-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Hobbit - Official Thread of Officially In Production
- Thread starter WyndhamPrice
- Start date
- Status
You could, but if it looks like shit what would be the point ;-)StuBurns said:
Certainly there will be 24Hz versions available for theaters. The producers would wouldn't release it if something this high-budget couldn't have large-scale release.
As to being consumer friendly, if you want a new feature and it can't reasonably be stuffed into current tech ... then you need to get new equipment. That's how it's always been, and I'm not sure people love the idea of getting a new media player either.
Regardless, I can guarantee however it's implemented ... any BD player or TV would support both. ie 3D and 48Hz 2D (unless they say fuck it and update both so 48Hz 3D is possible). You wouldn't see someone release a 48Hz BD or TV that doesn't support 3D as well.
Just to clarify ... 3D TV does not drop the framerate in half for 24Hz material.Willy105 said:
If you were implying current tech wouldn't be able to handle 48Hz 3D, yes that's correct ... but I think some might think you're stating 3D TV's actually drop framerates on content made for it (TV broadcasts, games, BD 3D). They do not.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
If The Hobbit ends up being projected at 48fps, it will pretty much guarantee that Cameron will go 60fps on Avatar 2.
Also, whilst this news is indeed awesome, it already saddens me that I'll be thinking of Tintin as dated when it comes out with its strobing 3D and all.
Also, whilst this news is indeed awesome, it already saddens me that I'll be thinking of Tintin as dated when it comes out with its strobing 3D and all.
That's not really the same thing ... and anyway, they're jittery.StuBurns said:
Film content output at 60Hz uses a process known as 2:3 pulldown. This produces an artifact known as telecine judder due to the irregular cadence. I personally hate it, but most only find it mildly annoying. Typically it's only really obvious in pans, etc.
The problem with going from 48Hz to 60Hz is that you would be doubling the space between the irregularities (which would make it more noticeable), and when the irregularity occurs, it would actually be for double in length. That would most certainly be more noticeable.
If someone has good SW we could make some test material. Logically looking at the math though, it would look worse.
Not necessarily, they might agree on 48 fps as a standard.Scullibundo said:
Shooting at 60 to futureproof but projecting at 48 seems likelier, since the difference between 48 and 60 isn't THAT huge according to the Cinema-Con presentation.
And yeah, thats a shame about Tintin
Look worse than what? 24fps? Because that should be the comparison. I'd like to see, I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be much nicer.Raistlin said:
You can say video games aren't the same thing, and you're right in a way of course, but 45fps looks way better than 30fps to me in a game that is still going to the TV at 60Hz. Maybe to you it doesn't.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
I really need to calm myself down we have a long ways to go for this brilliance. I can't start hyping now or ill have to lower my cholesterol by the time Hobbit releases.
How can you be disappointed in that? Until every theater provides you only with a 3D experience simply buy the cheaper ticket. Problem solved.
Darkgran said:
How can you be disappointed in that? Until every theater provides you only with a 3D experience simply buy the cheaper ticket. Problem solved.
Expendable.
Member
my excitement for this film is 0%, but now I have to see it because of the 48 frames per second. I honestly think it could change everyone's mind about 3D when you pair the two technologies.
RustyNails
Member
48 fps? Nausea incoming
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
So let's assume this comes out on blu ray at 48fps right, and you have a TV that can just do 60fps. It should still look much better, yeah? They double frames and stuff from a 24fps source to get it to show on a 60fps TV, presumably they'll have to do less frame duplicating to get from 48 to 60 and there will be more picture data in there anyway.
Expendable.
Member
RustyNails said:
Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't a smoother image decrease nausea? (especially in the case of 3D)
I am talking about 24fps. What do you think 2:3 pulldown is for?StuBurns said:
24->60Hz
AABBBAABBBAABBBAABBBAABBBAABBBAABBBAABBBAA
48->60
ABCDDABCDDABCDDABCDDABCDDABCDDABCDDABCDDABC
Note how the patterns look. With 24Hz material, what we see is every other frame shows an irregularity. While that is not optimal, it is tightly coupled which the brain can more easily deal with. More importantly however, note that the irregular 'frame' is only 50% longer than the surrounding 'normal' frames.
Now look at 48Hz material. There is a 3 frame gap in between the irregularity. That extra space will be more distracting. While the irregularity is still a repeating pattern, it's spacing will cause it to be easier to note. Worse yet, the irregularity is actually 100% longer than the surrounding 'normal' frames. That will really make it stand out.
I'm stating that if you truly cannot see flicker in a true 48Hz refresh, it's questionable how sensitive to motion you are. ie. you may not get that much out of the increase framerate.Zabka said:
I'd like to clarify a few things though. What type of TV do you have. Is it plasma or LCD? What model?
Indeed.Dead said:
Harry Potter
Banned
TekkenMaster
Banned
Cameron won't let Peter Jackson one-up him...he'll invent something even beyond 48 fps 3D for the Avatar sequels.
I doubt he cares. Whats good for 3D is in Camerons interests. If anything, he's probably glad PJ is shooting in 48fps.TekkenMaster said:
If he was worried about other Directors using it before him, he wouldn't be going around making huge presentations and telling people to do it.
TekkenMaster
Banned
Dead said:
Yeah, I know he's almost certainly happy about it...but I bet he still wants Avatar 2 to be the "first" at something, just like Avatar 1 was the first for correctly-shot live action 3D.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Exactly. If anything, it will mean more cinemas go digital before A2's release. Though I still think Cameron will shoot A2 at 60fps so it has some sort of technological draw that hasn't been featured before. Not that he won't invent other shit, because that is just unheard of for JC.
NullPointer
Member
We're talking Hobbits here. It should be shot in 8fps, or whatever the conversion rate is for three apples tall.
It's not like Cameron came up with the idea or anything anyway. Hell, this wouldn't even be the first times we see high-speed movies.Dead said:
Maxivision48 - 1999 tech (48fps, but with the advantage of using 35mm film)
Showscan - Late 70's and 80's tech (60fps)
It's an LG 42LH30 LCD. The only TVs I've heard of that have flicker problems at 48Hz are plasmas. 24p TV RoundupRaistlin said:
It's not a CRT or an old timey crank projector. Do you have problems watching 2d movies in the theater?
Neuromancer
Member
The human eye can only detect 24 fps anyway I thought, anything higher is just wasted.
Anyway I'm pumped!
Anyway I'm pumped!
NullPointer
Member
That is not even close to true.Neuromancer said:
PhoncipleBone
Banned
So why do we have 60fps games? Why does NTSC video run at approx. 30fps? Not even remotely true.Neuromancer said:
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Okay, who here complaining about 48fps filming has actually seen something shot at 48fps, and then projected or played back at 48fps? No one.
Wait until you actually see it in action before crying about it. If the reaction from CinemaCon is any indication, it will be revelatory.
Wait until you actually see it in action before crying about it. If the reaction from CinemaCon is any indication, it will be revelatory.
I see - that's why I asked. LCD will not have flicker (normally*). What allows Plasma to exhibit dramatically better motion resolution also results in flicker if the refresh is below your flicker fusion threshold.Zabka said:
*If an LCD offers black or contrast-adjusted frame insertion, it too can create flicker depending on what refresh and algorithm is being employed.
I hope you aren't implying Plasma is some sort of inferior, antiquated technology. If PlasmaGaf catches wind, this thread will move from being a train derailment to a train derailment on a suspension bridge
Actually if the projector is using the typical double-shuttering display method (which is typical actually), then yes ... yes I do. Thank god no one uses non-shuttering projectors in this day an age.
If I'm looking at a scene, especially if it has a relatively bright, uniform area of the screen - such as the sky or something, a patch of snow, etc - it looks like a rave to me
Yes I'm exaggerating. It doesn't look quite like a rave, but I really do notice the flicker and it's pretty distracting.
TekkenMaster
Banned
Soap operas are only 30 fps, and they have shit lighting, shit costumes, shit sets, shit makeup, and shit actors.
teiresias said:
It doesn't work like that. On film, it looks very distinctive and impressive. Like the difference between temporal anti-aliasing and 60 fps.
It's a very cool effect. Since I can't see 3D, this is a gimmick I can appreciate. They should also film everything in 70mm and above.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Once they get the digital cameras up to insane resolutions, this will be the norm. Shooting in IMAX level resolutions in 3D at 48fps.OuterWorldVoice said:
I am glad they are pushing the envelope with The Hobbit, and it will be very nice for the theater to be able to offer something that just cant be shown the same way in the home. It will create a unique experience.
- Status