The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Started by underdog, February 27, 2003, 10:14:59 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pubrick

I agree.

All these new technologies are being created/popularized but none of them LOOK good. 3D is shit to look at, fast frame rates look cheap and ultraslick in a bad way. I don't think I'm being an RK about this, almost everyone agrees. So am I supposed to just stuck it up and deal with my headache?

I may just be a grumpy old man, so maybe we should ask the kids what they think. Stupid as they are, maybe they might know more about this than we do as they are seeing it all with fresh eyes.

Where's that 16 year old newb when you need him?
under the paving stones.

matt35mm

I don't know how it will look, but I'm always interested in seeing what I haven't seen before.

I saw the trailer for this in 24fps 3D, and wasn't anything special. But, I also saw a trailer for the new Aardman movie PIRATES! BAND OF MISFITS in 3D, and that little extra stutter you get from stop-motion looks terrible in 3D. There is this hollowness to 3D anyway that is exaggerated by any gaps in the motion between frames, so I do suspect that, IF you're gonna do 3D, 48fps will look better.

We rarely ever get to see 48fps proper. As I understand it, that cheap TV look comes from a fast refresh rate on a basically interlaced image, but the result of a 48fps progressive image might be different.

Anyway, I think the final result will be unlike what we have seen before. I'm not saying it'll look good to those who don't like 3D, but it will probably be an improvement on the 3D we've seen so far. I might always prefer 2D, but I'm still interested in seeing technologies get pushed.

malkovich

I'm not so big a fan of 3D, but kids my age don't really care if something is in 3D or not, I don't think.. but they'll naturally opt for the pricier ticket if 3D is offered to them because I guess it'd "look cooler". Really, I find it makes things a little more cartoon-like, which isn't something I enjoy. And fast frame rates are weird to me. I'm beginning to feel as if movies are becoming more like video games. As intrigued and welcoming (if a little bit hesitant) I am to the idea of film being advanced and forward thinking in new technology, I'm not really liking the direction it's headed in so far. I'm hoping future projects (Like Cuaron's upcoming "Gravity" maybe?) will change my mind about that.

RegularKarate

Quote from: matt35mm on December 25, 2011, 08:04:18 PM
I saw the trailer for this in 24fps 3D, and wasn't anything special.

I actually thought it looked as good if not better than the 3D in Hugo.  It had real depth to it and matched all the camera movements so it didn't feel like a cheap separation of foreground and background.  For some reason, the Alamo Drafthouse really loves the trailer so they showed it twice back to back so I really paid attention to the 3D during the second run and it's pretty impressive for what that trailer is (kind of a zero... though I'm excited to see the movie).

Alexandro

the trailer looks visually fine. the film itself I don't know. the hobbit "stuff" was always the less cool (closer to lamest) in the original trilogy, with everyone being unfunny and corny. the interesting thing about them was seeing frodo losing it step by step because of the ring. the best part of the original trilogy was gollum and his schizophrenic personality. that's why two towers, which was the darker of the three, is my favorite. this one seems to be so much about the damn hobbits I don't know if I will be able to love it. however I trust in this team to pull it off.

motion smoothing, what a pain in the ass. I eliminated that shit from my hdtv as soon as I knew how. that shit can ruin movies.

Ravi

Somehow I don't think we have to worry this looking overly "motion smoothed." The higher the shutter angle, the more motion blur you have. It seems to me that the 270-degree shutter used would negate some of the smoothness of the 48fps, but not so much so that it makes shooting at 48fps pointless.

http://the-hobbitmovie.com/peter-jackson-answers-why-48-fps-for-the-hobbit/

The news about us filming The Hobbit at 48 frames per second generated a lot of comments. Of course, it's impossible to show you what 48 fps actually looks like outside of a movie cinema, but there were several interesting and insightful questions raised.

We will be completing a "normal" 24 frames per second version—in both digital and 35mm film prints. If we are able to get the Hobbit projected at 48 fps in selected cinemas, there will still be normal-looking 24 fps versions available in cinemas everywhere.

Converting a film shot at 48 fps down to 24 fps is not a hugely difficult process, but it requires testing to achieve the best results. Some of this involves digital processes during post-production. We are also shooting the film a slightly different way, which is a question several of you asked. Normally you shoot a movie with a 180-degree shutter angle. Changing the shutter angle affects the amount of motion blur captured during movement. Reducing the shutter angle gives you the stroby (or jerky) "Saving Private Ryan" look.

However, we're going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master.

MacGuffin

Peter Jackson's 'The Hobbit' Should Hit Theaters at 48-Per-Second Frame Rate
After Jackson and James Cameron championed higher frame rates as a solution to exhibition problems, projection manufacturers are working to support the move in time for the movie's December 14, 2012 release date.
Source: THR

The cinema technology industry is working to give movie goers the opportunity to see The Hobbit: An Unfinished Journey in 3D projected at 48 frames per second when it opens in theaters this December.

The question is, just how many theaters around the world will be able to accommodate this sort of presentation of Peter Jackson's epic fantasy, the first major motion picture to be made at the high frame rate (HFR) of 48 fps.

It is conceivable that it could be tens of thousands, though most manufacturers—at least publicly—are taking a far more conservative wait-and-see approach, noting that theater upgrades will be driven by studio and exhibitors' demand.

Frame rates are the number of images displayed by a projector within one second. Twenty-four frames per second (fps) has long been the standard in cinema, but industry leaders James Cameron and Peter Jackson are among those who propose high frame rates such as 48 or 60, reducing or eliminating jutter and other motion artifacts.

Digital cinema auditoriums are currently not equipped to support 48 fps movies, though work is being done to change that.

Each projector maker will have its own strategy for high frame rate support.

There are roughly 13,000 Sony 4K digital cinema projectors shipped worldwide, and "we expect the majority of those screens to have high frame rate support enabled by the time The Hobbit is released," Sony told The Hollywood Reporter.

Industry leaders explained that Series 2 projectors from Barco, Christie and NEC—all of which used technology from Texas Instruments—would be able to show The Hobbit at a HFR and in 3D with a software upgrade and a piece of hardware call an "integrated media block" (IMB) with 48 fps (and 3D) support. Such IMBs are being developed by several manufacturers such as Christie, whose IMB is expected to be available in June for roughly $10,000.
Don Shaw, senior director, product management, Christie Entertainment Solutions, estimated that worldwide there are between 40,000 and 50,000 installed Series 2 projectors that are capable of being upgraded.

While many have an eye on The Hobbit's December release date for an upgrade, some upgrades might be needed even sooner, since there is speculation that a 48 fps trailer for The Hobbit might be released as early as this summer.

HFRs doen't just affect exhibition; it also impacts production. Jackson is shooting his movie in 3D with Red Epic cameras (various digital cinematography cameras including those from Red already support 48 fps) and 3Ality Technica rigs.

Wellington-based Park Road Post Production has developed a 48 fps postproduction process anchored in color grading and postproduction system Mistika, from a Spain-based equipment maker called SGO. Development of the postproduction process began in 2010.
SGO worked closely with Park Road to enhance the system to meet the needs of the production. "We started with one Mistika and rapidly went to around five ... Now there are tens of machines," said Phil Oatley, head of technology at Park Road Post, who explained that the postproduction company also developed proprietary asset management, automation, and an archival system aimed at 48fps support.

The effort also involved Christie and Barco. Park Road is testing projectors from both companies, running beta software to enable the 48fps capabilities.
A huge challenge across the board is the volume of data that is required for HFRs. Oatley reported that for The Hobbit production shoots 6-12TB of camera data per day. And the shooting schedule (for both parts of the two-part film) involves 265 days of principal photography. (There are roughly 50 days to go).

Oatley said a key aim was to keep the filmmaking process "as familiar as possible." As an example, the film is being edited on an Avid Media Composer at 24 fps in 2D. Park Road has developed a method of taking that edit information into post at 48fps 3D.
With the 48fps system now in place, Oatley said Park Road Post is now prepared to handle future 48 fps productions.

James Cameron, who conducted a high-profile demonstration of the potential of HFRs last year at CinemaCon, has said that he intends to make Avatar 2 and 3 at a HFR.

To support these efforts, standards bodies are looking to add HFRs to digital cinema specifications.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Sleepless

Hopefully it will also be showing at 48 fps without the 3D too.
He held on. The dolphin and all the rest of its pod turned and swam out to sea, and still he held on. This is it, he thought. Then he remembered that they were air-breathers too. It was going to be all right.

Ravi

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/peter-jacksons-48fps-presentation-of-the-hobbit-at-cinemacon-gets-a-mixed-response-20120424

Peter Jackson's 48fps Presentation Of 'The Hobbit' At CinemaCon Gets A Mixed Response
NEWS BY KEVIN JAGERNAUTH | APRIL 24, 2012 4:58 PM

While the fact that Peter Jackson was shooting the upcoming "The Hobbit" films in 3D at 48 frames-per-second rate instead of the standard 24 frames-per-second has been around since proudction started, it gained a bit more steam last week. There were concerns about how prepared (or not) theaters would be for the blockbuster film come December, to show it in the format that Jackson intends it be viewed. The short version is that exhibitors/theater owners will need to upgrade the software on their 3D projectors to handle 48fps, and it's not cheap (about $10,000). However, the selling point is that 48 fps offers a crisp viewing experience, free of any motion artifiacts, juttering or any other anomalies sometimes present in 24 fps screenings. Win/win right? Unfortunately for Jackson, it's not quite a slam dunk. Presenting 10 minutes of footage today in the fancy new format at CinemaCon, the screening left many unimpressed.

On the more negative end of the spectrum was Devin Faraci who took to Twitter to say "Oh no. Not a fan of 48fps. Oh no no no," adding that "THE HOBBIT, frankly, did not look cinematic." Over on his Badass Digest blog he elaborated his thoughts, and essentially, the crisper looking image had the odd effect of making everything seem almost too realistic. "The 48fps footage I saw looked terrible. It looked completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets," he explained.

But response from the rest of the crowd, even if negative, was toned with a bit of caution as well. Josh Dickey at Variety had a myriad of thoughts tweeting, "Great Scott, THE HOBBIT in 48 frames-per-second is a thing to behold. Totally different experience. Not all will like the change. 48 fps has an immediacy that is almost jarring. And lighting it just right will be a learning process, as 3D was and still is. 48 fps also, unfortunately, looks a bit like television. But it does bring 3D to a different level."

Peter Sciretta at /Film also had mixed feelings saying, "Saw ten minutes of Hobbit in 48fps 3D. Very exciting, but I'm now very unsure about higher framerates. 48fps feature films will likely divide moviegoers -- I expect to see stronger hate, more so than 3D."

Meanwhile, the usually very picky Jeff Wells was impressed, but also echoed some of Devin Faraci's concerns. "I felt astonished & amazed...the term is WOWED...and yet a bit uncertain about the 48 fps 3D footage from Peter Jackson's 'The Hobbit.' In a word, 48 fps 3D looks like high-def video. It doesn't look 'cinematic', lacking that filtered or gauzy look we're all accustomed to," he tweeted. But it was Alex Billington at First Showing who proabably hit the nail on the head of what unfolded this afternoon: "There are going to be endless debates about 48FPS and how good/bad it looks. I just think we need to get used to change after 80yr of 24FPS."

It's too early to determine the success or failure of this new "format" (for lack of a better term), but calling it a "mistake" (as some people are) based on 10 minutes of footage is premature at best. In fact, much of the reaction today is reminiscent of the same concerns that James Cameron's "Avatar" was met with in the months leading up to its release, that 3D wouldn't be the game changer that Fox was hoping for, and audiences wouldn't be impressed enough to make it a hit. And then it went on to make over 2 billion dollars. But at the current moment, while everyone at CinemaCon is talking about 48fps, to the average regular moviegoer out in the real world? They have no idea what that means.

Just search "48fps" on Twitter and you'll see numerous people who don't know what it is or that "The Hobbit" was even shooting in that format. The problems that 48 fps purports to solve are arguably not even noticed by the average viewer. Terms like "artificating" and "juttering" are terms still best known among hardcore tech heads, not moviegoers, and frankly, that's because when most people watch movies, they aren't seeing those "problems." The only criteria for the average person buying a movie ticket is that the film is good, and that the presentation doesn't take them out of the movie. Will 48 fps be too real? Too digital? Too crisp? And more worryingly, uncinematic? Time will tell.

All told, the sky isn't falling. Yes, footage of "The Hobbit" was shown and people were concerned. But it was a brief bunch of footage that, it could be said, wasn't long enough to allow the viewer to truly settle in and get used to it. Our guess? More footage of the "The Hobbit" will be shown at Comic-Con and many of the people at CinemaCon today, now prepared for how it looks and feels, will start to turn their opinion around. As for the rest of us, we'll see if 48 fps makes a difference or not when "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" opens on December 14th.

Pubrick

We anticipated that reaction at the top of this page, last year.

Cinema is going to shit.

Does Peter Jackson even watch movies?
under the paving stones.

MacGuffin

Peter Jackson To 'Hobbit' HD Naysayers: Wait Until You See The Whole Movie
BY THE DEADLINE TEAM

After less than glowing audience reaction to clips of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey screened in ultra-high-resolution at CinemaCon in Las Vegas, director Peter Jackson says "Nobody is going to stop. This technology is going to keep evolving." But he hopes moviegovers will wait and judge the finished movie when it comes out December 14. Some observers at the CinemaCon presention thought the imagery shot and projected at 48 frames per second was too sharply different visually from the longtime industry standard of 24 frames per second. A three-time Oscar winner echoed Jackson's observation. "I think we should let him finish it and see what it's like then, but it seems a little like the look of a soap opera". Jackson said he noticed that some in the audience seemed to like it more as the show went on. "I just wonder if it they were getting into the dialogue, the characters and the story. That's what happens in the movie. You settle into it."
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Jeremy Blackman


pete

you see motion blur in life, so when you see home videos or security cam or soap opera or a 48fps film that contains no blurs, they have this uncanny valley effect on you. I still don't understand the filmmaker's justification in using this format though; as in I don't get how it fits the story or whatever.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

The Perineum Falcon

i get a little chaffed when i hear how "realistic"  these faster frame rates are. I don't agree. It bothers me more that they're so insistent on that point, as if saying it enough times will make it true.
We often went to the cinema, the screen would light up and we would tremble, but also, increasingly often, Madeleine and I were disappointed. The images had dated, they jittered, and Marilyn Monroe had gotten terribly old. We were sad, this wasn't the film we had dreamed of, this wasn't the total film that we all carried around inside us, this film that we would have wanted to make, or, more secretly, no doubt, that we would have wanted to live.

matt35mm

There's motion blur in real life but no jittering, which you get with 24fps. There will probably be motion blur in 48fps as well... I think that'd be more of a shutter speed thing, not a frame rate thing. I can understand, theoretically, why some filmmakers would be attracted to it. That said, I don't think it's a particularly good idea and I'm not looking forward to seeing it widely implemented. I agree that it doesn't look realistic, and I have doubts about how, even after we get used to it, it will ever look better than 24fps.

The Hobbit in particular might be the worst movie to shoot in 48fps. The sets will look like sets and the makeup will look like makeup. I think the next Avatar might be neat though, but that's because it's going to be mostly CGI anyway. I've heard people say that 48fps will be great for video games, and that reasoning might work better for the way that Avatar 2 will look. But The Hobbit? It's a movie that's already prone to looking goofy. 48fps is not gonna help that.

I already have low expectations for The Hobbit in general. I am finding it really difficult not to believe that Peter Jackson has lost everything that ever made him good after The Lovely Bones.