The Hobbit - starts filming March 21

[DARTH SABER]

Wait a second, I saw the trailer for this a few weeks ago in the theater and it looked very much like LOTR...I didn't see this bizarre crisp video effect.
Since the trailer didn't have this weirdo effect then it's safe to assume that the film CAN be Made to look like traditional footage....the 48fps effect is not set in stone.
Seeing that the Vegas screening was meant to get the viewers reaction (and since the reaction was overwhelmingly negative in regards to this weirdo effect) then clearly the film makers would take this into consideration before releasing the film.....or else what was the purpose of this screening?

Im pretty sure there's nothing to worry about.

 

[nwjedidave]

Im pretty sure there's nothing to worry about.

worth quoting! PJ knows what he is doing.

 

[Shylaah]

>>>clip<<<
Since the trailer didn't have this weirdo effect then it's safe to assume that the film CAN be Made to look like traditional footage....the 48fps effect is not set in stone.>>>clip<<<

Yeah, an article I read said it would also be available in 24 fps......

"Sony expects the majority of its 13,000 installed 4K digital cinema projectors to support high frame rates by the time The Hobbit is released Dec. 14. While many have an eye on The Hobbit’s December release date for the update, there is some speculation that a 48fps trailer might be released as early as July (though The Hobbit will also be available in 24 fps)."
Warner Bros. to Preview 'The Hobbit'

Disappointing first impressions of the 48fps. I was hoping it would mean crap loads more screen caps!?!?

Shylaah

 

[Nwerke]

If you've ever run your HD TV with smooth motion enabled, you'll know pretty much what to expect: a jarringly weird experience in which - as Devin noted - even sets that look real *in person* are rendered set-like and phoney. Hell, even LOCATION shooting ends up looking phony.

My hopes are pinned on the grading sorting it out and/or the negative reaction being so overwhelming they don't try to push this on us. Some reports indicate a "get used to it" attitude coming out of the studio, however.

 

[EyeofSauron]

the problem with 48fps is that you are not used to it, its not cinema format. its probably awesome for 3d because of the clearer pic

but you can allready see a difference between the european 25 frames and 23.97 frames in the US, i can only imaginee what thedouble would do

 

[CelticRuins]

I'm not looking forward to it. Call me a geezer, but I don't prefer this. I HATE the way this looks usually. It makes it look like everything was filmed on green screen and then rendered cheaply.

I'm also hoping they digitally grade it to smooth/blend everything together. In order to keep it consistent with LotR.

 

[Nwerke]

EoS yeah, even the exhibitors who abhorred the effect seem to be acknowledging that it improves the 3D. I bet there are some man in the street focus groups being hurriedly assembled.

Eliminating "headache and eystrain" complaints would be a powerful lure, especially if it turns out that most people don't give a **** about the quality of the actual image that comprises their flawless 3D experience. Or never mind most, even *enough* people would do.

 

[rodneyfaile]

I guess I will have to wait and see it for myself. I don't understand how MORE frames per second could make a WORSE image.

 

[cboath]

It's the perception of what the eye can actally see. I'm not sure the FPS equivalent of human sight, but it's not supremely high.

Motion blur, for example, can be seen by the naked eye in the real world. You get it when things move faster than your eyes can see. Drive down the highway and look at the wheels on the big rig you're passing. They look to be moving backwards to you because your eyes can't see that fast.

Take video games as a good indicator. People try and push that framerate up at high as possible and brag about 120fps playback etc. You're eyes can't see that fast of playback, however, it allows the game to update quicker/more often so you get a tactical advantage in online play against people who only update at 30fps. Now, that update speed is meaningless in terms of a TV show or movie but, in those games though, to make things 'look right' they add motion blur to make it look more correct to the player. It takes loads of cpu power to achieve the effect as well.

Now, where the problems come in is that things look wrong because at speeds where your eyes should see blurring, there's no blur, so it stands out to you as something being wrong. It's correctable, and that's the problem with showing far from a final product. You can add blur in post easily to accommodate it - you just don't do it until one of the final things. I think the average FPS of human sight is in the 30 FPS range. At 48 FPS, slower things should look better and more vibrant, but once they start moving you will see things that don't look right to you unless they're accounted for in the process somehow.

 

[Shylaah]

I guess I will have to wait and see it for myself. I don't understand how MORE frames per second could make a WORSE image.

I don't understand that either. I'm just guessing that after eons of evolution the human eye/brain combo is better at making up stuff and filling in the blanks than are the film makers?!?

Shylaah

 

[DuneMuadDib]

I'm not well versed enough in film production, but wouldn't at least part of it be that we're just used to 24 fps film? As a society we're conditioned to see film as better than video (not sure if there's a technical basis but video looks cheaper to me than film at least). A higher frame rate pushes it away from what we're used to and conditioned for, so the change doesn't sit right with us regardless of whether it actually is better or not?

 

[EyeofSauron]

I'm not well versed enough in film production, but wouldn't at least part of it be that we're just used to 24 fps film? As a society we're conditioned to see film as better than video (not sure if there's a technical basis but video looks cheaper to me than film at least). A higher frame rate pushes it away from what we're used to and conditioned for, so the change doesn't sit right with us regardless of whether it actually is better or not?

lots of things look different with higher framerates. motion blur, depth of field etc, need to be added in post, and if you dont add it, you see problems with staging, greenscreen effects etc, if not executed perfectly

lets see if this example works. look at a spinning tire at 50 mph in real life. you wont see any profile on the tire or any detail on the rim. if you film this with a higher framerate. you will see the detail and profile, maybe not 100 % clear, but more defined than it should be when looking at a tire at this speed. and because it isnt supposed to look the way it looks with this footage, it seems weird.
but for 3d effects, motion blur is bad, because if you want to see something coming out of the screen, you dont want it to be blurry, but clear. thats where this comes in handy. also you have more way, if you want to slow down footage (like it zooms in slowly, etc) because theres more pics to fill in the gap that is caused by the delay. that is why slow motion shots are shot wit 60 fps

 

[Treadwell]

What I don't get is TJ has said when they make the 24fps version, it won't just be printing every other frame of the 48.

Why the hell not?

 

[DuneMuadDib]

So I was sort of on the right track.

Hopefully they'll use the higher rate for 3D and either take out every other frame or do something else in post to make 2D look "right."

 

[Noeland]

You also have to light things very differently depending on the frame rate you are shooting, and the format you are shooting on. That can make all the difference in the world.

 

[modelcitizen]

What I don't get is TJ has said when they make the 24fps version, it won't just be printing every other frame of the 48.

Why the hell not?

because twice as many frames projected at half the speed will slow the motion by half. slo mo would result

 

[Treadwell]

No. Every other frame.
Print every other frame of a 48fps recording onto a 24fps print (file/whatever), and project it at 24, and you have real time speed.

I guess the issue is that it would still lack motion blur, etc.

 

[rodneyfaile]

Special edition: even frames vs odd frames

 

[Treadwell]

^ :lol

 

[modelcitizen]

No. Every other frame.
Print every other frame of a 48fps recording onto a 24fps print (file/whatever), and project it at 24, and you have real time speed.

I guess the issue is that it would still lack motion blur, etc.

i know but you asked why not print every frame for 24...right?
perhaps i misunderstood th "why the hell not?".