The Hobbit - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Zoo Station
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-25-2012, 05:47 AM   #61
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,037
Local Time: 04:22 AM
I wonder if you guys are talking about the same thing I'm thinking of, where a TV show just looks extremely odd, like almost comically real. I've noticed it on a few new digital TVs but I can't articulate what I'm seeing.
__________________

__________________
cobl04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 09:50 AM   #62
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,664
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazarus View Post
As someone commented yesterday, people have been watching films at 24fps since the 1920's. So there's definitely going to be a transitional period where they will have to get used to a new way of seeing.

But there's no doubt about it, this is the future. I'm sure the aesthetic challenges will sort themselves out, and I can't wait to see what our most talented cinematographers can do with it.
Absolutely. And it's really exciting. This is going to be the thing as well that legitimatizes 3D for some people as well (though I still don't expect that to become anything like the ubiquitous technique people like Cameron are pushing, it will be an even more aesthetically viable option for blockbusters and the like though) and be the final push for digital projection and "film"-making over the edge. Of course that's the real discussion that's going on right now, and there are still a lot of business issues that need to be sorted out as well, as the upgrades many theaters have been forced to make already are putting too many theater owners in the red. Hopefully this further move makes things easier and not harder. A lot of people are also going to be even more upset about the "Death of Film," and it's inherent aesthetic qualities, which is completely worth acknowledging and preserving in some ways. There's some panic going on about whether filmmakers will even be able to get their hands on celluloid once this transitional process is complete in a means that will be affordable to them, and hopefully enough people care strongly about that artistic decision so it doesn't become a non-viable option, regardless of projection methods (which will inevitably reach a point of sophistication where films shot on film at 24 fps can still look like films).
__________________

__________________
Lancemc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 11:44 AM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the tourist View Post
Sports and video games often look good with those settings, but not television shows or movies, to be sure.
Depending on the game, it's often a bad idea to use that setting for videogames. It takes a fraction of a second for the tv to extrapolate the signal, which creates a bit of lag between any input from the controllers and what you see on screen
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 11:48 AM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 12:22 PM
There was talk in the comment section that deep posted along the lines of 'well, if they film in 48fps, they can always throw out every other frame and present it at 24 fps if they wanted to'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain this wouldn't work. A frame from a 48fps camera is not going to look the same as a frame from a 24fps camera. Since the frame is being exposed for twice as long, there is going to be more motion blur on the 24fps frame than the 48fps. If you were to film in 48 and project in 24, the image would look very choppy
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 12:54 PM   #65
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 26,959
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Depending on the game, it's often a bad idea to use that setting for videogames. It takes a fraction of a second for the tv to extrapolate the signal, which creates a bit of lag between any input from the controllers and what you see on screen
I see. I've been playing Halo Reach and haven't noticed it. Or perhaps I'm just used to it.
__________________
the tourist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 01:29 PM   #66
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 12:22 PM
I think it's probably more noticeable online or in Rock Band type games where timing is really specific. But if you havent noticed and you like the way it looks, no point turning it off
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 02:41 PM   #67
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,104
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
in Rock Band type games
Thank you for solving a huge mystery. I wondered why I suck so much at Guitar Hero at my dad's house, but not at my own.
__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 05:29 PM   #68
ONE
love, blood, life
 
powerhour24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,645
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
There was talk in the comment section that deep posted along the lines of 'well, if they film in 48fps, they can always throw out every other frame and present it at 24 fps if they wanted to'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain this wouldn't work. A frame from a 48fps camera is not going to look the same as a frame from a 24fps camera. Since the frame is being exposed for twice as long, there is going to be more motion blur on the 24fps frame than the 48fps. If you were to film in 48 and project in 24, the image would look very choppy
Weird thing is I remember reading that editing software doesn't really exist to work on this footage in 48fps in post & it has to be shown to them as 24 while they work on it. Whatever the article was it was all a tad muddled, but this just seemed like a bad idea, you want to be the pioneer & all but shouldn't you wait for the technology to catch up on the other end so you actually see what your product's going to look like without having to stop & go to a 48fps projector?

Also, whether Jackson wants cinema to move this way or not, it seems like a really George Lucas-league move to make something within the same series look so drastically different from the original Lord of the Rings films.
__________________
powerhour24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 05:42 PM   #69
ONE
love, blood, life
 
powerhour24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,645
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancemc View Post
Something shot in an extremely high frame rate is going to look unusual at first, especially at such resolution as something major like The Hobbit in a well calibrated theater. The effect is unlike anything most people have ever experienced and it's going to take a degree of exposure for people to get used to. The comparisons people are making with this so far are reasonable as it's difficult to find something to compare it to, and the unflattering remarks are merely because... it seems odd to them, like a poorly calibrated TV. I think it could be a big thing for digital cinema though, and certain filmmakers should have the option to film and present their work this way so that people can actually see it like they intend. It really can be extraordinary-looking.
Thing is, there's a reason it took the evolution of digital cinema camera's being able to mimic the established look of film so well the audience didn't notice (circa Zodiac or so) for the move towards all digital filming to be accepted as practical & acceptable for the audience instead of just a cost-cutting measure. It's over a century of 'that's what film looks like' in the corner of 24 fps, and decades of soap opera/hyper real real-life video in the cons section for anything other than 24fps. Sometimes a different look works as a purposeful aesthetic like Michael Mann's for Collateral & Miami Vice, but those are the exceptions and were accepted more because of the subject matter, throw that in a period piece & it gives you the jarring feeling of watching history play out on a high def TV with motion interpolation on. (Think Mann's Public Enemies & Mel Gibson's Apocalypto).

Maybe there will be a paradigm shift towards 48fps (though James Cameron was going on and on about how he wanted to do his Avatar sequels in 60fps which would be even more 'video' looking, before back-pedaling), but I think the digital revolution is really just the final chapter in film-free "film look". Time will tell, and people want to throw in the argument that viewers rejected sound & color at first before coming around, but those changes weren't to something that had been established for over a century. It also took displays being able to look like paper and ink for ebooks to become widely used & accepted.
__________________
powerhour24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 06:24 PM   #70
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerhour24 View Post
Also, whether Jackson wants cinema to move this way or not, it seems like a really George Lucas-league move to make something within the same series look so drastically different from the original Lord of the Rings films.
This. Though I would argue that Lucas' situation was more forgivable. We couldn't really expect him to make a film in 1999 with 1977 technology. But it would've been a bold move to make a modern movie using only state of the art animatronics instead of digital characters (Guillermo Del Toro can do it). And it felt incredibly lazy to film green screen scenes that would've otherwise been filmed in Tunisia
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 06:40 PM   #71
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:22 AM
I much as I hate "smoothing" or "trumotion" on HDTVs (I turn them off) I don't think that 48fps with 5k resolution will look exactly like that. There must be more detail. I'm sure landscapes will look great.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 07:53 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
powerhour24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,645
Local Time: 01:22 PM
I don't think people are equating the two, just using them as an example of how jarring something other than the norm is when watching a film.
__________________
powerhour24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 07:55 PM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
powerhour24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,645
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
This. Though I would argue that Lucas' situation was more forgivable. We couldn't really expect him to make a film in 1999 with 1977 technology. But it would've been a bold move to make a modern movie using only state of the art animatronics instead of digital characters (Guillermo Del Toro can do it). And it felt incredibly lazy to film green screen scenes that would've otherwise been filmed in Tunisia
True, I wasn't suggesting he make it look like it was shot in 1977 per se, just that the only thing he used to establish continuity between the look of the two trilogies, besides cultural bits of his fictional universe, were the occasional odd geometric transition cuts between scenes.
__________________
powerhour24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 08:09 PM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,664
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerhour24 View Post
Weird thing is I remember reading that editing software doesn't really exist to work on this footage in 48fps in post & it has to be shown to them as 24 while they work on it. Whatever the article was it was all a tad muddled, but this just seemed like a bad idea, you want to be the pioneer & all but shouldn't you wait for the technology to catch up on the other end so you actually see what your product's going to look like without having to stop & go to a 48fps projector?
Well that's really no different that most cases in the history of film editing either. A perfect preview of your work at hand was rarely at your fingertips. That's something that's come closer to a reality with digital editing in the last decade or so, but you're almost refuting your own other argument with this, as physically cutting and stitching celluloid always had likely an even bigger preview lag and wholly slower work process than I'm imagining this digital process would be. Anyway, I'm almost 100% sure there are editing suites that can work in higher frame-rates like 48 and 60, though it's not the standard, no.
__________________
Lancemc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 08:39 PM   #75
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 38,002
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
This. Though I would argue that Lucas' situation was more forgivable. We couldn't really expect him to make a film in 1999 with 1977 technology. But it would've been a bold move to make a modern movie using only state of the art animatronics instead of digital characters (Guillermo Del Toro can do it). And it felt incredibly lazy to film green screen scenes that would've otherwise been filmed in Tunisia

They did film in Tunisia.
__________________

__________________
lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dwarves, hobbit, lord of the rings, lotr, peter jackson, smaug, the hobbit

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com