Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

Advance press screenings of 48fps The Hobbit 'disappoint'

Recommended Posts

[html]

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/peter-jackson-epic.jpg[/img]

The future is here but it seems nobody checked to see if it looked any good.

Shot with a 3D Red EPIC rig at 48fps, Peter Jackson’s return to the world of JRR Tolkien has been ‘stripped of the magic of cinema’ according to many who saw the advance press screenings by Warner Brothers.

[url="http://www.eoshd.com/?p=7987/"]Read full article[/url]

[/html]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
What do you mean by "The big question for me here is – will people acclimatise to the high altitude and get used to accepting ‘the 48p’ look as cinematic ([b]once they forget 70 years of history[/b]..."?
I'm sorry but 24fps has been the standard since the late 20's/early 30's. So I just don't get it, is there something else?
It may seem I'm just being a douche but it's not, I'm doing a big research and if I missed something it would be very nice to so, so please understand that I'm just very curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's just a question of people getting used to it. 3D 48p is a different look, it's literally more lifelike and the real world doesn't move at 24p in 2D.

I have a 3D DLP HD projector at home and sometimes watch films with the projector interpolating frames into the image to become a  faux 3D 48p or 60p, and yes it is different, no doubt, but is it worse?

Not at all!

In fact films look amazing in terms of the detail and the clarity. I watch Tron or Avatar this way and it looks just seems so life-like, but it's a more of an artificial reality that plays out in front of you than traditional 2D 24p cinema so some people will find that sort of paradigm shift jarring. Does it destroy the narrative? Of course not, it's just different, it's more immersive. If the sets look fake on the Hobbit, then that's a failure of the set design, the rest is just a case of people getting used to new technology which they usually need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the water on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 fps is a MacGuffin.  The real culprit is badly done digital.  Sounds like the highlights were to harsh, and the image was to contrasty and sharp.    Shoot film at 48 fps and see if that looks cinematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take any beautifully shot film classic and play it on a modern TV with "Auto Smooth Motion" on and you'll see it instantly turn into cheap looking soap opera video. This is what 48fps will do.

If you look at Peter Jackson's latest films, clearly 3D and 48fps is not what was missing to make them any good, he's wasting all this time and money on gimmicks instead of focusing on making a decent film.

Do we have another Zemeckis here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the important distinction is the 3D, on 2D I wouldn't bother with 48p, it detracts an aspect of the 'cinematic' look without much benefit, but in 3D 48p or 60p is really the way forward for a smooth 3D image,  24p is not ideal in 3D film making and in this sense I absolutely agree with Cameron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just like you shouldn't light a scene for film and video the same, you shouldn't light the scene the same for 48fps projection. You can spot those things way easier now. If the lighting is fake (as it always is), audience will be able to spot it easily in 48fps. That's why the outdoor scenes looked great. They are natural!

If 48fps is "too good" then why did the outdoor stuff work out really well?

Being able to spot that everything is done in a soundstage with cgi, is not a real good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The entire world population has been "trained" into 24p=fiction, 48/50/60= crude reality. This has been going on for over half a century.

People won't "sooner or later get accustomed to" movies in 48p, because those 48p will simply cease to exist. Movies have production costs of $80M and over, a flop will cost a fortune to investors; a few blockbuster flops might cost a billion $ to the studios.

If 48p won't work once, specially on a blockbuster, it's over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote author=SlimsMcKenzie link=topic=637.msg4651#msg4651 date=1335357322]
It's just a question of people getting used to it. 3D 48p is a different look, it's literally more lifelike and the real world doesn't move at 24p in 2D.

I have a 3D DLP HD projector at home and sometimes watch films with the projector interpolating frames into the image to become a  faux 3D 48p or 60p, and yes it is different, no doubt, but is it worse?

Not at all!

In fact films look amazing in terms of the detail and the clarity. I watch Tron or Avatar this way and it looks just seems so life-like, but it's a more of an artificial reality that plays out in front of you than traditional 2D 24p cinema so some people will find that sort of paradigm shift jarring. Does it destroy the narrative? Of course not, it's just different, it's more immersive. If the sets look fake on the Hobbit, then that's a failure of the set design, the rest is just a case of people getting used to new technology which they usually need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the water on.
[/quote]

+1

I kind of like that he took a risk. I think the story and composition will be so good that people won't complain so much about the aesthetic. This is what people say about the GH2 (Video). It can be tweaked in post. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does it matter what people think?
3D, 4K 48p is here to stay.
With FullHD here and 2K comming to the consumer market soon,
there  just *must* be something that cinemas have that the
living room has not.
(And it's certainly not the bad popcorn, advertisement in fron of the film
and the noisy crowd in the front rows.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there will be a right movie for this 48fps look. The Hobbit is not that movie though. There are too many associations with the cinematic look of LOTR. The costumes will seem hoaky.
In my opinion, a movie like Tron Legacy would've been a good candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3D and 48fps - like all cinema tech - constitute aesthetic choices.  We may as well debate whether or not color film or sync sound are cinematic - or if black & white film is still relevant.  It's like a bunch of painters debating watercolors vs. oils.  There is a time and place for any aesthetic choice.  That said... Peter Jackson is proving yet again that he is terribly unqualified to helm Tolkien films.  When it comes to rendering Tolkien's work for cinema he fails with the narrative and - consequentially - he cannot help but fail aesthetically.  It's like asking an abstract expressionist to paint in a neoclassical style.  I'm afraid it's worse than that actually.  Jackson is so clueless I want to cry.  I do not think that audiences will "get used" to the look of 3D and/or 48fps.  I think we will have to wait for a director who knows how to use them effectively.  Even then... Would it ever work on The Hobbit?  I'm skeptical... so skeptical I could cry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote author=MJChristensen link=topic=637.msg4665#msg4665 date=1335363368]
3D and 48fps - like all cinema tech - constitute aesthetic choices.  We may as well debate whether or not color film or sync sound are cinematic - or if black & white film is still relevant.  It's like a bunch of painters debating watercolors vs. oils.  There is a time and place for any aesthetic choice.  That said... Peter Jackson is proving yet again that he is terribly unqualified to helm Tolkien films.  When it comes to rendering Tolkien's work for cinema he fails with the narrative and - consequentially - he cannot help but fail aesthetically.  It's like asking an abstract expressionist to paint in a neoclassical style.  I'm afraid it's worse than that actually.  Jackson is so clueless I want to cry.  I do not think that audiences will "get used" to the look of 3D and/or 48fps.  I think we will have to wait for a director who knows how to use them effectively.  Even then... Would it ever work on The Hobbit?  I'm skeptical... so skeptical I could cry.
[/quote]

I agree that this may be the wrong aesthetic choice for the subject, but past box office receipts don't bear out your summation of Jackson's abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote author=marcuswolschon link=topic=637.msg4663#msg4663 date=1335363091]
Does it matter what people think?
3D, 4K 48p is here to stay.
With FullHD here and 2K comming to the consumer market soon,
there  just *must* be something that cinemas have that the
living room has not.
(And it's certainly not the bad popcorn, advertisement in fron of the film
and the noisy crowd in the front rows.)
[/quote]

3D, large screens, and the need to get out of the house.

I think many assume that there is no limit to how much expense the exhibitors will sustain (they are already begrudgingly absorbing the costs of digital, even with financial help from the studios), but they surely won't sustain the costs if viewers are exhibiting this sort of reaction to this technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
weirdly enough i had a whole debate about this last week when a director asked about why the hobbit was shooting at 48fps. i was actually shocked when i heard it, my reply was that, well, it certainly will make it sharper and clearer to the eye, especially if they were to project it at 48fps, but something i would do for a special effect shot i wouldnt necessarily think would be conducive for watching an entire film. my only restitution was that maybe they did some tests in 3D and the results were magical. apparently they did not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
also speaking of people being used to certain looks, i remember when mtv did their awards show on 24p for the first time, and people freaked out saying it didnt look "live"!
ive been trying to say that shaper is not better for a long time...unless you are shooting a visual effect shot or element for compositing, but people have been fighting me saying the gh2 is so sharp, its better! and people taking apart their 5Ds to make them shaper, its ridiculous.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...