If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Den Of Geek)   Was The Hobbit really the right proving ground for 48fps?   (denofgeek.com) divider line 202
    More: Interesting, hobbits, Ian Holm, soundstage, journey, playback  
•       •       •

5632 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 14 Dec 2012 at 10:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



202 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-14 10:17:58 AM
Yes? No? Who gives a shiat? New technology is a bit different, and that takes getting used to. It had to happen somewhere. Just because it happened on our cherished nerd chestnut doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Just watch it a few times till you get used to it.

Whiners.
 
2012-12-14 10:18:44 AM
I'm going to see a 2D, 24-fps showing for my first viewing. I don't want the presentation to get in the way of following the story, which I have probably only read a dozen times.
 
2012-12-14 10:20:55 AM

Wellon Dowd: I'm going to see a 2D, 24-fps showing for my first viewing. I don't want the presentation to get in the way of following the story, which I have probably only read a dozen times.


Seconded.

I'll go back in a few weeks and see in 3D though too.

/shut up and take my money!
 
2012-12-14 10:22:46 AM
48 FPS? What is it, precious?... What is it?!

Wellon Dowd: I'm going to see a 2D, 24-fps showing for my first viewing. I don't want the presentation to get in the way of following the story, which I have probably only read a dozen times.


I'm seeing it in IMAX 3D tonight, which surprised even myself. IMAX is always good, but I'm unsure about the 3D. Still, that's the only showing that fits my available time and I refuse to wait another day to see this. I'm a big Tolkien/Jackson fan and I've been looking forward to this for too long.
 
2012-12-14 10:24:39 AM
I have zero interest in seeing it at 48fps. Part of the magic of movies is the look and "texture" of what is on screen. I don't want movies to look like I filmed them with my digital home video camera.

This film is worrying me. The 48fps thing is, by my understanding, partly Jackson's fault. I put equal blame for the "putting all the crap that should have been left to the Extended Edition into the theatrical release" on the studio and Jackson...the former for greed, and the latter for being too eager to oblige. I LOVE editions, but for mainstream audiences, they're a horrible idea. They're just too drawn out for tht audience.

Beginning to think Del Toro SHOULD have directed. At first my concern was that the feel of the films would be too different, but the content of the book itself sort of demands it. Del Toro would have made it his own. It sounds like Jackson awkwardly tried to ride the fence between childlike buffoonery and the darker nature of LOTR.

But I'll still see it, because a so-so Hobbit should still be better than 90% of the dreck out there.
 
2012-12-14 10:25:31 AM

LasersHurt: Yes? No? Who gives a shiat? New technology is a bit different, and that takes getting used to. It had to happen somewhere. Just because it happened on our cherished nerd chestnut doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Just watch it a few times till you get used to it.

Whiners.


If you have to "get used to it", is it really better? One "gets used to" Brussels sprouts.
 
2012-12-14 10:25:50 AM
I still hate digital films.

They just look wrong. Movies are just moving pictures. Interesting pictures. Fake pictures. I don't want to watch real life on a big screen, because I walk around in real life all the time. It's why I go see movies. It's also why people make movies.
 
2012-12-14 10:25:52 AM
going next weekend to see the 2-D version in 48 fps. I wonder how much of this is all marketing, I mean how often do you really hear people complaining about a movie looking "too real?" The only time the graininess of the film quality really adds something for me is older horror films and that is just because it is a nostalgia factor
 
2012-12-14 10:26:43 AM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I LOVE extended editions, but for mainstream audiences, they're a horrible idea.


FTFM
 
2012-12-14 10:26:55 AM
48 fps in 3D? You couldn't handle that shiat on strong acid.
 
2012-12-14 10:27:33 AM
Going to see it in IMAX 3D this afternoon. Can't wait.
 
2012-12-14 10:29:41 AM

ModernPrimitive01: going next weekend to see the 2-D version in 48 fps. I wonder how much of this is all marketing, I mean how often do you really hear people complaining about a movie looking "too real?" The only time the graininess of the film quality really adds something for me is older horror films and that is just because it is a nostalgia factor


There are 2D, 48-fps showings? I haven't seen that combination around here, although it can be tough to tell exactly what format is being offered where and at what time.

First World problems.
 
2012-12-14 10:29:53 AM

ModernPrimitive01: going next weekend to see the 2-D version in 48 fps. I wonder how much of this is all marketing, I mean how often do you really hear people complaining about a movie looking "too real?" The only time the graininess of the film quality really adds something for me is older horror films and that is just because it is a nostalgia factor


Problem: props and makeup effects are generally not intended for such clarity, and reports are that this is a problem in this film. It makes fake stuff look fake.
 
2012-12-14 10:31:35 AM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: ModernPrimitive01: going next weekend to see the 2-D version in 48 fps. I wonder how much of this is all marketing, I mean how often do you really hear people complaining about a movie looking "too real?" The only time the graininess of the film quality really adds something for me is older horror films and that is just because it is a nostalgia factor

Problem: props and makeup effects are generally not intended for such clarity, and reports are that this is a problem in this film. It makes fake stuff look fake.


Cameron Diaz in 48fps.

www.thehutchinsonclinic.co.uk
 
2012-12-14 10:32:58 AM

Xlr8urfark: Wellon Dowd: I'm going to see a 2D, 24-fps showing for my first viewing. I don't want the presentation to get in the way of following the story, which I have probably only read a dozen times.

Seconded.

I'll go back in a few weeks and see in 3D though too.

/shut up and take my money!


I think Jackson is above this, but I'm hoping he didn't include a bunch of "COMIN' AT YA!!!" crap to "enhance" the 3D "experience".
 
2012-12-14 10:33:46 AM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: This film is worrying me. The 48fps thing is, by my understanding, partly Jackson's fault. I put equal blame for the "putting all the crap that should have been left to the Extended Edition into the theatrical release" on the studio and Jackson...the former for greed, and the latter for being too eager to oblige. I LOVE editions, but for mainstream audiences, they're a horrible idea. They're just too drawn out for tht audience.


And they're still holding stuff out of the movie. There's going to be approximately half an hour of additional material for the extended edition coming out late next year.
 
2012-12-14 10:35:02 AM
SacriliciousBeerSwiller:

Why not try to keep an open mind? No one in this thread has even seen 48 fps before, and all we have are the complaints of some movie critics (who constitute basically the whiniest profession in the world as far as I can tell). I'm seeing it in 48fps/IMAX/3D, which normally I wouldn't do, but like other farkers in this thread, it fit my schedule best for tonight. I'm just going to let myself get immersed in the story and enjoy going back to Middle Earth. If I don't look for things to criticize, I usually don't find any.

I'm guessing this is all being taken a bit out of proportion anyway. I definitely noticed the move to digital films, but it didn't take long to get used to it. And I'm guessing I'll notice this difference, but then not mind. I certainly don't want to let it ruin the experience for me.
 
2012-12-14 10:37:08 AM

HMS_Blinkin: I'm guessing this is all being taken a bit out of proportion anyway. I definitely noticed the move to digital films, but it didn't take long to get used to it. And I'm guessing I'll notice this difference, but then not mind. I certainly don't want to let it ruin the experience for me.


When I first heard about it, I thought it might be worth checking out. Then I kept seeing the early reviews comparing it to the motion smoothing effect on HDTV sets. I don't know if 48fps is as bad, but motion smoothing drives me nuts when it's on.
 
2012-12-14 10:42:48 AM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: LasersHurt: Yes? No? Who gives a shiat? New technology is a bit different, and that takes getting used to. It had to happen somewhere. Just because it happened on our cherished nerd chestnut doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Just watch it a few times till you get used to it.

Whiners.

If you have to "get used to it", is it really better? One "gets used to" Brussels sprouts.


One "gets used" to everything. HD was an adjustment for a lot of people. Hell, COLOR was an adjustment.
 
2012-12-14 10:42:49 AM
What if 48 fps is so fantastic that 24 fps films become unwatchable? Like the move from VCR to DVD, or from SDTV to HDTV. Ignorance was bliss, then the old stuff became like watching the screen through a shower curtain.
 
2012-12-14 10:42:49 AM
I'm going to see it on Sunday in IMAX 3-D, but I have no idea what frame rate it is. How do you find out?
 
2012-12-14 10:43:06 AM
Imagine If all the movies we watched in the last 100 years were 48 fps and now someone made one in 24 fps. The whining about grain and jitter would be something to behold.
 
2012-12-14 10:44:23 AM
24fps, 48fps...Tolkien still sucks.
 
2012-12-14 10:44:47 AM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Beginning to think Del Toro SHOULD have directed. At first my concern was that the feel of the films would be too different, but the content of the book itself sort of demands it. Del Toro would have made it his own. It sounds like Jackson awkwardly tried to ride the fence between childlike buffoonery and the darker nature of LOTR.


Storywise, that's what makes Jackson's Hobbit weaker than LotR - he's trying to balance the light-heartedness and buffoonery of a children's tale with the apocalyptic nature of a war epic. It's a bit jarring.

The 3D was really well done. 48 FPS, though, is strange; it makes the movie look like a videogame, especially before you get acclimated to it. Every non-landscape shot feels small and rushed. 48 FPS is especially unkind to CGI. At 24, I bet the effects look perfect. But at 48, the orcs look plastic. (Gollum, on the other hand, looks absolutely fabulous. His scene is fantastic.)
 
2012-12-14 10:44:49 AM
I'm breaking down and seeing the HFR today. I figured it's worth a shot and even the complaints are that it hurts the movie, but it is still a good movie so I figure maybe I'll enjoy it but not absolutely love it.
 
2012-12-14 10:44:54 AM

Wellon Dowd: What if 48 fps is so fantastic that 24 fps films become unwatchable? Like the move from VCR to DVD, or from SDTV to HDTV. Ignorance was bliss, then the old stuff became like watching the screen through a shower curtain.


It won't, any more than black and white is. Or oldschool technicolor for that matter. It will just become associated with nostalgia.
 
2012-12-14 10:45:51 AM
ITT: i learned that 48 fps is a massive increase in resolution
 
2012-12-14 10:46:04 AM

Rev. Skarekroe: I'm going to see it on Sunday in IMAX 3-D, but I have no idea what frame rate it is. How do you find out?


I think all IMAX 3-D is 48fps, though I could be wrong about that.
 
2012-12-14 10:47:20 AM

Rev. Skarekroe: I'm going to see it on Sunday in IMAX 3-D, but I have no idea what frame rate it is. How do you find out?


There are three versions - regular, 3D, and 3D HFR. (The 3D comes in two flavors, Real3D and IMAX.) HFR is 48 frames per sec.
 
2012-12-14 10:47:35 AM
48fps is uncanny valley realm. I've seen it, I don't like it. I'm old and I have no plans to accept this change anymore than Windows 8.
 
2012-12-14 10:49:41 AM

sprawl15: ITT: i learned that 48 fps is a massive increase in resolution


when I asked the theater where I'm going to see it in 48 FPS, they claimed their new equipment for high frame rates increased the resolution to 4X Blu Ray quality. I don't know if that's true, but I will say that I watched Prometheus in the same theater and it was in awe at how good it looked. It looks way better than the Prometheus Blu Ray I have.
 
2012-12-14 10:50:09 AM

Wellon Dowd: Like the move from VCR to DVD


Not a lot of people know this, but video cassettes were the last media recorded in 24 frames per second. The increased clarity on DVDs is because they were recorded at 48 FPS, but they're slowed down to half speed to let them not seem weird to people. Blu-Ray technology is recorded at 96 FPS and slowed to an eighth of what it was recorded at for playing. That's why it's 4 times clearer than a cassette tape.
 
2012-12-14 10:50:32 AM

sprawl15: ITT: i learned that 48 fps is a massive increase in resolution


Not resolution, obviously, but the lack of motion blur lending to increased clarity may give that illusion to people who apparently can't figure out a better way to describe the difference. We're only used to movies being 24fps because that's what the cameras used to record at. We're not under that limitation anymore.

/haven't seen it yet
//guess I'm going to be going alone because all my friends did midnight last night. wasn't doing that on night where I have work in the morning and the remnants of a cold, thanks
 
2012-12-14 10:51:25 AM
Would those of you checking this out on 3D/IMAX this weekend return here with your reviews of the experience? I am checking this out next week and was debating between the formats. I don't watch movies in the theater too often and was wondering if the "cutting edge" version was worth the more than double ticket price.
 
2012-12-14 10:51:32 AM

TofuTheAlmighty: Rev. Skarekroe: I'm going to see it on Sunday in IMAX 3-D, but I have no idea what frame rate it is. How do you find out?

There are three versions - regular, 3D, and 3D HFR. (The 3D comes in two flavors, Real3D and IMAX.) HFR is 48 frames per sec.



Great.. So it looks like I'll be seeing regular, then I guess 3D HFR. I'd prefer 2D on an IMAX screen.
 
2012-12-14 10:51:36 AM

HalEmmerich: Not resolution, obviously, but the lack of motion blur lending to increased clarity may give that illusion to people who apparently can't figure out a better way to describe the difference.


Are you suggesting that morons are rarely able to express themselves clearly? Perish the thought.
 
2012-12-14 10:53:43 AM
Did anyone remember what happened at the end of The Hobbit? Oh yes, the epic Battle of the Five Armies, an apocalyptic war. Seriously, the book starts off small and low fantasy and quickly snowballs.
 
2012-12-14 10:54:31 AM
 
2012-12-14 10:56:35 AM
Only a handful of theaters have the 48FPS (about 500-800 total).
I'm seeing it in 3D IMAX 24 FPS.

Here is a cool website I found in a different article that helps you see the difference between different frame rates and I'm too lazy to linkify this URL.

Enjoy!

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
 
2012-12-14 10:57:54 AM

Nurglitch: Did anyone remember what happened at the end of The Hobbit? Oh yes, the epic Battle of the Five Armies, an apocalyptic war. Seriously, the book starts off small and low fantasy and quickly snowballs.


I wouldn't really call much of the book epic except the battle with Smaug. Most of any "epic" scenes were only a page or two long. I'd hardly call the Battle of the Five Armies an apocalyptic war.
 
2012-12-14 10:59:06 AM
FTFA: Ah yes, film grain - something else which HFR eliminates almost entirely.

No, the number of frames per second doesn't eliminate film grain. Shooting on a sensitive, 5k-resolution, super-sharp digital camera eliminates film grain, regardless of the fps. Or maybe even the fact that they're not shooting on film at all has something to do with it...

NeoCortex42: HMS_Blinkin: I'm guessing this is all being taken a bit out of proportion anyway. I definitely noticed the move to digital films, but it didn't take long to get used to it. And I'm guessing I'll notice this difference, but then not mind. I certainly don't want to let it ruin the experience for me.

When I first heard about it, I thought it might be worth checking out. Then I kept seeing the early reviews comparing it to the motion smoothing effect on HDTV sets. I don't know if 48fps is as bad, but motion smoothing drives me nuts when it's on.


We'll see. I'm going tonight to see a 48fps 3D showing. I hope it's not as bad as motion smoothing. I'm definitely pro-24 fps (for technical, historical, and artistic reasons), but not necessarily anti-48 fps.

Ultimately, I want to watch movies how the director & cinematographer intend them to be seen. So if they shoot in 48fps 3D, that's how I want to see it. That's also why I fundamentally loathe motion smoothing on TVs.
 
2012-12-14 11:00:03 AM

Xlr8urfark: Great.. So it looks like I'll be seeing regular, then I guess 3D HFR. I'd prefer 2D on an IMAX screen.


Here's a more comprehensive tally:
Do I get a choice?

Yes. The film will be released in multiple formats, including 2D, 3D, IMAX, IMAX 3D and HFR 3D. Check with your local theatre for the format of your choice.

Is HFR only available in 3D?

Yes. The HFR version of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will be available in 3D only.

Nurglitch: Did anyone remember what happened at the end of The Hobbit? Oh yes, the epic Battle of the Five Armies, an apocalyptic war. Seriously, the book starts off small and low fantasy and quickly snowballs.


My guess is that the second movie will end with the death of Smaug. Battle of the Five Armies and the aftermath will be the third movie. (And if I'm right, the last movie will comprise the final ~8% of pages of The Hobbit.)
 
2012-12-14 11:02:06 AM

ModernPrimitive01: sprawl15: ITT: i learned that 48 fps is a massive increase in resolution

when I asked the theater where I'm going to see it in 48 FPS, they claimed their new equipment for high frame rates increased the resolution to 4X Blu Ray quality. I don't know if that's true, but I will say that I watched Prometheus in the same theater and it was in awe at how good it looked. It looks way better than the Prometheus Blu Ray I have.


They may have been trying to describe 4K resolution. As for 48FPS, that's a bit different then resolution as that's just the frame rate. The old standard 24p is a throwback to the technical limitations of actual film. We're used to seeing movies at this frame rate and when we're sitting in our comfy chairs at the theatre we're psychologically conditioned to expecting this now. Now that we've been shifting to all-digital these last few years it's a bit jarring to watch movies at 24p now, especially when you're sitting near the front and the fast paced movie editing makes it very hard to see the motion. 48fps will probably look "not like a movie" to everyone at first, but as they say on Fark, you'll get over it. I imagine 10 years from now we'll look back at 24p and say how in the world did we watch that.
 
2012-12-14 11:03:54 AM

NeoCortex42: Nurglitch: Did anyone remember what happened at the end of The Hobbit? Oh yes, the epic Battle of the Five Armies, an apocalyptic war. Seriously, the book starts off small and low fantasy and quickly snowballs.

I wouldn't really call much of the book epic except the battle with Smaug. Most of any "epic" scenes were only a page or two long. I'd hardly call the Battle of the Five Armies an apocalyptic war.


I'm hoping Jackson devotes more time to it while using film as the media than Tolkien did when writing.
 
2012-12-14 11:05:11 AM

Rev. Skarekroe: Here's a list of theaters showing the 48fps version.


Thanks for posting that. ( I'll still have to decide if it's worth driving 40 miles to see this, however)
 
2012-12-14 11:05:36 AM

TofuTheAlmighty: My guess is that the second movie will end with the death of Smaug. Battle of the Five Armies and the aftermath will be the third movie. (And if I'm right, the last movie will comprise the final ~8% of pages of The Hobbit.)


Maybe the second movie ends with the death of Smaug and the third features the defeat of the Necromancer? I don't see both being taken out in the same movie.
 
Ant
2012-12-14 11:05:56 AM
I'll be seeing it in 2D 24 fps. 48 fps looks like a daytime soap opera.
 
2012-12-14 11:07:12 AM

HalEmmerich: sprawl15: ITT: i learned that 48 fps is a massive increase in resolution

Not resolution, obviously, but the lack of motion blur lending to increased clarity may give that illusion to people who apparently can't figure out a better way to describe the difference. We're only used to movies being 24fps because that's what the cameras used to record at. We're not under that limitation anymore.

/haven't seen it yet
//guess I'm going to be going alone because all my friends did midnight last night. wasn't doing that on night where I have work in the morning and the remnants of a cold, thanks


Technically it's an increase in temporal resolution, but not necessarily in spatial resolution. Although since Jackson shot with Red Epic cameras, probably at 5k resolution (waaaaay more than 1080p, and almost more than good 35mm film stock), and I'd guess that any HFR screen is also going to have a 4k projector (lots of theaters only have 2k digital projectors, only slightly more than 1080p), there's lots of higher-resolution things converging onto one screen, and it all gets attributed to 48fps.

ModernPrimitive01: sprawl15: ITT: i learned that 48 fps is a massive increase in resolution

when I asked the theater where I'm going to see it in 48 FPS, they claimed their new equipment for high frame rates increased the resolution to 4X Blu Ray quality. I don't know if that's true, but I will say that I watched Prometheus in the same theater and it was in awe at how good it looked. It looks way better than the Prometheus Blu Ray I have.


That's the newish 4k digital projectors. Also, Prometheus was another movie shot with the Red Epic.
 
2012-12-14 11:10:08 AM
Going in blind, I seriously doubt more than 10% of people could even tell the difference. With a very small number of exceptions[0] 48 fps, & 3D, like HDTV, are scams to sell TVs, BluRay players and projection equipment.

Artistic statements is not almost never improved in any meaningful way by definition.

[0] Nature programs, Ice Hockey, that film about Pina Bausch...
 
2012-12-14 11:12:35 AM
As a projectionist, it's very annoying how many people (including professional critics) have described the increased frate rate as a change in resolution. As some have already noted in this thread, the two are completely different things. The resolution of a digital movie refers to the number of vertical pixel lines (the film equivalent works out to about 4000) and is determined by the CCD/CMOS sensor chip in the camera. I seem to recall reading that these movies were shot on RED cameras, which would put them over the standard 2k resolution for professional digital films. All an increased frame rate does is reduce motion artifacts and allow dodgy props to remain in one spot on screen (and therefore in focus) for slightly longer, making them more noticeable.
 
Displayed 50 of 202 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report