The Hobbit

[cobl04]

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.

 

[Lancemc]

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).

 

[Jive Turkey]

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]

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

 

[the tourist]

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.

 

[Jive Turkey]

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

 

[bono_212]

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.

 

[powerhour24]

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]

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.

 

[Jive Turkey]

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

 

[purpleoscar]

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.

 

[powerhour24]

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]

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.

 

[Lancemc]

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.

 

[lazarus]

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.

 

[powerhour24]

You're right about analog editing, though we're talking about someone who's trying to effect a paradigm shift in cinema & a world that's long since forgone physical editing and relied on constant feedback. Now I'm curious if the software is readily available.

Also, wouldn't they have to release it in some wonky pulldown to put it out on Blu-Ray, or convince the coalition to update the blu-ray standard (& all player owners to upgrade their firmware) to enable 48fps playback?

 

[powerhour24]

Here's what I found in a pro-forum, it fits in with what I said earlier, at least in regards to AVID which is the go to non-linear editing suite for most major features, Final Cut being used mostly for smaller & indie projects.

"There is no native 48fps editing in Media Composer where 48fps represents real time. This is being done on a couple major feature films and the production company's digital pipeline wrote their own software to transcode every other frame into native 24fps where the editing is essentially being one every other frame. Only in the conform checks and such will they see the full 48fps and adjust accordingly if needed."

So, while yes, you could say that it's still more intuitive than cutting by hand, it still seems rather bold for a major franchise production & an attempt at changing cinema. We'll see, they're also going to have to convince theater operators to pay for upgrades to 10's of thousands of projection systems in the next 7 months or so.

 

[powerhour24]

Although, thinking about how some people have talked about it, 48fps may be jarring in 2D, but could drastically improve 3D because motion blur isn't beneficial to the process the way it is to the 24fps 'cinema' look, it hurts it. So now I'm wondering if the footage was shown in 3D, if so then maybe that school of thought is wrong given the reactions across the board.

But Jive, according to people discussing Jackson's original decision to shoot this way, 48fps footage can be converted to look 'normal' with a little artificial blur added back.

 

[Lancemc]

Also, wouldn't they have to release it in some wonky pulldown to put it out on Blu-Ray, or convince the coalition to update the blu-ray standard (& all player owners to upgrade their firmware) to enable 48fps playback?

I think that's at least partially the point of all this, giving movie theaters another chance to offer something the viewer can't get at home (at least for another 4 or 5 years, as 3D promised to do).

Anyway, I don't really think the editing thing is such a big deal. You don't need perfect visual fidelity to find a perfect cut or sequence of images. I honestly don't know a whole hell of a lot about visual effects, so maybe it's different there, though I've always suspected those are in large part dealt with on a shot by shot basis, which wouldn't really make a terrible difference in this discussion. I dunno.

 

[powerhour24]

I was thinking the same thing about theater owners needing a new unavailable piece of tech now that 3D is shifting towards the home market.

If we're talking about CGI effects, then yeah I wouldn't worry too much about that, once things are designed, and their actions mapped out the animation software fills in the frames between keyframes anyway.

Also, I found Jackson's reaction to his initial announcement and he confirmed the 2D release would be in 24p anyway (but it still makes me wonder if this negative reaction to the 48 look came from a 3D exhibition, given what he says I assume it was, but that would mean people still found it uncomfortably different):

"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. "

 

[Jive Turkey]

They did film in Tunisia.

Watch most of the desert scenes in AOTC and tell me that's a real environment. There are scenes on geonosis that look horrible. Phantom Menace isn't included in this criticism

 

[powerhour24]

Wasn't AOTC all blue screen?

 

[Jive Turkey]

Although, thinking about how some people have talked about it, 48fps may be jarring in 2D, but could drastically improve 3D because motion blur isn't beneficial to the process the way it is to the 24fps 'cinema' look, it hurts it. So now I'm wondering if the footage was shown in 3D, if so then maybe that school of thought is wrong given the reactions across the board.

But Jive, according to people discussing Jackson's original decision to shoot this way, 48fps footage can be converted to look 'normal' with a little artificial blur added back.

Oh, okay. I'm still a little skeptical on how natural post processing blur would be, but who knows. Might be indistinguishable from normal 24fps.

48 makes compete sense for 3d, as you were saying. Since the signal is switching back and forth between eyes, we're only getting 12 fps per eye at the moment. Fast motion either in the scene or through camera movements look horrible in 3d as it is now (again, I'm no film technophile, so correct me if I have it wrong)

 

[Jive Turkey]

Wasn't AOTC all blue screen?

If not, it certainly looked that way

 

[powerhour24]

Oh, okay. I'm still a little skeptical on how natural post processing blur would be, but who knows. Might be indistinguishable from normal 24fps.

48 makes compete sense for 3d, as you were saying. Since the signal is switching back and forth between eyes, we're only getting 12 fps per eye at the moment. Fast motion either in the scene or through camera movements look horrible in 3d as it is now (again, I'm no film technophile, so correct me if I have it wrong)

You're right on the motion thing, it's why a film that's not designed for 3D typically looks so bad, because it's not filmed in extended shots with fluid motion. Apparently the 12fps per eye thing isn't exactly true with digital exhibition of 3D, it gets a hell of a lot more complicated, but the idea that it'd be smoother with a higher frame rate because of the eye split is solid.

 

[lazarus]

Wasn't AOTC all blue screen?

Filming
Principal photography occurred between June 26, 2000 and September 20, 2000 at 20th Century Fox Studios in Australia. Location shooting took place in the Tunisian desert, at the Plaza de España in Seville, Spain, in Italy at the Villa del Balbianello on Lake Como, and in the former royal Palace of Caserta.

 

[powerhour24]

Oh that's right, the Naboo scenes.

 

[Hewson]

Bruce Springsteen really needs to make a 3D film out of one of his overblown stadium gigs.

That'd be pretty egotistical for a rock band to do such a thing, no band has that much ego...

 

[BigMacPhisto]

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.

Eh, that's what I was hoping for...I wish Del Toro had been the director and been given free reign. I want to see someone else's vision of Middle-Earth, even if it were creepier and uncompromising for the mass audience. Instead, aside from the frame rate change, we're just getting the exact same stuff from the first time around. I'd be alright with all of this if The Hobbit had preceded Lord of the Rings since the follow-up would have a more intricate story and, frankly, more of interest. Instead, this Hobbit duo-logy feels like a regression given how samey it looks and the source material's inferiority.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Filming
Principal photography occurred between June 26, 2000 and September 20, 2000 at 20th Century Fox Studios in Australia. Location shooting took place in the Tunisian desert, at the Plaza de España in Seville, Spain, in Italy at the Villa del Balbianello on Lake Como, and in the former royal Palace of Caserta.

Geonosis scenes were still green screen crapola