They are planning on showing those versions at Sundance and Cannes respectively, in attempt to attract a more artistic crowd. New soundtrack dubbed in by Burt Bacharach and Cat Stevens.DuneMuadDib said:
They are planning on showing those versions at Sundance and Cannes respectively, in attempt to attract a more artistic crowd. New soundtrack dubbed in by Burt Bacharach and Cat Stevens.DuneMuadDib said:
It starts off slow, but when it gets going...DuneMuadDib said:
I dunno, the action sequences late in the movie were so jumpy with the cuts I couldn't tell what was going on at all.Goodwolf said:
You'd only be skipping the same moment of time that the 24 camera would anyway.cboath said:
If you have a 24 camera next to a 48 camera, and start at the exact same time, frame 2 of the 24 will be taken at the same time as frame 3 of the 48. They both have the same image. So removing frame 2 of the 48 should result in the same two successive images.
Now, maybe the shutter speed is different, so maybe frame 2 of the 24 has more motion blur than frame 3 of the 48. But they're still capturing the same moment of time.
I was talking about this to a guy at work this morning. He actually asked me "If it's filmed at 48fps instead of 24fps, does that mean the movie is twice as long?"
Laspector said:
I was talking about this to a guy at work this morning. He actually asked me "If it's filmed at 48fps instead of 24fps, does that mean the movie is twice as long?"
Wow. Hopefully he was actually referring to the film reel being twice as long.
That is the reason that a straight 48 to 24 frame cut might not work.Treadwell said:
Film shot at 24fps usually does so with a standard 180 degree shutter, which provides a shutter speed of 1/48 of a second. This, as you observe, introduces a good amount of blur to the image. While this would be bad for a still photograph it is essential in a motion picture to create a convincingly smooth illusion of movement.
If you use a faster shutter the image will be sharper (as anyone who has played with a camera will know), but in motion the image will strobe. When shooting Saving Private Ryan they used both a 45 degree or 90 degree shutter (resulting in a shutter speed of 1/192 and 1/96 of a second respectively) for shots during the battle scenes; which is why they had the jarringly staccato motion characteristics. Less motion blur creates less smooth motion.
If the 48 fps footage was shot with a standard 180 degree shutter it would have a shutter speed of 1/96 and would have significantly less motion blur. This would be fine projected at 48 fps with regard to strobing but when converted to 24 frames by the removing every other frame method, have the same motion characteristics as Saving Private Ryan's battle scenes.
While the jerky verite style works well in a gritty war film it would look out of place in a grand fantasy, and perhaps more importantly, would not gel visually with the Lord of the Rings movies.
The Hobbit is being shot at 48fps with a 270 degree shutter, which gives a shutter speed of 1/64 of a second. This is still a shorter exposure than standard 24fps footage, so there will be less motion blur but is still long enough to introduce some motion blur. It is equivalent to shooting 24fps with a 135 degree shutter.
Whether this is enough to allow for a simple conversion or further playing about in post is required I can't say. What I can say is no-one looked at the trailer, which was released at 24fps, and complained that it looked awful; at least from a photographic perspective.
If I find the 48 fps version distracting to the point it is unwatchable I'll be able to go to see it at a 24fps screen. Much as those who hate 3D can choose to see the 2D version at present.
I had to post this somewhere!
Leonard Nimoy - The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins [FULL VERSION] - best quality - YouTube
older than time itself xDrodneyfaile said:
So does this mean Leonard Nimoy is a big Hobbit fan? And by the way about the song I am left speechless.
I have a metal replica of Sting, but it counts as a weapon so i won't be able to bring it to the premier
New Hobbit production video
THE HOBBIT - Production Video #7 (HD) - YouTube
It was cool seeing Legolas. I'm curious about the barrels. In the book they were stuck in them until they reached lake town and Bilbo was riding them. Looks like that's not the case now.
As someone - earlier in this thread I believe - pointed out, if the barrels were closed and watertight, they'd be airtight as well.
That's a valid point. I don't remember if any of the dwarves were wet when they got out.
great stuff! (and its good to be back on track with the thread)
Quite waterlogged as I recall.timelordjedi777 said:
"Shouldn't you be killing Orcs?"
"Shouldn't you be directing a movie?"
Ugh, when do we see some Thranduil action?! -_-.
HUGE Hobbit panel at Comic Con. Would be nice to be able to go. Hopefully someone will post an audience video shortly afterwards. (HINT HINT @ TORn)
The EW Photos are here: Martin Freeman | 'Hobbit': 10 New Photos! | Photo 1 of 10 | EW.com
SPOILERS!!
Still no pics of Smaug. Wonder if they are waiting to show a quick teaser of him in a trailer. Benedict Cumberbatch is doing the voice.
It won't happen, but I'd love it if they didn't release any previews of Smaug and just let audiences be surprised next year when they see him.
I thought I'd put up this image of Thorin with Orcrist from the link aboue.
Reply with Quote
