Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Its 48 Frames Per eye. Cinema 3D doesn't work that way (For most theaters at least).
No. No! Fuck that!! I won't believe!
Its 48 Frames Per eye. Cinema 3D doesn't work that way (For most theaters at least).
3 really positive impressions and 1 negative.
eh?
The fact that you outright dismiss the movie because of a technical aspect rather than waiting for the movie to come out and rate it based on its script, cinematography and actor's performance makes you look more "cameronized" than anything.Many people knew it would look like a daytime soap the minute the 48fps news came out, so I'm not surprised at this at all.
It's a shame a filmmaker of Jackson's caliber has fallen for the Cameron-ization of film trend, which is more focused on making tech demos than good films.
Many people knew it would look like a daytime soap the minute the 48fps news came out, so I'm not surprised at this at all.
It's a shame a filmmaker of Jackson's caliber has fallen for the Cameron-ization of film trend, which is more focused on making tech demos than good films.
Yeah, running at a higher framerate than the one established as the standard like a hundred years ago is a huge technological leap.
Do I have to start making the bad analogies about using 100 year old versions of other technologies?
I have the same RED camera used to shoot The Hobbit. I can do a test shot for you guys at 48fps, but is there a video provider online that can display video at that frame rate?
There's no denying it seems odd at first. Once you adjust to it you'll wonder how in the hell people were satisfied with 24 fps for so long.
Well, according to the first guy it is cause of the framerate. It seems hollywood production values do nothing to stop it from looking like a soap opera.It always pains and entertains me to read that "soap opera" effect is due framerate.
Crude lighting set/design and camera framing (editing too and even set quality sometimes) are responsible for it.
The sets looked like sets. I've been on sets of movies on the scale of The Hobbit, and sets don't even look like sets when you're on them live... but these looked like sets.
The other comparison I kept coming to, as I was watching the footage, was that it all looked like behind the scenes video.
http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.htmlIt just looked ... cheap, like a videotaped or live TV version of Lord of the Rings and not the epic return to Tolkien that we have all so long been waiting for.
Upload it to mediafire. Current PC monitor can display up to 60fps.
Record some city sequences. I'll convert it to 24p so people can see the comparison, I suppose.
4k RED RAW files are huge, I'll have to downsize it to 1080p.
I think seeing a fast camera pan and an object being thrown in 24fps versus 48fps would show people why higher framerates are an improvement.I have the same RED camera used to shoot The Hobbit. I can do a test shot for you guys at 48fps, but is there a video provider online that can display video at that frame rate?
Vimeo does 60fps I believe.Upload it to mediafire. Current PC monitor can display up to 60fps.
Record some city sequences. I'll convert it to 24p so people can see the comparison, I suppose.
4k RED RAW files are huge, I'll have to downsize it to 1080p.
I can convert it to 24p too, no prob.
It's a significant difference. People would notice.
I think seeing a fast camera pan and an object being thrown in 24fps versus 48fps would show people why higher framerates are an improvement.
I have the same RED camera used to shoot The Hobbit. I can do a test shot for you guys at 48fps, but is there a video provider online that can display video at that frame rate?
Well, according to the first guy it is cause of the framerate. It seems hollywood production values do nothing to stop it from looking like a soap opera.
And heres IGNs impressions for anyone interested.
http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html
It always pains and entertains me to read that "soap opera" effect is due framerate.
Crude lighting set/design and camera framing (editing too and even set quality sometimes) are responsible for it.
I have no idea what to expect. What's something comparable that this could look like?
I wouldn't really define a couple of those as positive. They're very reserved and more optimistic rather than impressed.
And yet people on gaming side can't tell the difference between 60 or 20 and so many people say SD and HD have no differences.
I think you overestimate the general audience.
if that looks weird at 48fps, then avatar 2 running at 60fps (right?) must look... weirder!
And yet people on gaming side can't tell the difference between 60 or 20 and so many people say SD and HD have no differences.
I think you overestimate the general audience.
You say that, but consider the amount of people even on GAF who can't tell the difference between 30 and 60fps in gaming, where it directly affects their input. I think I've even seen people say it's tough to tell the difference between SD and HD resolutions.
It's useless, it will cause more harm than good, unless you can replicate The Hobbit or a big production, nothing will show us exactly how it looks, and you'll end up loosing a lot of quality. This needs to be seen in a movie theater.
if that looks weird at 48fps, then avatar 2 running at 60fps (right?) must look... weirder!
Yeah I can do that.
Football runs in 60fps HDCam. They can definitely tell.And yet people on gaming side can't tell the difference between 60 or 20 and so many people say SD and HD have no differences.
I think you overestimate the general audience.
Eh, maybe. I don't want to overestimate the general audience, though, heh.
Football runs in 60fps HDCam. They definitely tell.
"Wowed", "beyond awed", "never seen a movie that jumps off the screen like this one"
sure, ok
The thing is that obviously it looks very different from a traditional 24fps movie.
To be honest, it kind of terrified me at first. In his pre-recorded intro, Peter Jackson said that the reason we were seeing 10 minutes of content was that "it takes your eyes a little bit to adjust", and that is absolutely the case. The immersive experience was not immediate, but gradual. I felt much more comfortable toward the end of the presentation, but still disconcerted and outside a comfort zone.
I have major reservations,
I think it will take a bit of adjusting our expectations
Oh yeah, what about also doing a 60 fps comparison as well?
The 2D version is still 48fps.So has this any effect on the 24fps version of the movie? I mean people who don't like 3d can just stick with the 2d version of a movie. Doesn't the same apply for this.
Motion interpolation shit doesn't add detail or clarity, it just blends frames in attempt to make motion look smoother. It harms the presentation because your TV is faking those frames. Content actually filmed at higher framerates doesn't look like that.I still crack up when I think back to the first time I saw "TrueMotion" in action on a TV at Best Buy. Batman Begins was playing, and seeing Bale in rubber bat costume at that level of clarity made it completely hilarious. I hope that movies that are actually made to be displayed at higher frame rates do a better job of hiding the figurative seams and zippers.
You can't cut the cord and get ESPN3.People cut the cord for ESPN3 and other streaming sports so they either can't tell or don't care.
Is there much more to it then becoming accustomed to it? I would think that if there was some reverse world where 48fps was the norm and then someone suddenly said fuck it were going to 24fps there would be similar reactions of "it doesn't look right".
The general population probably wouldnt be able to point it out if asked outright. But thats a different matter. Most COD enthusiasts wont know that the game runs in 60fps. But I bet the game wouldnt be nearly as popular if it ran at 30.If I hadn't read so many stupid posts on GAF I'd agree that most people would notice, but I've come to realise things like resolution and framerate are things even "enthusiasts" are ignorant of, not to mention the general population.
Why do we assume it's the crude lighting, set design, and camera framing that people are referring to? I'm talking about the same look that is applied to games, soap operas, live news, live events, sports, some sitcoms and so forth.
It's The Hobbit. If it's looking cheap on a $200 million dollar movie, then it's too unforgiving for anything but nature documentaries.
These are, of course, extremely early and premature impressions though, hence the big "if".
The 2D version is still 48fps.
James Cameron wants to do it! But that's ok if you don't have the time. We are years away from Avatar 2.48 to 60 isn't that big of a leap compared to doubling the frames of 24 to 48. Not worth the effort really.
There's no denying it seems odd at first. Once you adjust to it you'll wonder how in the hell people were satisfied with 24 fps for so long.
By the way, and it's a big information, the footage was UNGRADED. Any movie in raw footage looks cheap. So, seeing positive reactions already is a good sign, it will look massively better obviously oncer color graded and finished.
It is said though that the helicopter shots, vistas, troll scene, and Gollum-Bilbo scene in the cave all looked incredible, like you were there kind of real.