|
Re: The Hobbit
I wonder how many people that will have both 24fpm and 48fpm available locally will see both just to see the difference. And which one would you want to see first?
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Strevlac
(Post 11210846)
When it comes to movies, I disagree. Easier, cheaper and more convenient doesn't make talented people better, it makes them lazier. And it removes the barrier of entry to a hell of a lot more untalented people.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by TomOpus
(Post 11210848)
I wonder how many people that will have both 24fpm and 48fpm available locally will see both just to see the difference. And which one would you want to see first?
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Strevlac
(Post 11210797)
It seems clear to me that cinema (or cinema as I define it) is dying. No film. No film projection. Smaller scale productions created entirely with digital equipment, where the production value comes from a computer that does all of the heavy lifting. Anything a person has to do is randomly thrown together as quickly as possible with little regard to craft (storyboarding, blocking, camerawork, editing). "We'll fix it in post." Where there is no difference between TV and "the movies." Visible digital pixels and 48fps in a movie theater and people don't care...as long as The Hulk shows up to smash some shit in the latest comic book turd (with RoboDad and his RoboBrats cheering obnoxiously).
I'm not sure if you've ever worked on a film. Film or digital....will always need people there. Film has been edited on a computer for years. Kahn is one of the few who still does it for Spielberg. I'm not sure who else...maybe Schoonmaker still does...though being a teacher in film I don't think she'd benefit too much in still teaching a moviola to the young kids trying to get in it now..though it would still be badass to do so. Also...going digital doesn't mean it can all be fixed in post. Fuck that. Post is a bitch to "try" to fix something you disregarded in the actual filming process. You leave it to post all the time..you're not going to get anywhere creatively. It's just going to let you try to clean up or whatever your use of it is for to make it "better" storyboarding, blocking, camerawork, editing, etc will always exist unless something isn't needed cuz of the digital medium. Again...I'm not sure you know how it works exactly. Talent will surpass whatever medium they use. |
Re: The Hobbit
I imagine a "digital" movieola in the future, with touch screen tablets set up on a table such that it can emulate the console. Now that would be badass.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by RocShemp
(Post 11210721)
24 fps was just an economical decision of "how low/cheap can we go before movemement looks absolutely horrible" since more fps means longer reels. These days it might be viewed aesthetically [pleasing] by some but that was never the intent.
http://web.archive.org/web/201107081...lf/18_kb_2.htm Controversy over speed dogged silent films from the start. Thomas Edison recommended a speed of 46 frames per second- 'anything less will strain the eye.' As historian Gordon Hendricks wrote in his book "The Edison Motion Picture Myth": 'There would seem to be no good reason for it. This rate was far above any rate necessary for gaining the persistence of vision.' H.A.V. Bulleid points out, however, that Edison's decision was a sensible one: 'To obviate flicker from white light projected on a bright surface requires about 48 obscurations per second.' Nevertheless, Edison films did not follow this recommendation for long. Apart from anything else, it used too much film. It also reduced the exposure, and film stock was not fast. But Edison films were photographed much faster than the films of most other companies- although Hendricks found them varying as much as 15 fps in a single day. An Edison film of 1900 will generally project satisfactorily at 24 fps. Edison's rival, the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, used a camera which weighed 1700 lbs. This camera had a motor, and it turned at a speed of 40 fps. Billy Bitzer operated one. (Curiously, his later films were characterised by a remarkably slow camera speed.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#Background |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by TomOpus
(Post 11210848)
I wonder how many people that will have both 24fpm and 48fpm available locally will see both just to see the difference. And which one would you want to see first?
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Solid Snake PAC
(Post 11210856)
....have you seen The Avengers yet?
I'm not sure if you've ever worked on a film. Film or digital....will always need people there. Film has been edited on a computer for years. Kahn is one of the few who still does it for Spielberg. I'm not sure who else...maybe Schoonmaker still does...though being a teacher in film I don't think she'd benefit too much in still teaching a moviola to the young kids trying to get in it now..though it would still be badass to do so. Also...going digital doesn't mean it can all be fixed in post. Fuck that. Post is a bitch to "try" to fix something you disregarded in the actual filming process. You leave it to post all the time..you're not going to get anywhere creatively. It's just going to let you try to clean up or whatever your use of it is for to make it "better" storyboarding, blocking, camerawork, editing, etc will always exist unless something isn't needed cuz of the digital medium. Again...I'm not sure you know how it works exactly. Talent will surpass whatever medium they use. The point is, very few care about these cinematic fundamentals anymore. And I mean both the people making movies and the people watching movies. These things require time, consideration, and cinematic storytelling ability. Things that pro-quick and easy folks hate because they want to get to their digital toys as quickly as possible. |
Re: The Hobbit
I'd say...a lot of people still care about the cinematic fundamentals. I'm not sure what motivates you to think otherwise but you're wrong.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Strevlac
(Post 11210774)
Listen RoboDork, emotional response is the entire point. That's what movies are all about. If people respond emotionally to this change in a negative way, then they are right. This isn't science class.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Don't know if anyone else has brought this up yet, but has anyone actually seen a film-based projection with a higher framerate (48 fps or 60 fps)? I remember Showscan back in the day, which I think was 60 fps, and I believe Soarin' Over California at DCA uses 48 fps IMAX. I've seen both of those, and neither of them gave off that "Korean soap opera" feeling, which leads me to believe it's less a problem with the framerate specifically, and has more to do with using digital instead of film (or that the possible problems with a higher framerate are compounded by the digital aspect).
|
Re: The Hobbit
48fps IMAX has existed for a while, and I've never heard anyone say it looks like a soap opera (Soaring Over California certainly doesn't). But yes, this might be a digital versus film thing. Perhaps digital looks too clean, and when paired with the higher framerate, just looks too off from what some people consider "natural" for cinema.
I do think it's a bad idea to look at 120/240 hz TV's and say that this is what The Hobbit must look like. Those TV's are using 24fps sources and extrapolating. If the source is 48fps it should look a lot better. Now I might go out of my way to see The Hobbit in 48fps just to have an opinion on the matter. |
Re: The Hobbit
Per wiki regarding Soaring Over California:
The scenes were shot with an IMAX HD frame rate - 48 frames per second, twice the conventional output for regular films. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by The Bus
(Post 11210613)
I don't have an opinion either way (since I haven't seen it), but saying it looks like a "Korean soap opera" is one of the funniest put-downs I can think of. :lol:
|
Re: The Hobbit
could someone show me wtf a Korean Soap Opera looks like? I know that Spanish Soaps and the US Soaps look like..but know nothing on Korea's.
|
Re: The Hobbit
It's exactly like a telenovela - but with hot Korean women.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Strevlac
(Post 11210846)
When it comes to movies, I disagree. Easier, cheaper and more convenient doesn't make talented people better, it makes them lazier. And it removes the barrier of entry to a hell of a lot more untalented people.
Every innovation that has ever happened in cinema (including what you claim to enjoy) was made to make things more convenient, cheaper, faster, etc. You just latched onto a particular period of time in the industry and seem to expect it to freeze there. That's not how technology works (which is a huge part of filmmaking.) I once worked with a graphic designer who hated filters in Photoshop. He literally believed you should blur each pixel individually. Of course, he was using PHOTOSHOP and not doing it with a horsehair brush with ink he made himself onto papyrus he pressed that morning. He picked one point in the industry and expected things to never advance further. He also didn't have the talent to justify his viewpoint. I'm sorry you can't see the creativity and potential that lower costs, accessible equipment and affordable post-production has brought to the industry. It's absolutely your loss. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by trespoochies
(Post 11211350)
It's exactly like a telenovela - but with hot Korean women.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Strevlac
(Post 11210846)
When it comes to movies, I disagree. Easier, cheaper and more convenient doesn't make talented people better, it makes them lazier. And it removes the barrier of entry to a hell of a lot more untalented people.
You sound like one of those people who thinks that all improvements made before you turned eighteen are good and natural, but everything after that is opposed to True Art. |
Re: The Hobbit
I'm someone who really enjoys black & white movies, and think in some way they're better than colour, but I understand why most films today are colour, and while there's a few b&w moderns that are great (Ed Wood, The Man Who Wasn't There), it would be pretentious if all movies today were made that way.
I can't wait for higher frame-rate movies, and hope it becomes a standard soon (don't care about 3D, though). |
Re: The Hobbit
At least black & white AND color movies both look like.....movies.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Solid Snake PAC
(Post 11211412)
oh ok...so still better than the shitty US Soaps correct? That's the one thing I love about Mexican telenovelas. one season..but goddamn is that season packed w/ crazy ass drama and wonderful tits abound.
Si, se puede! |
Re: The Hobbit
I will check it out in 48fps to judge for myself but I am not encouraged by what I've read. But since PJ gave me probably the best movie experience of my life since the original Star Wars trilogy, I'm willing to give it a shot. I will likely see it at midnight so whatever option is available is what I'll go with for the first viewing. I won't be doing any 3-D though (see sig).
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by bunkaroo
(Post 11212414)
I will check it out in 48fps to judge for myself but I am not encouraged by what I've read. But since PJ gave me probably the best movie experience of my life since the original Star Wars trilogy, I'm willing to give it a shot. I will likely see it at midnight so whatever option is available is what I'll go with for the first viewing. I won't be doing any 3-D though (see sig).
|
Re: The Hobbit
This is going to be an interesting movie to see the reviews from...if the story and acting are on par with the LOTR trilogy, but the movie provides an awful visual experience, will fanboys (and girls) love it or loath it?
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:06 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.