The Hobbit loses Guillermo Del Toro

  Quote

lol at the cat in the bottom-right corner.

  On 4/26/2012 at 4:05 PM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

  On 4/26/2012 at 3:41 PM, zaphod said:

48fps isn't trumotion or 120 hz or whatever though. the only reason that looks weird is because they're filling in frames with fake visual info, lending the whole thing an unreal quality.

 

i'm anxious to see how this will look and i don't really understand how people can be so immediately dismissive of it.

 

What all the reviewers seem to be describing is that it looks exactly liek faek arse Truemotion/Natural Motion "or whatever". I can understand how it's totally possible that movies simply don't look like films if they are higher than 30FPS.

but they watched a sizzle reel with cut up scenes that their eyes couldn't get used to. maybe initially that's the reaction, but my point is, it is not anything like trumotion. it might look "weird" but i'm sure 24fps film looked weird when films moved out of the silent era and out of 16 fps. film has a specific quality, sure, but it isn't anymore real than anything else. i'm all for embracing a higher frame rate and if it takes some getting used to, so be it. i'm not totally sure what it will mean for live action films though, as from what i've heard, the live sets and actors are so clear looking that they tend to look fake. meaning that the effects technology isn't there yet for this frame rate. but that's not the same as this simply looking like trumotion.

I also tend to think that we are just so accustomed to 24fps in cinema that anything more will just feel jarring and it's just a matter of getting used to the increased framerate and in 100 years of 48fps the humans of the future will probably look at the 24fps movies and complain that it's too choppy.

  On 4/26/2012 at 7:14 PM, BCM said:

basically will make everything look like a TV movie

Technically, most tv movies are shot at either 24fps or (if they are low budget) 30fps.

  On 4/26/2012 at 6:02 PM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

It doesn't work dude, it doesn't feel real, it really does seem cheap, fake, watching live theater from the spectacles of Bruce Vilanch, plastic shit tits, at least in my opninion, from my perspective. Do you like the way that the Craptual Motion 120/240hz setting looks on HDTVs transposing films? I can honestly and truly completely say, I fucking do not dig it in any way shape or form. I'm making a pretty big assumption but, I'm confident The Hobbit any other film done with super high rez digi cams in more than 30FPS will look similar.

 

This is coming from an idiot who was excited about hearing that The Hobbit was shooting in like 6 times the resolution of 1080p and in 48FPS? All the time I was frowning and mocking at how films looked with Craptual Motion on my brothers and others HDTVs.

You have never seen a high production film at 48 fps. Only shitty TV shows.

Did you know David Finchers last three films were all shot digitally? Its about the talent not the technology. But I guess everyone knows best... I mean what could James Cameron and Jackson possibly know about films?

  On 4/26/2012 at 4:05 PM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

  On 4/26/2012 at 3:41 PM, zaphod said:

48fps isn't trumotion or 120 hz or whatever though. the only reason that looks weird is because they're filling in frames with fake visual info, lending the whole thing an unreal quality.

 

i'm anxious to see how this will look and i don't really understand how people can be so immediately dismissive of it.

 

What all the reviewers seem to be describing is that it looks exactly liek faek arse Truemotion/Natural Motion "or whatever". I can understand how it's totally possible that movies simply don't look like films if they are higher than 30FPS.

The reviews are mixed yo... stop lying... or get better reading comprehension.

  Quote

Again, there is an element that 48fps and TruMotion share (which is where the comparison comes from), but 48 fps does not simply “look like Korean soap operas” or TruMotion-enhanced TV images. That’s a reductive, sensationalist, utterly bullshit equivocation.

so the only advantage to shooting in 48ffps is to make the 3d look better? the fuck he is thinking?

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:11 AM, kaen said:

so the only advantage to shooting in 48ffps is to make the 3d look better? the fuck he is thinking?

It amazes me that a forum based on experimental music is so against films experimenting.

3d is a fad, a novelty - this is not about curtailing general experimentation mate

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:14 AM, syd syside said:

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:11 AM, kaen said:

so the only advantage to shooting in 48ffps is to make the 3d look better? the fuck he is thinking?

 

It amazes me that a forum based on experimental music is so against films experimenting.

yeah and it's not as though shooting in a different frame rate hasn't been explored before?

i don't really know why people are up in arms. it's going to be shown in 24 fps as well. i'm dying to see what this looks like.

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:17 AM, kaen said:

3d is a fad, a novelty - this is not about curtailing general experimentation mate

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:20 AM, dr lopez said:

yeah and it's not as though shooting in a different frame rate hasn't been explored before?

Have you ever seen a 200 million dollar film production natively shot at 48fps in 3D on the big screen?

Of course a 3D film isn't experimental, but it offers new ways for films to experiment. Y'all sound like a bunch of folk fanatics to me tbh. Won't even give this a shot. Already dismissing it before you see.

"Music is meant to be played by instruments not computers! GET OFF MY LAWN"

:)

I'm pretty biased on the subject because I have an eXxXtreme hatred for the way that 120/240hz fake added framerates looks on movies and now that I've about it, sometimes the added fake frames give things a slightly ackward movement for a millisecond everyonce and a while but I think litterally my distaste is the way that high framerates specifically make films look. I don't hate the added frame rate smoothness on move telivision, just movies. So I really can't possibly expect this to be a dramatically different situation. At this point, I would be shocked if I liked the way that doubling the framerate looked for a movie.

I think one part of the appeal of 24fps and also real film is the way it blends and blurs things together so magically, it doesn't look real, it looks cinematic.

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:24 AM, syd syside said:

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:17 AM, kaen said:

3d is a fad, a novelty - this is not about curtailing general experimentation mate

 

 

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:20 AM, dr lopez said:

yeah and it's not as though shooting in a different frame rate hasn't been explored before?

 

Have you ever seen a 200 million dollar film production natively shot at 48fps in 3D on the big screen?

 

Of course a 3D film isn't experimental, but it offers new ways for films to experiment. Y'all sound like a bunch of folk fanatics to me tbh. Won't even give this a shot. Already dismissing it before you see.

 

"Music is meant to be played by instruments not computers! GET OFF MY LAWN"

 

:)

IM JADED DEAL WITH IT

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:32 AM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

it doesn't look real, it looks cinematic.

lol, it only looks cinematic because you're used to it.

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:47 AM, zaphod said:

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:32 AM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

it doesn't look real, it looks cinematic.

 

lol, it only looks cinematic because you're used to it.

Exactly... its not like back when 24fps was established they had the option to shoot 48fps but didn't cause they felt it looked less "cinematic."

can't wait to see this in 48fps, it's going to be beautiful. My eyes told me.

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:50 AM, syd syside said:

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:47 AM, zaphod said:

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:32 AM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

it doesn't look real, it looks cinematic.

 

lol, it only looks cinematic because you're used to it.

 

Exactly... its not like back when 24fps was established they had the option to shoot 48fps but didn't cause they felt it looked less "cinematic."

I'm not some tool douche nossel that doesn't like to think outside the box, my brain was for some reason programmed to calculate and thinking of different perspectives for every opinion presented including my own. That being said, I'm ridiculously confident that my opinion on high framerates in films is one of few things I don't think will change (unless there is a bigger evolution in the presentation of movies than 3D glasses, like a 180 degree virtual reality bubble or something)

I'm getting drunk, why am I not working on music!?! PEACE WATMM PEACE

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:32 AM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

I'm pretty biased on the subject because I have an eXxXtreme hatred for the way that 120/240hz fake added framerates looks on movies and now that I've about it, sometimes the added fake frames give things a slightly ackward movement for a millisecond everyonce and a while but I think litterally my distaste is the way that high framerates specifically make films look. I don't hate the added frame rate smoothness on move telivision, just movies. So I really can't possibly expect this to be a dramatically different situation. At this point, I would be shocked if I liked the way that doubling the framerate looked for a movie.

 

I think one part of the appeal of 24fps and also real film is the way it blends and blurs things together so magically, it doesn't look real, it looks cinematic.

The reason TV 120hz + looks so bad is that it's a post-process effect that does not take into account depth of field - it's interpolating the frames in screen space.

You cannot use the 120hz smoothing mode to make any judgements about higher framerates.

  On 4/27/2012 at 2:04 AM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:50 AM, syd syside said:

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:47 AM, zaphod said:

  On 4/27/2012 at 1:32 AM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

it doesn't look real, it looks cinematic.

 

lol, it only looks cinematic because you're used to it.

 

Exactly... its not like back when 24fps was established they had the option to shoot 48fps but didn't cause they felt it looked less "cinematic."

I'm not some tool douche nossel that doesn't like to think outside the box, my brain was for some reason programmed to calculate and thinking of different perspectives for every opinion presented including my own. That being said, I'm ridiculously confident that my opinion on high framerates in films is one of few things I don't think will change (unless there is a bigger evolution in the presentation of movies than 3D glasses, like a 180 degree virtual reality bubble or something)

 

I'm getting drunk, why am I not working on music!?! PEACE WATMM PEACE

Dude...

The Kinetoscope was designed to run at 48fps, but they wanted to save on film costs so they went to 16fps, but then audio didn't work well so they increased it to 24fps.

24fps was designed for low cost reasons. Even 100 years ago the engineers knew higher frame rate is better. Even Thomas Edison... are you more ridiculously confident than Thomas Edison?

  Quote

What I am pointing out is that there is nothing new about film speeds above 24 fps, and that the silent era was not simply about a gradual climb in speed from the 1890s to the 1920s. Right at the start of motion pictures Thomas Edison was setting 46 fps as the ideal, fearing that at anything less there would be troublesome flicker. His aim was pure motion, much as Peter Jackson now dreams of, and at much the same speed.

 

However, although Edison and his chief motion picture engineer William Kennedy-Laurie Dickson often spoke of achieving 40 to 46 fps in the early 1890s, they seldom if ever achieved it.

Remind me how Thomas Edison has anything to do with my seasoned perspective on aesthetics?

I'm a gamer, I'm a frame rate snob furrealz but, honestly I don't think more 30fps is going to look artistically cinematic in film for many years until something evolves quite a bit more. I might regret that statement later, but I doubt I will. If I do I will tell the entire WATMM community, I will notify my next of kin, that I Jacob Anderson was oh so very wrong. It's just my current opinion and I'm not really trying to convince anyone to drink my kool aid or nuthin, don't worry bout me.

Your seasoned perspective is familiarity and it is not an objective perspective because you have little experience with big budget films shot at 48fps natively. On the other hand we have successful filmmakers taking a highly loved trilogy and risking their marbles on new technology that allows them to finally shoot 5k at 48fps, in 3D. This is completely new. To be ridiculously confident I would hope you would allow your eyes and brain to at least give this new experience a chance...

I will absolutely give it a chance and I hope that l really love it. When it comes to entertainment, I'm most definitely an opportunist, the last thing I want to do is let any predetermined assumptions or third party opinions stop me from enjoying an experience to the fullest (espeically one I paid to see)

I'm not a stubborn simpleton, I just play one on your TV.

I just read about the Hobbit movie(s). Haven't really bothered with them earlier. Anyway, I think I've read the book about four times and the book takes about 3-4 hours to read. Why the fuck are they padding it up to make it to 2 film epic movie series? It would perfectly well work as a single average length movie. It also has pretty good story arc that would fit into a movie nicely, better than LOTR anyway that goes on forever with all kinds of unnecessary epic bullshit, politics, etc, but now they have to make the Hobbit also a snoozefest when they just could have taken the story as it is and converted it directly into a movie script? What's next? Farmer Giles of Ham as a 6 part epic movie series with Legolas and Frodo popping in?

If they wanted to do something epic out of Tolkien's work they could have gone with something out of Silmarillion or the Children of Hurin.

</fanboy rant>

  On 4/27/2012 at 9:14 AM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

I will absolutely give it a chance and I hope that l really love it. When it comes to entertainment, I'm most definitely an opportunist, the last thing I want to do is let any predetermined assumptions or third party opinions stop me from enjoying an experience to the fullest (espeically one I paid to see)

 

I'm not a stubborn simpleton, I just play one on your TV.