Critics slam "Hobbit" 48 FPS feel...

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12 December 2012   #16
I remember one time I watched ALIENS.

I think it was a very old VHS copy or image grab from an old VHS copy.
It struck me how remarkably real all the primitive and simple Special Effects looked partially due to the fact the picture wasn't clear.

So I think sometimes that grain, that lossy image quality to some extent, is what makes the entire VFX/SFX thing work so well. I guess if the image is too clear you lose that somehow and you end up with an 'on-set' feeling. Which is risky for live action.

Animated films though will probably have a blast with the new format.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
Old 12 December 2012   #17
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan: Animated films though will probably have a blast with the new format.


Yeah, animated stuff does look great at 48p. After I worked on an animation for a couple weeks at 48, I was amazed at how the 24p version looked like it was stuttering so bad. Weird how we get used to things.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #18
Jackson said after working with 48fps it makes 24 fps films look primitive to him. That's the big worry for me with it. I would hate to lose enjoyment of 24fps movies because I was exposed to 48fps.

I can understand wanting to experiment with varying frame rates for fast moving scenes but for dramatic ones(used to be the backbone of movies) its unnecessary.

The few times I watch a 24fps movie and start to think about the frame rate the storytelling distracts me and I forget about it.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #19
Originally Posted by kelgy: Jackson said after working with 48fps it makes 24 fps films look primitive to him. That's the big worry for me with it. I would hate to lose enjoyment of 24fps movies because I was exposed to 48fps.


In spite of the highest respect I have for Peter Jackson, I think the Consumer will have the final say on 48 fps, not Peter Jackson.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
Old 12 December 2012   #20
In the year 2065 people go to work in flying cell phones and argue on internet 3.0 that 120fps cerebral laser holograms aren't as cinematic as 60fps video holograms. Any fool knows 120fps cerebral laser holograms are for civilization of Mars documentaries and alien soap operas only. The only thing similar is people still confuse their opinions with facts.

Originally Posted by th3ta: Weird how we get used to things.


That is all this boils down too. People are simply used to 24 fps for movies.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #21
So... aside from the FPS 'issue', how are people enjoying the story? Does is sustain the full 3 hours or does it feel overlong like some critics have said?

I guess I'm on my own here, but I felt the LOTR movies dragged on a bit (I felt the same about the books though so I guess they were true to that ).

Cheers,
Brian
 
Old 12 December 2012   #22
I'm holding back my judgement for when I go to the cinema and witness it for myself. However from watching some early production blogs they have had to change the way in which they worked to accommodate the change in definition and frame rate. Aesthetically they have not resolved all the issues or foreseen all the issues that could arise but this will change as more films are made in this way. If others film-makers embrace the change.

There's also a lot of compromise as in they have to make things work at differing resolutions and frame rates. Would a film that was made only for 3D HD 48fps have to compromise less and work better as they could gear production to that spec?

Can't wait to see it and judge for myself though.
__________________
Tooth and Nail

Rusch Blog
 
Old 12 December 2012   #23
Quote: Does is sustain the full 3 hours or does it feel overlong like some critics have said?


It might be worth the watch but I'm afraid it's going to spoil my pure and innocent childhood memories of the book. I'll have to wear a condom on my head at the theater.

But I was forgetting that the movie is in 3D. I just can't wait to see the FX shots done by people from this very forum! That for sure will be worth the ticket price (24$ here) (yes that mean 100$ to bring the family, not counting the popcorn )
__________________
So long and thanks for all the fish
 
Old 12 December 2012   #24
Originally Posted by Horganovski: I guess I'm on my own here, but I felt the LOTR movies dragged on a bit


Understatement of the decade!!

From some of the reviewers, this drags on MORE.. How that's possible I don't know.

Maybe at 48fps it'll take 2x as long for him to get on the goddamn boat.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #25
Originally Posted by imashination: Maybe itll be dull and look silly, but lets be honest, It wont dent the movie takings in the slightest. Anyone thats enjoyed the LotR movies will be out to see this no matter how badly done. Myself included.


Never understood the 'well, the takings will be good' argument.

Nor the fact that it is always used for titles that will of course generate a lot of cash.

It's a redundant statement. And off-topic. This is about the high frame rate of 'The Hobbit' making everything look fake.

I'll be watching it at 24fps most likely, just because that is likely to be the only format available to me. Hopefully in 3D. If it's in 3D at all, I haven't been following production too closely
 
Old 12 December 2012   #26
Originally Posted by darthviper107: I'm still wondering how a higher frame rate changes the amount of detail. It means less motion blur I guess but outside of that it simply changes the smoothness of the motion, not any changes to visual detail.


Its easier on the eyes and brain so they are allowed to catch more detail
 
Old 12 December 2012   #27
I think too that it is all coming down to being used to something. What if film originally started with 48fps? The reason they chose 24fps was because it's the lowest framerate they could go without the picture looking like stop motion. The price of film reels was a huge factor. But correct me if I'm wrong; not entirely sure on this.
There are so many other aspects to film that makes film look like film. If you have the chance, then go see the Hobbit in 48fps 3D and don't repeat like sheep what some of the "professional" critics say.

Just my 2 cents...

Originally Posted by BigPixolin: In the year 2065 people go to work in flying cell phones and argue on internet 3.0 that 120fps cerebral laser holograms aren't as cinematic as 60fps video holograms. Any fool knows 120fps cerebral laser holograms are for civilization of Mars documentaries and alien soap operas only. The only thing similar is people still confuse their opinions with facts.

Originally Posted by th3ta: Weird how we get used to things.


That is all this boils down too. People are simply used to 24 fps for movies.


You win the internets with this comment!
 
Old 12 December 2012   #28
Well I heard it looks amazing, big deal if we miss motion blur or grain, that is just flaw that we are used to see, technology should advance.
__________________
www.inbitwin.com
 
Old 12 December 2012   #29
I'm not too sure how they managed to turn a fairly thin book into multiple movies. Maybe lots of wandering around in the mountains, and gratuitous beauty shots.
__________________
Perry Shulak
Design, Illustration, writing and interactive media
www.criticalfusion.com
www.perryshulakcreative.com
 
Old 12 December 2012   #30
Originally Posted by PerryDS: I'm not too sure how they managed to turn a fairly thin book into multiple movies. Maybe lots of wandering around in the mountains, and gratuitous beauty shots.


it took Frodo 1 hour at the end of ROTK to jump on a bed and get on a boat so, id call it a possibility.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.