HFR is great and I love it! :) Hope nobody is pushing anybody to watch it and pay for :D
Therefore starting this thread again is probably more like about flame than anything else.

Anyway with nowadays TV sets in America when 99% of population is watching movies in 400 or 800Hz "enhanced" soap opera quality sh!t setting, how can anybody complain about HFR? :D

Stuttering Gravity space footage only in 2K 24p on huge IMAX screen was total disaster!
 
Last edited:
Razz16mm said:
No 2k projectors in my neighborhood chain multiplexes any more. All screens converted to 4k last year between Thanksgiving and Christmas. With digital, the projector and camera should not be the limiting factors for MTF or resolution. The filmmaker's creative choices should: lenses, filters, and post FX.
Click to expand...

All these 4K projectors really doesnt help when you mostly get only 2K data to screen. Most of the movies is not shot, finished and distributed in 4K.
 
hawaj said:
All these 4K projectors really doesnt help when you mostly get only 2K data to screen. Most of the movies is not shot, finished and distributed in 4K.
Click to expand...

2k looks better on a 4k projector than it does on a 2k. Oversampling works at both ends of the chain. They are also significantly brighter with superior contrast ratios and color compared to the first gen 2k's.
 
I would be thrilled if one of the biggies (Panasonic?) would just put out a 2K camera that does RAW and 10 bit 422, maybe 444 with slog, etc to internal media, like an Alexa. I think that is the sweet spot. Look how good all that 2K Alexa stuff looks on 4K projectors. Witness how Sony has to issue a second OLPF to make their 2K work without artifacts. I think 4K cameras, for most purposes, and certainly all of mine, are not necessary or desirable. However, it's a forgone conclusion that it will be necessary to deliver 4K so might as well get used to it, as the manufacturers are skipping right to it what with "future proofing" and all... <sigh> future proof....

I think Epic looks fantastic for feature films, the color is infinitely mutable, but without the working resolutions and formats for what I do now, it's impractical. Sony has the right idea with the new Fs, but I really hope Panasonic jumps in. I have yet to see footage from the Fs that is warm. I'm sure you can get there with all that info but they just seem cool to me.
 
Last edited:
jdv said:
So... am I the only one who watches movies drunk? 'Cause seriously, you tend not to care so much about the little stuff while hammered.
Click to expand...

I made a series of short films a little over a decade ago that could only be seen at house parties because the experience was better while drinking in large groups. If you watched them sober and alone you'd be going WTF! the whole time. But in a group with alcohol they were funny.
 
hscully said:
I would be thrilled if one of the biggies (Panasonic?) would just put out a 2K camera that does RAW and 10 bit 422, maybe 444 with slog, etc to internal media, like an Alexa. I think that is the sweet spot. Look how good all that 2K Alexa stuff looks on 4K projectors. Witness how Sony has to issue a second OLPF to make their 2K work without artifacts. I think 4K cameras, for most purposes, and certainly all of mine, are not necessary or desirable. However, it's a forgone conclusion that it will be necessary to deliver 4K so might as well get used to it, as the manufacturers are skipping right to it what with "future proofing" and all... <sigh> future proof....

I think Epic looks fantastic for feature films, the color is infinitely mutable, but without the working resolutions and formats for what I do now, it's impractical. Sony has the right idea with the new Fs, but I really hope Panasonic jumps in. I have yet to see footage from the Fs that is warm. I'm sure you can get there with all that info but they just seem cool to me.
Click to expand...

+1 for this!

Hey if I could afford an Epic Dragon Carbon for a hobby cam I would have one. But reality does have a way of imposing itself and $6k or so for a complete ready to shoot field package with lenses and media is about tops for passing the wife test.:huh:
 
Shoots56 said:
Wtf are you talking about? I posted a factual based article link and nothing about me "making a better film". What are you, 17 years old? That appears to be the level of writing you are at.

This has nothing to do with Star Wars. If any post is absurd it would be yours for trying to connect these two films in any way. One of is a FILM that broke a dozen rules and made new ones, the other was purely made to make money and it's only doing so because of an old, popular book and mass marketing that costs $100mil and the reason for that is based on the past success of the ultra boring and money wasting director. He made junk after LOTR yet he keeps working, making more of the same unmoving crap but with marketing money and gimmicks like 48fps.

Whatever kid, my post is about 5K and how high rez. footage doesnt help anything. Grow the hell up and learn something instead of being emotional.
Click to expand...

If behavior like this continues, there will be a problem.
 
One thing about the "FILM LOOK".......just think about what all has been tried, failed, worked on in the last....well...ever since I have been working in video. The thing I like about the film look is...the film look. The thing I never liked about the video look was...the video look.

I PREFER the film look and I'm pretty sure that I will as long as I live.

That is simply my opinion.
 
I think that's most folks' opinion, even if they don't know it! I remember before I ever got into video production or knew anything about that world, I'm talking like maybe not even 13 years old here, watching old Twilight zones on TV. They had a couple eps that were definitely shot on video, and I noticed right away the "live" look to it. Didn't know what it was, but knew it was "weird" compared to almost every other narrative thing I'd seen.
 
I don't like 3d, I never have. It throws my suspension of disbelief out the window every major scene change, or every major "depth" change. I find it distracting more than immersive. That being said, the Hobbit 2 was the best 3d in a movie I have seen. I am not talking about the story or CGI, but the 3d aspect felt better than its 24p cousins. In the end I still like cinema in 24 fps in 2d.
 
Josh Bass said:
They had a couple eps that were definitely shot on video, and I noticed right away the "live" look to it. Didn't know what it was, but knew it was "weird" compared to almost every other narrative thing I'd seen.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. I don't know how long ago you were 13 ( :) ) but I'm assuming you are talking about video shot a while ago?

Because if so, then there were quite a few very noticeable differences between "video" and "film" when used to shoot TV drama. One - and only one - related to frame rate, but additionally there were the dynamic range of the cameras, and the fact that video all too often had too much aperture correction, the ringing effect on edges. (A doomed effect to make up for lack of real definition.) This is before we even start thinking of the fact that film productions normally had a higher budget and could be shot with one camera at a time - all of which allowed for more flexibility in lighting etc.

Roll on to now, and many of those factors have become history. Video/film techniques and manning have merged. True high definition cameras mean an end to all the excess aperture correction - it's been replaced with real detail. And in terms of dynamic range, highlight handling etc video now rivals film.

I'll lay a bet that because you remember film as being superior (for good reasons at the time), then you subconsciously associate film motion = good and video motion = bad. So yes, it may be many peoples opinion without knowing it! But times are changing, and the associations are lessening, certainly amongst the young. And as screens get bigger, flicker gets more objectionable, and that will be even more true with higher definitions.

Never forget that there is nothing magical about 24fps. Not in an image quality sense anyway. It came about solely due to the talkies, and the need to increase the linear speed of 35mm film through the optical sound gate to get an acceptable frequency response, and that also meant an exact speed. And 24 fps was seen as "just about enough", whilst factors such as a 2/5 relationship with 60Hz mains frequency helped engineering matters. It also meant a second was exactly 1 1/2 feet of film. I'm sure the technicians of the day would have preferred a higher speed - but the expense of film was the reason for keeping framerate as low as could be got away with.
 
That all may be true, but as a completely ignorant young'un (in terms of knowing jack s*%t about video/flim production), the thing that I immediately noticed was the interlaced/reality/news/soap opera look to that episode vs most of the others, or most other narrative material for that matter. The dynamic range etc. wouldn't have registered with me except at maybe the most unconscious level. Yes, things are different today, but I think most people associate 60i/interlaced with "cheap"/tacky/ewwww even so. 24fps may have been one of those things that came about for the reasons mentioned, but I think from use (movies, TV, commercials, etc.) it's been so ingrained into us as the "professional"/artistic/high end look that it will take a long time for that mindset to disappear.
 
just to clarify jackson's position on the whole 3 movies out of 1 book aspect. i read an article about it in some magazine awhile back in which he said flat out that he chose to do 3 films for creative reasons which had nothing to do with stretching the revenue. paraphrased of course, but yes, he's on the record about it very clearly. you can call BS on him if you like, but that's his stance.
 
Darren Levine said:
just to clarify jackson's position on the whole 3 movies out of 1 book aspect. i read an article about it in some magazine awhile back in which he said flat out that he chose to do 3 films for creative reasons which had nothing to do with stretching the revenue. paraphrased of course, but yes, he's on the record about it very clearly. you can call BS on him if you like, but that's his stance.
Click to expand...

I think he fell too much in love with the extended orc and goblin chase scenes. Those seemed too long and overwrought to me in both Hobbit episodes.
 
Josh Bass said:
That all may be true, but as a completely ignorant young'un (in terms of knowing jack s*%t about video/flim production), the thing that I immediately noticed was the interlaced/reality/news/soap opera look to that episode vs most of the others, or most other narrative material for that matter. The dynamic range etc. wouldn't have registered with me except at maybe the most unconscious level. Yes, things are different today, but I think most people associate 60i/interlaced with "cheap"/tacky/ewwww even so. 24fps may have been one of those things that came about for the reasons mentioned, but I think from use (movies, TV, commercials, etc.) it's been so ingrained into us as the "professional"/artistic/high end look that it will take a long time for that mindset to disappear.
Click to expand...

Twilight zone era video cameras were not too good compared to 16mm film and good telecine transfers. You see almost no old TV shows that were shot on video being rerun today because the quality sucks by modern standards even for SD. Film on the other hand benefits from better video technology when remastered. Most shows shot on video from that era that are even recoverable were reverse telecined and archived on film.
 
Josh Bass said:
.....as a completely ignorant young'un (in terms of knowing jack s*%t about video/flim production), the thing that I immediately noticed was the interlaced/reality/news/soap opera look to that episode vs most of the others, or most other narrative material for that matter. The dynamic range etc. wouldn't have registered with me except at maybe the most unconscious level.
Click to expand...
It's at the unconscious level I was thinking about. A few decades ago "video" and "film" on TV were technically chalk and cheese. And largely because of budgets "video" got used for the cheaper productions, film for the more expensive - and the cheaper ones may have been worse for all sorts of reasons, actors, sets, quick turnaround, studio only etc. Hence this subconscious association of "video look" with lower budget productions. It's possible that if it had been the other way round, people would now be decrying the cheap "film look"! :) That's what I meant by talking about there being no absolute, it's down to past experience.

There may be a difference depending where you come from. I think much more upmarket TV drama in the UK was shot electronically in the studio than was the case in the US in that sort of period (1970s? 1980s?). Many major series used studio and electronic cameras for interior scenes, film for exterior. My (distant :) ) memories from the times were thinking that generally the film looked better than the studio, but looking at some old programmes now I feel the opposite. That may have a lot to do with UK TV only using 16mm at the time, not 35mm as I assume the big shows in the States like "Star Trek", "Dallas" etc did?

It may be that TVs are so much better now that it's the film flaws which really stand out - especially the grain, dirt, scratches etc - which they didn't on the lower resolution sets of the time. We saw the worst of the electronic defects, less so for film?

Thinking of Star Trek, then most of what I remember of the original episodes was they were shot lit quite high key. I have a feeling that if compared with some modern drama, shot with modern high-def cameras and lit in a more low-key fashion, a non-expert observer would think the former had more of the "video-look" about it. It's not all about frame rates......
 
harddrive said:
Thinking of Star Trek, then most of what I remember of the original episodes was they were shot lit quite high key. I have a feeling that if compared with some modern drama, shot with modern high-def cameras and lit in a more low-key fashion, a non-expert observer would think the former had more of the "video-look" about it. It's not all about frame rates......
Click to expand...

Actually, the first thing I do in the 24p & Frame Rates tutorial is show that it largely is. You get film noir shot both ways. One way looks cheap. Then the frame rate switches. It doesn't any more. Only change is the frame rate -- not the lighting, not the set, just the frame rate. There are also plenty of shots where 60p and 24p are side-by-side and you can see the difference, the frame rate being the only difference. The proof is very much right there in the pudding.

Something else you can watch is a lot of the original Doctor Who, of course. Most of the interiors from about 1970 on were shot on 50i video while the exteriors were shot on film (25 fps, I assume), so you get both in the same program. The difference is quite stark.

As for Star Trek, no, it does not look like video, at all.
 
Darren Levine said:
just to clarify jackson's position on the whole 3 movies out of 1 book aspect. i read an article about it in some magazine awhile back in which he said flat out that he chose to do 3 films for creative reasons which had nothing to do with stretching the revenue.
Click to expand...

I believe it. What the heck is wrong with three movies for one book (this is aimed at those who criticize the idea)? Time and again one of the reasons cited for a movie failing to capture the magic of the book is length. You spend several hours reading a book (I average 30-60 pages/hour). How can a two-hour movie possibly do it justice? Ever heard of miniseries-es?

As for frame rate, I'd like to give Shoots56 a special award for starting three flame wars at the same time: 4K vs. 2K, 3-D vs 2-D, and HFR vs 24p. However, even though I'm only in my mid-thirties, I'll take my movies in 2D, 2K, and 24p, thank you very much. Get off my lawn, kid!

Seriously, I hate video so much / love film so much, that I would prefer even my news to be shot in 24p (with of course the other attendant film attributes like smooth highlight roll-off). I consider HFR a zombiesque takeover of Peter Jackson's mind and motion-smoothing in TVs a virus ruining countless reruns.

You can cite historical reasons till you're blue in the face, I'll just call it serendipity then. There's a word for 24p footage that is seldom used but apropos: stoboscopic. Question: Why do dance clubs install strobe lights? Because it makes you look cool. Why do we prefer stroboscopic motion? I'm not sure, but regardless, it makes things look cool.
 
Last edited:
I agree about changing nothing but frame rate, leaving lighting and other production values in place. It still adds a level of cheapness/cheesiness. Aside from Twilight zone I've certainly seen TV shows (sorry can't name 'em offhand) that had very nice lighting etc. but for whatever reason were shot on video and it still has that barfy interlaced look. Just like people who have their TVs set up incorrectly so that EVERYTHING looks that way no matter how it originated/is actually being displayed, if you're drawn into the material you get used to it after a while, but it never looks "good" and if you stop and think about it again you realize how nasty it is.

Yeah, old Star Trek looks kinda cheapo, but I think that was a product of budget and other constraints. I remember reading somewhere they had what they had to work with. . .lots of grey walls. So the DP would like those grey walls with various colors depending on the mood of the scene (red for romance, etc.).

Even given those 80s and 90s sitcoms, something like News Radio still looks several notches nicer than Growing Pains or Fresh Prince. Maybe set design/lighting/etc is done better on the one vs the others, but I bet a big reason is, again, the interlaced quality of those video-shot ones. I'm pretty sure Family Matters switched from one acquisition format to the other during the show's run (can't remember which way they went----I would guess film to video) and again, instant cheapness.

Some of that definitely is the the video edge enhancement too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top