Advance press screenings of 48fps The Hobbit 'disappoint'

[bwhitz]

[quote author=xxbluejay21 link=topic=637.msg4724#msg4724 date=1335415556]
Honestly, I don't think it's the 48fps. It's just the camera. I've never seen a cinematic movie on the RED before. Social Network, Dragon Tattoo, Contagion... Even the new Spider-Man looks horrible from the trailer. The Alexa is a little better, but still not that good.
[/quote]

Can't tell if you're actually being serious or not. There is nothing that magical about film. It sounds like you're just glorifying it for the sake of glorifying it. Personally, I actually prefer Red's image to film. The Social Network and Dragon Tattoo are two of my favorite movies visually. To say that they're not cinematic looking is just crazy.

[piz]

i really believe this is a generational issue.  the issue really is what does someone consider acceptable for a narrative.  with younger generations who have grown up watching video games with narrative sequences in 60fps there will be less resistance to a 60/48 fps film.  they are used to seeing this all the time whereas older generations were only used to the soaps and sports.

it might be that the hobbit won't be right because the fanbase is older, but imagine a film based off of a video game.  wouldn't it make sense to make the film feel like the video game in some fashion and therefore the higher framerate apply? curious to hear people's thoughts on the generational issue.

[Vlad3D]

1. I think having source material in 4k/48hz gives nothing but advantage. It is up to movie maker to decide how to use it. Any softness and motion blur or even 24p can be applied to scenes later when needed.
2. Making 4k/48hz looking good is more complicated than making blurry/24p looking good. This will show soon who learned how to make movies and who just hides bad movie and actor work behind dreamy 24p look.
3. When I turn on frames interpolation on my TV – yes, most movies looks like 70s soup opera. But few of them looks just amazing to me. This makes me believe that making nice looking movies in 4k/48hz format is possible.
4. Activating frames interpolation on 24p move can just partially mimic look of proper 48p movie. Don’t use to judge how 48p will look like in the end.
5. About human generations trained to watch 24p during last 70 years. New generations are already trained on 60p hi-res computer games and on TV’s with frames interpolation turned on by default – they will just accept new format as something absolutely normal.

[Leang]

[quote author=bwhitz link=topic=637.msg4727#msg4727 date=1335420985]
Can't tell if you're actually being serious or not. There is nothing that magical about film. It sounds like you're just glorifying it for the sake of glorifying it. Personally, I actually prefer Red's image to film. The Social Network and Dragon Tattoo are two of my favorite movies visually. To say that they're not cinematic looking is just crazy.
[/quote]

this is amateur talk.  how can you say any of this?  sounds like a 14 year old just joining film school and not understanding film theory or the chemical aesthetics of film...

[bradleyg5]

So the site keeps telling me cameras are to slow and soft and then there is an article posted that says fast sharp movies look like crap! That's it, decision made I'm staying on the 5dII for the foreseeable future, all money hereby diverted to lens and software.

magic lantern on the 5dII still offers the best firmware out there on any large sensor camera so far. The new money is going to be in web, internet speeds just aren't increasing enough to even make full use of the video we can already make.

I want more dynamic range though... I do think that gives you more possibilities for creating new looks.

[Chad]

I'm still very interested in The Hobbit and hope to see it at 48fps. Maybe because i've been a video gamer for most of my life, i actually enjoy higher frame rates. I watch 24fps movies and to me it looks like there's a lot of stuttering during camera movements, and it often takes me out of the moment.

Of course, i don't want The Hobbit to look fake, with obvious looking sets and all that. But if it does, it sounds like a problem other than the frame rate. I suppose PJ is learning, but i kind of hope 48fps (even 60) becomes the standard eventually, and film makers adapt and find ways to keep it from looking cheap.

Maybe not for our generation, because so many are used to 24fps, but for the next generations that grow up watching higher frame rates. They'd probably go back to watch 24fps one day and say "ow, my eyes!"

That's just me though, because i grew up following video games. They struggled with frame rates for a long time to finally reach a point where they could lock 60fps down. Now if a game dips below that, it's no good.

Games aren't movies, of course, but i can see what PJ and Cameron are thinking here.

[karoliina]

I personally prefer realism in cinema: exceptional lifelike detail and lifelike smoothness in all movement.
This obviously sets higher requirements for the quality of the set and for the quality of the makeup on the actors. The actors must have fashion photography quality makeup and not a "theatrical makeup". Set must be more true (or CGI) rather than bunch of painted styrofoam because it shows up when the detail is there.

My vision is that cinema eventually becomes surreal experience where it is hard to distinguish from actually being there. It is like painting would no longer be a painting but a high quality photograph. Photograph is still art, so is 3D imagery. It is surely different kind of art than the 2D realm with all the motion blur and loss of detail and grain going on (and I have to admit I like sometimes a grainy look like the new Battlestar Galactica series had), but the true pushing the boundaries and advancing on this area will move towards more lifelike experience.

The lifelike experience has nothing to do with TV soap operas that are not at all lifelike experience. They are like looking a doll house. Lifelike experience is a deep immersion like you would enter the Matrix.

It was quite obvious with Avatar what the limitation with 24p with the 3D imagery is. Always when there was motion blur, it killed the immersion and it made me feel like I had glasses that were incompatible with my vision.

There is of course alternative for those who do not prefer lifelike images. Like not everybody prefer photography but prefers more oil paintings. Or someone likes hand drawn cartoons rather than computer rendered Pixar films. I do not have narrow look on these, everything has its place and there is hardly anything somebody wouldn't like and other wouldn't hate.

I am very much looking forward to seeing Hobbit and what might come from James Cameron also. I hope at 48 fps the 3D will be more lifelike and more immersive than the 24p that feels like having eyesight problem at times (I do not have eyeglasses, but 24p at 3D looks to me a bit like putting way too strong eyeglasses on that are not fitting with my vision). My brain also selectively wants to blank unfitting elements from the 3D scene, and it turns out in cases of motion blur, only one eye signal sometimes reach the brain. Quite far cry from what my vision about a Matrix like virtual reality would be.

[Axel]

[quote author=karoliina link=topic=637.msg4737#msg4737 date=1335438951]
I personally prefer realism in cinema: exceptional lifelike detail and lifelike smoothness in all movement.[/quote]

You must be of the new generation piz was talking about. Clearly it's wrong to say that 24p is the only framerate for a narration (that higher frequencies are suitable for docs is generally accepted).

[quote author=karoliina link=topic=637.msg4737#msg4737 date=1335438951]This obviously sets higher requirements for the quality of the set and for the quality of the makeup on the actors. The actors must have fashion photography quality makeup and not a "theatrical makeup". Set must be more true (or CGI) rather than bunch of painted styrofoam because it shows up when the detail is there.[/quote]

Seems to have happened with [i]The Hobbit[/i] too. Jackson is as well one of the worlds best SFX and VFX supervisors, knowing each of his 48 Epics literally by name (and for which task they are used), as he is one of the cinemas most nostalgic filmmakers. The awkward aninmation of the "rat-monkey" in [i]Braindead[/i], the Willis o'Brien-like motion of the Ants and the too miniature-looking water of the broken dam in [i]Two Towers[/i], the NewYork zoo in the intro of King Kong, an homage to the phony zoo in the intro of [i]Citizen Kane[/i], to name a few. Hard to believe that they saw the dailies together and said, it looks cheap, so what?

[quote author=karoliina link=topic=637.msg4737#msg4737 date=1335438951] I hope at 48 fps the 3D will be more lifelike and more immersive than the 24p that feels like having eyesight problem at times (I do not have eyeglasses, but 24p at 3D looks to me a bit like putting way too strong eyeglasses on that are not fitting with my vision). My brain also selectively wants to blank unfitting elements from the 3D scene, and it turns out in cases of motion blur, only one eye signal sometimes reach the brain. Quite far cry from what my vision about a Matrix like virtual reality would be.[/quote]

Interesting. At least for 3D, you are probably right.

[HurtinMinorKey]

[quote author=Leang link=topic=637.msg4733#msg4733 date=1335429414]
this is amateur talk.  how can you say any of this?  sounds like a 14 year old just joining film school and not understanding film theory or the chemical aesthetics of film...
[/quote]

So you think that David Fincher is an amateur?

That being said, if we compare the same director (and same DP) using different camera's, I think you'd have to agree that Fight Club(Film) looked better than either The Social Network or Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (RED EPIC).

I think TGWTDT highlights some of RED's biggest weaknesses. Low light shooting, and painful post-production. The movie was just too long, and it almost looks like they didn't pay attention to the look as much as they did in the Social Network, which looked very good for a digital movie. 

[Sean Cunningham]

[IMG]http://i48.tinypic.com/2wfit5w.gif[/img]

...is going on in this thread?

[OverCranked]

[quote author=BurnetRhoades link=topic=637.msg4743#msg4743 date=1335458952]
[IMG]http://i48.tinypic.com/2wfit5w.gif[/img]

...is going on in this thread?
[/quote]

We are discussing too much of a good thing in here.

Hmmm and it's nothing to do with RED - Blue or Green !

[Axel]

[quote author=BurnetRhoades link=topic=637.msg4743#msg4743 date=1335458952]
[IMG]http://i48.tinypic.com/2wfit5w.gif[/img]

...is going on in this thread?
[/quote]
:) The reason why I no longer watch german dubbed films.

[cpc]

People seem to to miss an important detail in this discussion.
The step from 2d to 3d is already a step towards realism. If a filmmaker takes this step, there is no reason they should stop at that. Shooting 3d is already a statement. And if you are making realistic movie, better do it so that my eyes don't die while watching. Which means a higher frame rate to make the image cleaner. Jerky movement and lots of motion blur are nice and all. But not in 3D.

Then there is also the moment with artistic creative choice. 24 fps and 48 fps (or higher) should co-exist. Some turbo-realistic movies will no doubt benefit from a higher frame rate. Give filmmakers choice. If I can decide on film vs digital, 2d vs 3d, lighting, shooting style, etc, there is no reason I shouldn't be able to choose a frame rate if a specific frame rate supports my vision. Simple as that.

[bwhitz]

[quote author=Leang link=topic=637.msg4733#msg4733 date=1335429414]
this is amateur talk.  how can you say any of this?  sounds like a 14 year old just joining film school and not understanding film theory or the chemical aesthetics of film...
[/quote]

And this is this is pretentious film-hipster talk.

I care about the motion characteristics of film and the aesthetics of the 35mm format. These are available digitally. Digital is also better for the speed of production and actors. Faster set-ups, more locations, actors can stay in character longer, ect. Nobody watching a movie gives two shits about the "chemical aesthetics of film". That is such an asinine point you have actually blown my mind with stupidity. Film theory has nothing to do with "film" in the literal sense of film stock. ...god that was such a stupid point.

You sound like a brainwashed film-industry-obsessed lemming who thinks they're hot shit cause they shot a crappy short film about relationships and coffee shops on academy 16mm once in film school. Get over yourself. The only people threatened by digital are those who do crappy work and relied on expensive film-stock as a way of separating their derivative student films from others. Film still looks good, but so does Red, DSLRs, Alexa, and bla bla bla. Everything shoots film-looking footage now. Get used to it. Shooting on film is not going to make something better anymore. That era is OVER.

There are filmmakers who want to tell stories and entertain an audience... and then there are film-makers who have self-esteem issues and just want to play with expensive gear to make themselves feel more important than others. You fall into the latter.

[quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=637.msg4740#msg4740 date=1335454589]

So you think that David Fincher is an amateur?

That being said, if we compare the same director (and same DP) using different camera's, I think you'd have to agree that Fight Club(Film) looked better than either The Social Network or Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (RED EPIC).
[/quote]

Yea, seriously... who calls somebody an amateur because they prefer the look of digital cinema over film? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

But yea, honestly, I like the look of Dragon Tattoo and Social Network over Fight Club. I love how clean the blacks are. It's a clean modern look, but with the motion characteristics of film.

[piz]

There's probably no one alive anymore but it would be interesting to know how early cinematographers during silent films era who shot at 16fps  felt when 24fps + sound became standard and if there was any resistance to it.    It's obvious that due to those technical advances the narratives that film dealt with began to drastically change. 

I think this is the same shift in paradigm.  Higher frame rates + 3D have a different feel that can be applied to a certain type of presentation for a given narrative.  It maybe something completely new we've never seen before.  Take for example if when 24fps and sound came out if all they did was update silent movies to the new frame rate and just read cards out it would have been totally pointless.  Like wise maybe the current style of film narrative isn't correct for this new type of presentation. 

I know this is off topic but Tupac is making the rounds as a hologram now.  We can only expect how that type of technology could completely later what a film is and how it can be experienced. 

[jlev23]

[quote author=piz link=topic=637.msg4755#msg4755 date=1335483529]
There's probably no one alive anymore but it would be interesting to know how early cinematographers during silent films era who shot at 16fps  felt when 24fps + sound became standard and if there was any resistance to it.    It's obvious that due to those technical advances the narratives that film dealt with began to drastically change. 

I think this is the same shift in paradigm.  Higher frame rates + 3D have a different feel that can be applied to a certain type of presentation for a given narrative.  It maybe something completely new we've never seen before.  Take for example if when 24fps and sound came out if all they did was update silent movies to the new frame rate and just read cards out it would have been totally pointless.  Like wise maybe the current style of film narrative isn't correct for this new type of presentation. 

I know this is off topic but Tupac is making the rounds as a hologram now.  We can only expect how that type of technology could completely later what a film is and how it can be experienced.
[/quote]
soon we will be going to elvis and beatles concerts...

[Axel]

[quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4750#msg4750 date=1335471334]
The step from 2d to 3d is already a step towards realism. [/quote]

I disagree. Test yourself, which 3D film looked realistic to you. The whole affair of having to wear glasses and expecting depth with crass effects only makes you aware that you watch an artificially, intentionally made up fantasy.

Good.

That's how cinema works.

3D adds no new means of expression to the language of film, but it helps to deepen the impression. Like surround sound that also doesn't add information, but intensifies the experience. The longer 3D is used, the rarer we'll see swords protruding into the room, because 3D is not about reality or believiabilty, it's about intensity. Right? Wrong? Comment.

Scientific research on how we perceive the outside world makes an exciting read. The movements of our eyes are tracked, you can follow how we scan objects. We never [i]see[/i] the whole picture, we reconstruct it out of up to 100 fragments, and our mind searches for significance. We never pan (though there are movements of the eyeballs called [i]drifts[/i], divided by very short back-and-forth movements called [i]saccades[/i]), we "cut" - way faster than anybody would do in a timeline. We use our stereoscopic abilities exclusively for evaluation of distances (play ping pong, subconsciously measure the angle of the foot on the accelerator before a traffic light that changes), and *only* in an [u]action[/u] we are involved in. Depth of field we judge by factors that we don't need two eyes for (we compare sizes, we see perspective, we see the absorption of light, causing the contrast to be lower in the distance).

Film does not mimic the way we [i]see[/i] things, it mimics the way we [i]experience[/i] things, also emotionally. Reality is not real. 3D is like the hum of a tuning fork rather than a suitable means to show physical reality.

[quote author=piz link=topic=637.msg4755#msg4755 date=1335483529]
There's probably no one alive anymore but it would be interesting to know how early cinematographers during silent films era who shot at 16fps  felt when 24fps + sound became standard and if there was any resistance to it.
[/quote]

Good idea to compare this. 24 fps - weren't they not needed for better sound (as 48 fps may be better for 3D)? There are a lot of examples of "uncinematic" (a term invented by video-film comparers) films in the beginning of sound movies. I'm sure you heard the term "talkies". But in Scorseses [i]History Of The American Cinema[/i] this is put into perspective. There [i]was[/i] a very short period (weeks, months! Cinema was faster in these days) of those boring talkies, but from the beginning there also was creative and innovative use of sound. Sound really added information to the films, it enriched the language. Neither 48p nor 3D can do something like that.

[Leang]

[quote author=bwhitz link=topic=637.msg4753#msg4753 date=1335479368]
[quote author=Leang link=topic=637.msg4733#msg4733 date=1335429414]
this is amateur talk.  how can you say any of this?  sounds like a 14 year old just joining film school and not understanding film theory or the chemical aesthetics of film...
[/quote]

And this is this is pretentious film-hipster talk.

I care about the motion characteristics of film and the aesthetics of the 35mm format. These are available digitally. Digital is also better for the speed of production and actors. Faster set-ups, more locations, actors can stay in character longer, ect. Nobody watching a movie gives two shits about the "chemical aesthetics of film". That is such an asinine point you have actually blown my mind with stupidity. Film theory has nothing to do with "film" in the literal sense of film stock. ...god that was such a stupid point.

You sound like a brainwashed film-industry-obsessed lemming who thinks they're hot shit cause they shot a crappy short film about relationships and coffee shops on academy 16mm once in film school. Get over yourself. The only people threatened by digital are those who do crappy work and relied on expensive film-stock as a way of separating their derivative student films from others. Film still looks good, but so does Red, DSLRs, Alexa, and bla bla bla. Everything shoots film-looking footage now. Get used to it. Shooting on film is not going to make something better anymore. That era is OVER.

There are filmmakers who want to tell stories and entertain an audience... and then there are film-makers who have self-esteem issues and just want to play with expensive gear to make themselves feel more important than others. You fall into the latter.

[quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=637.msg4740#msg4740 date=1335454589]

So you think that David Fincher is an amateur?

That being said, if we compare the same director (and same DP) using different camera's, I think you'd have to agree that Fight Club(Film) looked better than either The Social Network or Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (RED EPIC).
[/quote]

Yea, seriously... who calls somebody an amateur because they prefer the look of digital cinema over film? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

But yea, honestly, I like the look of Dragon Tattoo and Social Network over Fight Club. I love how clean the blacks are. It's a clean modern look, but with the motion characteristics of film.
[/quote]

you guys are weird.  you like to yield details to your biased information and regurgitate the basic benefits of digital.  I never said anything against David Fincher nor did I say anything against DIGITAL!  maybe you feel embarrassed for what you said?  hopefully.  follow all my posts I'm not against digital at all nor against anything you're trying to portray.  I am against anybody that disrespects the basic tools of filmmaking which is a camera and the film.  you just can't go around and dismiss the essense of ''film'' by saying there's ''nothing magical about it.''  did you ever help create the elements for finer grain and detail in Fuji or Kodak stock?  digital camera technology has been trying to improve latitude and curve info so that it can be just like film besides the agenda for more resolution and detail and the medium for capture.  if you're trying to say that the future is digital then yeah we all agree.  but you can't just say there's nothing ''magical about film.''  there are some rules of respect for any club you join regardless of opinion.  btw don't bore me with David Fincher stories..  if you want to talk about real filmmakers from the heart then talk about Alejandro González Iñárritu and his DP Rodrigo Prieto - raw real world storytellers! not some facebook or redone euro tattoo movies because hollywood wants to make a profit..  boring scripts but there's a sucker born every minute

[cybervand]

[quote author=piz link=topic=637.msg4755#msg4755 date=1335483529]
There's probably no one alive anymore but it would be interesting to know how early cinematographers during silent films era who shot at 16fps  felt when 24fps + sound became standard and if there was any resistance to it.    It's obvious that due to those technical advances the narratives that film dealt with began to drastically change. 

I think this is the same shift in paradigm.  Higher frame rates + 3D have a different feel that can be applied to a certain type of presentation for a given narrative.  It maybe something completely new we've never seen before.  Take for example if when 24fps and sound came out if all they did was update silent movies to the new frame rate and just read cards out it would have been totally pointless.  Like wise maybe the current style of film narrative isn't correct for this new type of presentation. 

I know this is off topic but Tupac is making the rounds as a hologram now.  We can only expect how that type of technology could completely later what a film is and how it can be experienced.
[/quote]

YESSSSS...thank you for coming up and speaking about why exactly we have 24fps in movies...back then non-sound era movies shot in 16fps to save on film, 24fps was introduced because 16fps was too fast for sound and broke up when then interpolated it 24fps that why we have 24fps...for me I honestly think that for some NON 3D movies 24fps is fine...when I went to the cinema to watch 'Thor' in 3D I walked out with a terrible headache as I could see the flicker...I also wear glasses and wearing glasses on glasses just feels stupid...it also hurts

[cpc]

[quote author=piz link=topic=637.msg4755#msg4755 date=1335483529]
There's probably no one alive anymore but it would be interesting to know how early cinematographers during silent films era who shot at 16fps  felt when 24fps + sound became standard and if there was any resistance to it.    It's obvious that due to those technical advances the narratives that film dealt with began to drastically change. 
[/quote]

It is a common misconception that silent movies are 16 fps. In fact, movies shot at 16 fps were the exception.
Frame rate was all over the place before standardization for talkies. 12-26fps were common.
Griffith actually shot different reels of the same movie at different cranking speeds. And then labled the correct projection speed for each when they were sent to cinemas.


[quote author=Axel link=topic=637.msg4763#msg4763 date=1335505021]

I disagree. Test yourself, which 3D film looked realistic to you. The whole affair of having to wear glasses and expecting depth with crass effects only makes you aware that you watch an artificially, intentionally made up fantasy.

Good.

That's how cinema works.

3D adds no new means of expression to the language of film, but it helps to deepen the impression. Like surround sound that also doesn't add information, but intensifies the experience. The longer 3D is used, the rarer we'll see swords protruding into the room, because 3D is not about reality or believiabilty, it's about intensity. Right? Wrong? Comment.

Scientific research on how we perceive the outside world makes an exciting read. The movements of our eyes are tracked, you can follow how we scan objects. We never [i]see[/i] the whole picture, we reconstruct it out of up to 100 fragments, and our mind searches for significance. We never pan (though there are movements of the eyeballs called [i]drifts[/i], divided by very short back-and-forth movements called [i]saccades[/i]), we "cut" - way faster than anybody would do in a timeline. We use our stereoscopic abilities exclusively for evaluation of distances (play ping pong, subconsciously measure the angle of the foot on the accelerator before a traffic light that changes), and *only* in an [u]action[/u] we are involved in. Depth of field we judge by factors that we don't need two eyes for (we compare sizes, we see perspective, we see the absorption of light, causing the contrast to be lower in the distance).

Film does not mimic the way we [i]see[/i] things, it mimics the way we [i]experience[/i] things, also emotionally. Reality is not real. 3D is like the hum of a tuning fork rather than a suitable means to show physical reality.
[/quote]

I think you are thinking about cinema in the reverse way.
24fps cinema [i]happens[/i] to be dream-lke or fantasy-like. It was never meant to. This was a happy coincidence. 24 fps is an abritrary frame rate. It was selected because it was the average projection speed in a bunch of sampled theaters in 1926. (And no, the fact that this gives a decent resolution for the audio track is also a coincidence and not the reason for the choice.)
It is a look we have come to appreciate. But this doesn't mean that every movie out there should be like this. Let the filmmaker decide. Cinema is not fantasy by definition. It happens to be perceptually . But it can also be reality, if the filmmaker so desires.

Now about 3D. For whether the step to 3D is a step to realism we will have to agree to disagree. For me, it is. And resoundly so. 3D in 24 fps is an abomination.
But you are right about how the eyes work. And because you are right, we NEED higher frame rates in 3D. Depth perception also needs distinctive edges to quickly evaluate distances. Blur and the lack of continuous movement hinder it. This loads the brain. 48 fps will no doubt help with this.