"New 'Hobbit' film makes some moviegoers sick"

I personally give props for the team for shooting at the higher frame rate. I always applaud people doing something different in the film world, even if it has mixed results.

Also I dont know about most people, but in Canada only like 10% of movie theaters are actually playing the 48fps version. So why all the freak out? ;)
 
Batutta said:
This was an interesting article I read about how the mind processes motion and how it relates to film--

http://web.archive.org/web/20080526...rg/ccsmi/ccsmi/classicwork/Myth+Revisited.htm
Click to expand...

Interesting read, Batutta. So persistence of vision is a hoax?
Though text such as
Indeed, in the past decade, psychoanalytic-Marxist film scholars have retained the model implied by persistence of vision: theirs is a passive viewer, a spectator who is "positioned," unwittingly "sutured" into the text, and victimized by excess ideology.
Click to expand...
reminds me of some film theory professors I had...

I guess I'll see the high frame rate version (can't critique it if I don't see it, right?), but if I get a headache, I'm suing somebody!!! :shocked:
 
groveChuck said:
Interesting read, Batutta. So persistence of vision is a hoax?
Though text such as reminds me of some film theory professors I had...

I guess I'll see the high frame rate version (can't critique it if I don't see it, right?), but if I get a headache, I'm suing somebody!!! :shocked:
Click to expand...

I actually don't know what the article was claiming as to the 'origin of the perception of motion'... other than it is not some 'persistence' of an image at the level of the retina or very close thereabouts.

They claim that 'motion' is a result of brain processing elsewhere than the actual eyeball...

Ok... and this is important because???
 
this was in my email inbox

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-hobbit-debuts-high-frame-rate-cinema

Time Warner are vetting the theaters with 400 US theaters being select as capable of showing HFR 48fps. I think this is a good thing and
whether it works or not I applaud Peter Jackson for trying new things and pioneering.

I'm planning to see this at the best theater I can find in NYC. 48fps, 3D, Imax - I want to experience everything so I can decide for myself.

I'm a harsh critic though - I didn't like avatar 3d despite the fact that I'm a James Cameron fan, so I'll be going to The Hobbit with an open mind.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
When I took a graphic design course a little over a decade ago I was told that 12fps is the sweetspot when a series of still images start to look animated. A flash animation with a slower framerate would look choppy, so 15fps was a standard back then for web animation. I always figured 24fps, being twice that, was one of the reasons film had that framerate.
I'm sure there's another framerate sweetspot where you can't see the difference anymore. Like 1000fps played at 1000fps probably looks exactly the same to a human as 2000fps played at 2000fps.

From an anti-piracy point of view, and to help make the cinematical experience different from the home theater experience, it makes sense. So does 3D.
But from an artistic point of view I can't see how 48fps or 60fps would be different.
Click to expand...

I learned (decades ago in school) that 24fps was chosen when sound was added. Old silent films were typically shot in the 16-18fps rate (16 being the preferred). Later when sound was added, the low frame rate wasn't fast enough to handle sound very well. A faster frame rate meant better sound. It also meant an end to flickering. 24fps was just fast enough to give a smoother picture and sound, and since film was expensive, there was a disincentive to going faster. Standardizing at 24fps also meant that film projectors could use a standard 2 blade shutter to project images on the screen (2 times per frame).

Here's an interesting site that talks about persistence of vision and how sensitivity to lightness and darkness effect it. http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
 
Is 48fps played back at 48fps or 96fps...maybe the problem is not showing the same frame twice?

I hope I get sick. I always miss out. Could never see 3D eye puzzles either.
 
J Davis said:
this was in my email inbox

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-hobbit-debuts-high-frame-rate-cinema

Time Warner are vetting the theaters with 400 US theaters being select as capable of showing HFR 48fps. I think this is a good thing and
whether it works or not I applaud Peter Jackson for trying new things and pioneering.

I'm planning to see this at the best theater I can find in NYC. 48fps, 3D, Imax - I want to experience everything so I can decide for myself.

I'm a harsh critic though - I didn't like avatar 3d despite the fact that I'm a James Cameron fan, so I'll be going to The Hobbit with an open mind.
Click to expand...

I believe it's a choice between 3d HFR and IMAX. The HFR is not Imax.
 
J Davis said:
I'm a harsh critic though - I didn't like avatar 3d despite the fact that I'm a James Cameron fan, so I'll be going to The Hobbit with an open mind.
Click to expand...

I saw Avatar in 3D in iMax. I thought it was fantastic, visually, but immediately afterward I realized I'd probably never see that movie again (by choice, just don't care enough for the contents), but that it was quite a wild ride visually. I do worry about how it will hold up though. Have you seen any of the Star Wars prequels on Blu-ray? They have not aged well at all, and I feel Avatar, with it's incredible reliance on CGI for just about everything, might end up the same way a decade down the road.

To tie it back to the topic of this thread, I was in Fry's a year ago and saw one of their demo TVs showing what I, when I saw it, though was some Military Channel documentary about high tech aircraft. It looked amazeballs! The coolest cargo plane interior I had ever seen.

And then the scene cut, and I realized I was watching Avatar.

At 120Hz.

I also saw a little bit of Spider-Man 3 on Blu-ray at 120Hz, and it truly felt like the TV was a window into another world. It looked so real. I would be down for watching a movie in that mode, but at the same time, I'd want the ability to turn it off.
 
I think HFR will just be another tool in the tool box, like the Private Ryan effect, not a new standard. I think any projector that shows HFR 48 can also show 24 so it's not like there will be new theaters that make 24 obsolete anytime soon, if ever.

You can decide to make your film crystal HFR, or dirty it up a bit.

 
Batutta said:
60i is actually 30 frames per second, split in half temporally and spread over two frames so it's not quite the same.
Click to expand...

It's actually 60 half-frames per second.

Odd lines are recorded for one frame, then even for the next.

It's not 30 frames split in half - it's 60 frames with half of each thrown away.
 
Gillvane said:
I think HFR will just be another tool in the tool box, like the Private Ryan effect, not a new standard. I think any projector that shows HFR 48 can also show 24 so it's not like there will be new theaters that make 24 obsolete anytime soon, if ever.
[/video]
Click to expand...
Well... if HFR becomes successfull with THE HOBBIT it'll likely go the way of CGI, Bullet-time, the "Private Ryan Effect", 3D, and Teal & Orange.

Everyone will use it whether it fits with the story or not until around 2019, which is around five years after the third Hobbit film hits theaters.
After that, people will still use it, but something else will be the new trendy 'in' thing.

Merry Christmas!
 
The Hobbit is definitely blazing a new trail here, and as with many new introductions, there's definitely a lot of pushback. I think that the actual box office receipts of this particular installment aren't going to tell us much, but I think the box office receipts of the next release (Desolation of Smaug?) are going to speak volumes about HFR and 3-D in general. If the audience buys into it this time because of the novelty, and because of the pent-up demand for the continuation (even if it is the prequel) of the LOTR experience, there are too many variables in play to determine what exactly they paid to see. But if the next one comes out and the ticket sales are dramatically tilted towards the HFR 3D screenings, then 3-D will have come of age and HFR will be a harbinger of the future. And if the reverse happens and people stay away in droves from the HFR and/or 3-D and instead pay big to watch the conventional 2D screening, then that will also speak volumes about audience appetite for these new innovations.

If the market embraces it, expect to see more of it. If the market rejects it, well, I think that's going to close the chapter on this particular experiment. There's lots at stake for the development of future cinema trends with this particular picture and, moreso, with the next two. They're already shot, Smaug is already basically edited, and they were all three shot in the same HFR 3-D techniques, so ... from a scientific/research point of view, this is a kind of ideal test bed to evaluate consumer preferences.
 
Gary Huff said:
To tie it back to the topic of this thread, I was in Fry's a year ago and saw one of their demo TVs showing what I, when I saw it, though was some Military Channel documentary about high tech aircraft. It looked amazeballs! The coolest cargo plane interior I had ever seen.

And then the scene cut, and I realized I was watching Avatar.

At 120Hz.
Click to expand...


I had exactly the same experience with exactly the same film. During one of the iconic scenes under the big tree. I didn't even recognise the blue things for minutes. And I've seen the movie 5 or 6 times.


Gary Huff said:
It looked amazeballs!
Click to expand...


My new favourite word!
 
My inclination is to think I'll hate it (HATED Avatar not just for the "poorly written after school special" script, but really the visuals as well). BUT I'm going to go see it before I make a final judgement.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
My inclination is to think I'll hate it (HATED Avatar not just for the "poorly written after school special" script, but really the visuals as well). BUT I'm going to go see it before I make a final judgement.
Click to expand...

Industry sources indicate the highly anticipated "Casablanca"(1942) remake will be a 3-D HFR IMAX Noir adaptation. Rumors suggest Megan Fox to play the role of Ilsa, and Jim Carrey, Rick, some what reprising his 1994 "The Mask" character.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top