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
  12 December 2012
I never heard of The Lord of The Rings before I watched LOTR in the cinema, so I saw them as movies, and as long as the movies are good, that's what matter.
I love the books when I read them later on, although as not much as the movies(again, my opinion)
 
  12 December 2012
Yeah but it's not so big, I mean in relationship with this LOTR must have been 9 movies at least
I wont be able to see it in 48fps though :(
__________________
www.inbitwin.com
 
  12 December 2012
Originally Posted by th3ta: Let me rephrase, maybe the younger generation will, I seriously doubt any random moviegoer over the age of 40 will notice. I know a lot of people that can't tell their 120Hz mode is on.


you are so right I'm over 40 and can barely see anymore I'm that old, i'm totally ready for the scrap heap....excellent point.
 
  12 December 2012
Quote: you are so right I'm over 40 and can barely see anymore I'm that old, i'm totally ready for the scrap heap....excellent point.


Lol!
......
__________________
So long and thanks for all the fish
 
  12 December 2012
IMAX getting in on the HFR action as well.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...ney-imax-401724
 
  12 December 2012
Here is a very good explanation of the Higher frame rates by Scott Squires and what he thinks about it with his old experiences in ILM.

http://effectscorner.blogspot.com/2...ml#.UMkyX8XKemY

But i'm so curious about it and will see it in IMAX 3D 48 FPS when i go to States next week.
__________________
http://vimeo.com/72603827[/url]
 
  12 December 2012
No one knows if the 2D version is at 48fps?
 
  12 December 2012
Looks like the 2D version is in 24fps only

quick googletranslate (couse I'm lazy) from a norwegian cinema website.

Quote: "The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey" will initially be available in 2D 24fps, 3D, 24fps, and 48fps 3D. It is up to every theater in the country to determine which versions they want to set up.

Most cinemas of a certain size will set up 2D and 3D versions in normal 24fps

source: http://www.filmweb.no/filmnytt/arti...2.ece?ref=fohkn
__________________
- Kjetil
 
  12 December 2012
Thankyou for your expert googling I wasn't sure where to look. I'm glad it's 24- I'm far to used to it and will no doubt enjoy the movie more if things are as I expect them to be.
 
  12 December 2012
I was surprised they had a 48fps showing over here, as I thought it would be a limited locations only thing.

The experience was pretty uneven. Yes, the character moments looked like I was watching a theatrical play, or a behind the scenes video. Albeit a very nice looking one.

But the soaring environment shots - some real New Zealand shots, others digital environments - looked absolutely mind-blowing. There was an insane amount of visual clarity, richness and detail. Hands down the best "visual effect" experience I've had.

Hopefully they'll iron out the problems in time. While there are definite problems that are jarring and take you out of the movie, I think there is promise in the tech.

As for the movie itself, it was fine. There are some affecting character moments, and cool sequences. Overall, not as fresh and magical as Lord of the Rings was, but I guess it's the nature of being a prequel and the "fourth" movie in a series, and a heavily extended adaptation of a really short book. Still, while I could feel the long running time, as the end credits rolled, I was primed to see the next one.
 
  12 December 2012
Originally Posted by Wizdoc: Hopefully they'll iron out the problems in time. While there are definite problems that are jarring and take you out of the movie, I think there is promise in the tech.


I think it will.
Imagine if we took our current 24 fps HD technology back in time to the set of The Wizard of Oz to see what issues that would of reveled in the movie. I think it is time for makeup artists, set and prop designers etc, to step their game up.
 
  12 December 2012
Originally Posted by BigPixolin: Imagine if we took our current 24 fps HD technology back in time to the set of The Wizard of Oz to see what issues that would of reveled in the movie. I think it is time for makeup artists, set and prop designers etc, to step their game up.


The best sets and props in the world won't help you at 48 FPS.

You will get that "50/60Hz made for television/video vibe" regardless of how high other production values, like the lighting, makeup, cinematography are.

Variable framerate? Now that could work. You'd keep low-motion shots at 24FPS, and ramp up to 32 or 48 FPS only when there is a lot of movement in the shot.
 
  12 December 2012
Originally Posted by DePaint: The best sets and props in the world won't help you at 48 FPS.

You will get that "50/60Hz made for television/video vibe" regardless of how high other production values, like the lighting, makeup, cinematography are.

Variable framerate? Now that could work. You'd keep low-motion shots at 24FPS, and ramp up to 32 or 48 FPS only when there is a lot of movement in the shot.
I think it would still feel like something is off. It would be noticeable, thus distracting. For me at least.

But, I get your point and it's true that making different choices depending on the shot could help make the whole thing appear more seamless. So, I'm not in total disagreement.

Considering I have an interest for what Trumbull is proposing concerning variable framerates, I should remain opened to the idea. There's potential for experimentation here.

Now, I'm really wondering what we're going to say when the next Avatar movies come. James Cameron is aiming for 60 fps or 64 even. The reaction to HFR footage is going to be even more dramatic.

Last edited by Shletten : 12 December 2012 at 04:53 PM.
 
  12 December 2012
Originally Posted by DePaint: The best sets and props in the world won't help you at 48 FPS.

You will get that "50/60Hz made for television/video vibe" regardless of how high other production values, like the lighting, makeup, cinematography are.

Variable framerate? Now that could work. You'd keep low-motion shots at 24FPS, and ramp up to 32 or 48 FPS only when there is a lot of movement in the shot.


I think we are talking about two different things. I was referring to sets and props that people say "look fake" at 48 fps. I may of confused what Wizdoc was referring too.

The "50/60Hz made for television/video vibe" is an opinion if it hurts or helps.
 
  12 December 2012
I think the problem is the insane amount of bump and general relief mapping needed to make it credible with so little motion blur, mainly on the CG part. You have to get to another level in texturing and sampling too. The fact that the detail in the background that becames noise does not have to make such a big steps.

For a soap opera is enough because that's how real life looks, but when you have to invent a story and give it "color" through CG, detail means time and money. Detail is one real variable of rendering, at least for artists.
__________________
www.yafaray.org
Free rays for the masses

Last edited by Samo : 12 December 2012 at 10:23 PM.
 
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 07:19 PM.


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