Jump to content
Andrew Reid

NAB 2016. Can Ang Lee’s cinematic reality of laser projected 3D 120fps make 24p film obsolete?

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I honestly think the shutter angle killed the Hobbit. The DP shot at ~1/64 for most of the film so it would look okay at 24 fps, giving the blurry soap opera experience. If they shot at 1/96 I think it would have been far better received. I'm actually a huge fan of HFR, and laser projection is absolutely gorgeous. Cannot wait to see this film as it was intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Chris said:

3D anything = nauseating and unwatchable for me and many others. This will be a specialty thing at best, like IMAX. 

totally agree….a lot of people don't like 3D, I don't, and if this new technology is really implemented after some years, it will only be seen as another option in the menu, 24 fps will continue as the king of the party…..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be so happy to say good bye for 24 fps, especially on material distributed on internet. 24 fps just irritates me a lot when viewed on 60 Hz monitor, any fast movements are very jittery. 30 fps would be big improvement on material mostly viewed on Internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with 3D is the framing - if you cut/clip the top of someone's head it just kills the whole aesthetic. The Hobbit was horrible in every single way, it just looked shit - in normal 24fps (non-3D) it was acceptable and still then they messed with the story so much that it still didn't appeal. The only film in 3D that I thought was passable was Prometheus - 3D works really well when it enhances the depth of field of a scene. But it is a gimmick that has had 5 different incarnations over the years & i've vowed to never be hoodwinked again.

I might consider Ang Lee's new film, since he seems to have understood that you need to really rethink how you make a film, but still I don't hold too much hope that it will work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

The problem with 3D is the framing - if you cut/clip the top of someone's head it just kills the whole aesthetic. The Hobbit was horrible in every single way, it just looked shit - in normal 24fps (non-3D) it was acceptable and still then they messed with the story so much that it still didn't appeal. The only film in 3D that I thought was passable was Prometheus - 3D works really well when it enhances the depth of field of a scene. But it is a gimmick that has had 5 different incarnations over the years & i've vowed to never be hoodwinked again.

I might consider Ang Lee's new film, since he seems to have understood that you need to really rethink how you make a film, but still I don't hold too much hope that it will work.

Exactly! Anything that is positioned in 3d space infront of where the screen is must not intersect with the edge of the screen. How stupid and offputing is it when something goes behind something its meant to be infront of.  The only was around this is to make the viewing field of view much bigger (there are imax cinemas that are like the inside of a sphere) or vr headsets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just seems like filmmaker anxiety about competing with VR. Not needed in my opinion. I connect with characters and stories, not the tech, especially if it makes me nauseous. Obviously if the projection or camera detracts, then that's a  problem, but what I think needs fixing are the scripts/ideas, not the frame rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until I see it... I won't say how good/bad it is... Don't judge it on the poor 3d you have seen... Maybe it is just as bad, maybe it is amazing.

Hopefully a NABer can enlighten us more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't dismiss the technology until it's been experienced. 

I remember seeing Avatar in 3D on the IMAX, and although the story left a lot to be desired, the visual experience was outstanding at the time. 

Move seen 3D films since that just look a bit warped and frankly, stuck on as a gimmick. So I don't bother with them anymore. 

Hobbit was the worst thing ever in 48fps. I don't know why they thought that looked good. It really didn't. 

Let's give Ang a chance though, who knows eh? I'm all up for extending the experience to new levels. As long as story comes first :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3D is terrible in traditional 24 fps. 2D and 3D are very different forms and translating into 3D any affinities cultivated from 2D makes no sense. While I mostly don't care about 3D, HFR at least makes it bareable and not just a mess of motion artifacts striving to look "real". I wrote this a few years ago, when The Hobbit's HFR debate happened: http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/why-48-fps-is-good-for-3d-movies/ 

In this context I can only applaud Ang Lee's perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...