The Hobbit loses Guillermo Del Toro

remember when coca-cola had cocaine in it?

Remember when music wasn't brickwalled?

  On 4/27/2012 at 6:57 PM, azatoth said:

  On 4/27/2012 at 6:06 PM, gaarg said:

Less frames per second makes visuals more humanly than too many. It's been proven by so many movies it's a fail to even discuss this. Any move that will have smoother moving about will have to be defined as a slightly different medium.

 

What?

I'm saying the difference is so big, the film with such motion will no longer be a film as we know it but something else.

  On 4/27/2012 at 9:35 PM, Gocab said:

Remember when music wasn't brickwalled?

Lots of music is not brickwalled still? Some music benefits from the production style?

How many people here are jumping all over this before they've even given it a chance?

Yeah, video. Similar to pal broadcast material.

  On 4/27/2012 at 9:37 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 4/27/2012 at 9:35 PM, Gocab said:

Remember when music wasn't brickwalled?

Lots of music is not brickwalled still? Some music benefits from the production style?

How many people here are jumping all over this before they've even given it a chance?

Most of us!

  On 4/27/2012 at 9:39 PM, Gocab said:

Yeah, video. Similar to pal broadcast material.

This is complete bullshit.

  On 4/27/2012 at 9:44 PM, Gocab said:

  On 4/27/2012 at 9:39 PM, Gocab said:

Yeah, video. Similar to pal broadcast material.

This is complete bullshit.

lolwut?

Remember when novels had omniscient narrators?

  On 4/27/2012 at 8:11 PM, eugene said:

@jefferoo

i didn't get that last part, are you saying that the computer and computer monitor can't actually show 48 fps ?

yeah, can you even view 48 fps on anything other than a special projector/playback device thingamajig?

  On 4/27/2012 at 9:51 PM, encey said:

Remember when novels had omniscient narrators?

yeah, that was awesome!

i have a feeling, i don't know if i'm right at all , but i feel like 48 fps will 'fix' the problem of flickering 3d glasses effects on normal 24 fps movies. Since it has such smoother movements i don't know if one would experience the same defocusing/choppy effect sometimes seen during fast movement in 3d movies.

  On 4/27/2012 at 10:21 PM, Awepittance said:

i have a feeling, i don't know if i'm right at all , but i feel like 48 fps will 'fix' the problem of flickering 3d glasses effects on normal 24 fps movies. Since it has such smoother movements i don't know if one would experience the same defocusing/choppy effect sometimes seen during fast movement in 3d movies.

I think that's the main reason why Jackson opted to do it in 48fps.

  On 4/27/2012 at 10:21 PM, Awepittance said:

i have a feeling, i don't know if i'm right at all , but i feel like 48 fps will 'fix' the problem of flickering 3d glasses effects on normal 24 fps movies. Since it has such smoother movements i don't know if one would experience the same defocusing/choppy effect sometimes seen during fast movement in 3d movies.

this is case... and is why Cameron is shooting Avatar2/3 at 60fps.

Remember when IDM had snare rushes?

this reminds me of that time when thy detontated the first nuclear bomb etc etc

Oh come on guys, it's not magic. It's just Peter Jackson doing his end of deal with some (all?) of the tv set manufacturers. Yeah, you can't view 48p video correctly on any commercially available tv set today. The first thing to check is the refresh rate and it would have to be a multiplier of 48 (48, 96, 192, 384...) and the same goes for computer displays. Any other rate and you'll have some pull-down pattern going on that will mess up the cadence. And here comes the next hdmi version, bluray players, ...

Want to eliminate motion blur? Just shoot with a shorter shutter than the standard 180deg. It's been done, a lot. In 24p.

And how will it look in 48p? Probably less awkward than MCFI (motion-compensated frame interpolation, that how that crap is really called) enhanced video, but still nothing like film. And that's a shame, because I like film.

I

'm not saying it won't sell (the argument about how people like Cameron and Jackson SURELY know a thing or two about "the trade"), but that's a different rant.

I am very disappoint.

Oh and people that have seen it and say it looks like tv/video - that's because it IS a lot like tv/video. Tv footage is captured and played back ~60 (50 here) times per second. It's also interlaced but that's not as obvious to our eyes as the higher framerate is.

  On 4/28/2012 at 12:07 AM, encey said:

Remember when IDM had snare rushes?

Peter Jackson on Hobbit Criticisms

Director says audiences will (need to) get used to 48fps.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223967p1.html

I like his attitude at least. Not trying to be all cute and pleasing. It actually makes me want this 48 experience a bit more.

  Quote

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey opens this December 14, including 3D, 2D and IMAX 3D and in both 24fps and 48fps.

So there will be 6 options when watching this movie! I wonder how much they will want to sting us for an IMAX-3D-48fps ticket? Ouch

£20?

everyone take a deep breath

yeah at least he's not back peddling, maybe some professional 3d animators here can speak to this. Am i correct in thinking that Weta will at the very least need to let their creations render for twice as long, given that there are twice as many frames?

Sometimes when i skip frame by frame in HD quicktime trailers, i can see sometimes how 'half-assed' the frame by frame animation is of some of the explosions and particle animation. Its almost like a cartoonist, using the limitation of 24 fps to create visual illusions for the person watching it by creating movement so fast you cant really tell whats going on.

I'm looking forward to seeing how 'clear' and fluid the 3d animations and creations WETA comes up with for the hobbit. Seems like 48fps will make it much more difficult for a 3d artist to 'cut corners' when doing complex action shots and stuff.