The Hobbit BTS shows off 48 fps and 3D, must watch!
- Thread starter refocusedmedia
- Start date
Hawk Teflon
Veteran
I was watching that earlier today. The music brought me back to Middle Earth and the Shire almost instantly.
When LoTR was over (the movies), I got this empty feeling in me (same feeling I get when a great series like LOST is over). Watching this made me so excited because it was like the magic was returning. This might be the first movie I've ever watched in 3D in a theater.
When LoTR was over (the movies), I got this empty feeling in me (same feeling I get when a great series like LOST is over). Watching this made me so excited because it was like the magic was returning. This might be the first movie I've ever watched in 3D in a theater.
refocusedmedia
Veteran
At the very least, you missed Avatar? That's a shame.
Hawk Teflon
Veteran
Yeah, I didn't see that until it was on Blu-ray. We intended to see it, but life got in the way.
story2rewrite
Well-known member
Thanks for the link. Great stuff.
I hate 3D and I hate the idea of 48 frames per second, but I loved the lord of the rings movies! My fingers are crossed that this one doesn't suck terribly. Here's what I have to say on the matter.
I don't like 48fps because
1. I'm used to 24fps
2. It makes the motion more smooth, which just looks goofy to me (have you ever watched a movie on one of those TVs with that god awful "motion smoothing" nonsense?)
3. It requires that you raise your shutter speed to at least 1/48, which means less motion blur
4. The hobbit is being shot at 48fps at 2K, as opposed to 24fps at 4K. It's the same amount of information per second, so it doesn't change anything in terms of resolution.
5. It requires that you shoot on digital instead of film, and I don't like digital, but that's a whole other story.
6. While it does combat problems like Judder and blur, there's something about it I don't like. It makes me sad to think that movies are looking to technology, as opposed to story, to drive cinema forward. Think about it. First it was 3D, now 48fps and what do we have? Stupid kids movies, sequels and clichè blockbusters that are obviously designed to bring in extra dollars by slapping on some fancy gimmick, like 3D (Avatar) or 48fps.
I don't like 3D because
3D is the stupidest thing. There's ghosting errors, headaches and the image is noticeably darker. Whats so impressive about 3D? And for that matter, how does 3D add to a movie? People say it adds to a movie, but whenever I see a 3D movie, stuff jumps out at me and I find myself distracted from the story. Tell me what is adds to the movie going experience that isn't superficial! Tell me why anyone under the age of 8 would want it in a movie! Did you know that Hitchcock filmed "dial m for murder" in 3d, but was so unhappy with it that he released the film in 2d on its opening night? What would a serious, grown up movie gain from 3D?
Then you have the fact that it adds 5-7 additional dollars to the price of movie tickets that are expensive already! It also limits filmmakers creativity.
I don't like 48fps because
1. I'm used to 24fps
2. It makes the motion more smooth, which just looks goofy to me (have you ever watched a movie on one of those TVs with that god awful "motion smoothing" nonsense?)
3. It requires that you raise your shutter speed to at least 1/48, which means less motion blur
4. The hobbit is being shot at 48fps at 2K, as opposed to 24fps at 4K. It's the same amount of information per second, so it doesn't change anything in terms of resolution.
5. It requires that you shoot on digital instead of film, and I don't like digital, but that's a whole other story.
6. While it does combat problems like Judder and blur, there's something about it I don't like. It makes me sad to think that movies are looking to technology, as opposed to story, to drive cinema forward. Think about it. First it was 3D, now 48fps and what do we have? Stupid kids movies, sequels and clichè blockbusters that are obviously designed to bring in extra dollars by slapping on some fancy gimmick, like 3D (Avatar) or 48fps.
I don't like 3D because
3D is the stupidest thing. There's ghosting errors, headaches and the image is noticeably darker. Whats so impressive about 3D? And for that matter, how does 3D add to a movie? People say it adds to a movie, but whenever I see a 3D movie, stuff jumps out at me and I find myself distracted from the story. Tell me what is adds to the movie going experience that isn't superficial! Tell me why anyone under the age of 8 would want it in a movie! Did you know that Hitchcock filmed "dial m for murder" in 3d, but was so unhappy with it that he released the film in 2d on its opening night? What would a serious, grown up movie gain from 3D?
Then you have the fact that it adds 5-7 additional dollars to the price of movie tickets that are expensive already! It also limits filmmakers creativity.
maranfilms
Veteran
180 degree shutter is 1/48 when shooting at 24 frames. I dont think they wou.d be using a 1/48th shutter while shooting 48 frames per second. It would look like shooting 24fps, and using a 1/24 shutter speed. I'm betting their using no less than 1/60th shutter speed but guessing it at least 1/100- 1/125th.
DeterminedFilmmaker
Active member
It's really interesting. It's really cool how they done the mirrors so that the two cameras recorded the exact same thing. It was a good video and the movie already looks good! I can't wait to see it now on the big screen! I also didn't know that the human eye saw 60fps, I though it was like 30fps :cheesy: