nib187 Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Here is Hobbit:BoFA trailer in 60fps, for me it just looks like cheap tv show, no magic at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 The Japanese might like it. They love higher frame rates in their motion pictures... But for the rest of us, Peter Jackson looks to me like he's turning into his generation's George Lucas; employing technology "just because" and that's ultimately detrimental to the storytelling. Of all the types of narrative genres that benefits from the alternate reality 24fps envokes, you'd think fantasy would be the most logical choice. I don't get if either. But it hardly looks cheap. The cinematography us too 1st rate professional for that. However, from what I understand, the shot frame on these films is 48fps which means that distributing it in 24fps for those that prefer it is an easy alternative...on the other hand, the loss of edge motion blur inherent in shooting native 24fps is a shame. I like that effect. Not good for green screen of course, but still that effect offers a great disconnect from "reality." Xavier Plagaro Mussard 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Wow that does look cheap and videoy! Never though the difference would be so pronounced especially on the web. Stick to 24p please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunyata Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 it's one giant leap backward for mankind. i know the company that did this trailer, i wonder if they're testing audience reaction to the 2d hfr version? i think it looks terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmcindie Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 That actually doesn't look like it's real 48 fps. It looks interpolated 60fps (like what modern televisions do with their smooth motion). It's also not an official link so I call: FAKE! for example the shot where the statue falls has interpolation artifacts heavily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunyata Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 haha, i think you're right.. i just grabbed a copy off of said company's web server and it's 24p. same with the official warner links. even the 24p version (shot of smaug's lair) looks unfinished though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafreaking Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Yeah looks like Smooth Motion turned on, on a new TV. It looks fake too. There is no consistency with the shots. Some parts look video gamey and a trailer is definitely not the best way to view high frame rate video due to the length on shots and lack of continuity. Complete disarray of the visual senses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablogrollan Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Fake or not, the trailer is HFR (60p) and has given me the same fake feeling as whenever I have seen HFR. I agree with you all, it looks like crap. Our mind is too used to 24p in cinema and 60p should be left for videogames and such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 It looks like a videogame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 It looks like a load of crap altogether. Shame, I enjoyed the 1st trilogy a lot ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattH Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 60p on youtube only works in google chrome. If you are using firefox or another browser you wont see it. (I will continue to use firefox and just paste the url into chrome whenever I need it which will be hardly ever). It is definitely a very noticable difference from 24p movies. Personally I think saying it looks like video is off the mark. I think people are searching for a term to describe what they felt and "video" or "soap opera" was the best word they could come up with. I think any video-ness is probably more to do with the sharpness of the camera than anything. The impression I get more than anything is that it looks like a computer game. CGI at 24p with motion blur tends to blend the real elements with the fake quite well. But at 60p the CGI is less blurred and so your mind can critique it more easily. 60p also has the effect of making live action seem more real. And this sense of realness makes the clear cgi look even faker. So this trailer basically looks like a 3d computer game with 2d live action video sprites layered ontop, which is kind of what it actually is really. As to whether It is good, I think if the whole thing was cgi it could work stylistically. As for live action narative I'm not sure. interpolated 120hz smooth motion is very disconcerting but maybe genuine 60p is better. Its certainly different, and a definite departure from the traditional cinema look. I would have to watch a normal live action film without cgi to see if I could get used to it or whether it continued to be distracting. One thing is for sure, even if people get accustomed to 60p motion, CGI will have to up its game to not look fake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Personally I think saying it looks like video is off the mark. I think people are searching for a term to describe what they felt and "video" or "soap opera" was the best word they could come up with. I think any video-ness is probably more to do with the sharpness of the camera than anything. We had this fishing in troubled water some two years ago, when The Hobbit was released. I'd say it's not so much about sharpness or clearness as it is about how humans and other creatures move. At 24 fps, their motions have added gravity, as if a slight slow motion was applied. 48 fps, on the other hand, look the opposite: Everybody moves too fast, but paradoxically without momentum (the imperceptible motion blur misses). It looks hectic and lame at the same time. I would have to watch a normal live action film without cgi to see if I could get used to it or whether it continued to be distracting. You probably get used to it. With borrowed films on my Apple TV, I get that. No big deal, I follow alright. But: If I really want to enjoy a particular movie, I either buy it in the store (obviously that makes it 24p) or borrow it on BD. So this trailer basically looks like a 3d computer game with 2d live action video sprites layered ontop, which is kind of what it actually is really. That made me laugh. It's like telling people about the Emperor's new clothes, and they shrug, so what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMaximus Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 it's one giant leap backward for mankind. i know the company that did this trailer, i wonder if they're testing audience reaction to the 2d hfr version? i think it looks terrible. Lots of people like the higher framerate. They buy new TVs and watch movies with that function enabled, and some even reencode movies multiplying framerate, and we can see those movie versions are quite popular on torrent trackers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danyyyel Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 The thing look completely false, as someone is saying it like looking at a video game trailer. One thing that really take a hit for me is the CGI character. They look exactly like game characters and false. They create a disconnect with the story because they have no reality in them. It is a giant step backward for CGI, who has for the most part the last 10 years been to a level that they are believable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Plagaro Mussard Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 In LOTR a hobbit was a hobbit. In The Hobbit a hobbit is an actor dressed with make-up to look like a hobbit. pablogrollan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablogrollan Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Lots of people like the higher framerate. They buy new TVs and watch movies with that function enabled, and some even reencode movies multiplying framerate, and we can see those movie versions are quite popular on torrent trackers. Probably... there's people from all walks of life out there... but early sneak previews of The Hobbit in HFR were a huge disappointment, slashed both by critics and audience, and they substantially modified their release strategy to make the 24p version of the movie easily available in theatres. HFR is the new 3D, a soon-to-be-forgotten experiment to bump up ticket sales and try to avoid the slow but steady decline in theatre attendance. Full HD 50 inch TVs with surround sound systems are making "going to the movies" obsolete. For us film lovers it really is sad, but the truth is the average moviegoer has less and less reason to go a movie theatre. Same happened to drive-in theatres when they lost their reason to be (movie + 2nd base, which could be accomplished with home video and no parents at home). At least 3D had some glory moments (Avatar, Gravity) before fading away, but this experiment was stillborn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danyyyel Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 4k is another marketing strategy to increase price, it won't bring anything to the movie experience. With motion blur, 99% of the time you won't see any difference, if it is even possib to see. What it will do is show all the flaw of set, props etc. Xavier Plagaro Mussard 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 35mm film has more resolution than 4K so that's bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 35mm film has more resolution than 4K so that's bullshit. Hardly. 35mm 8-perf (film runs through gate horizontally, not vertically, the frame size equals full frame 36mm x 24 mm) could have had perhaps 5k, but never a theater print (4-perf, with considerable widescreen-crop), and definitely not when projected, because all those little analog tolerances added, and what was left was way under 1k. Digital projection in 2k meant an immediate improvement, though not a very spectacular one. And that 4k means four times the resolution of 2k doesn't mean that the images now look four times as good. It's rather that you recognize limitations of resolution caused by too big images later. 4k images can be projected bigger, that's all there is to it. Take 640p as an example: If you watch a Youtube clip in this original size - according to the pixels of your display - it looks the same as the HD-version. Only if you toggle it full screen you will see the shortcoming of the smaller resolution. But take the appropriate resolution as a given. Nikkor and Xavier Plagaro Mussard 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 You're the projectionist ;) But yeah I was comparing to photographic 35mm. When I scan 35mm negatives at home they have tons of details (with low grain film). Anyway, I can see the pixels in 2K projections and it makes them look crappy, grain at least is random so it doesn't has the sharpened look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.