The Hobbit
#1501
DVD Talk Hero
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?
#1502
DVD Talk Hero
Re: The Hobbit
I never said it will make talented people better. I'm talking about just getting a movie made. Period.
#1503
Re: The Hobbit
#1504
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
From: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Re: The Hobbit
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.
#1506
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Hobbit
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
#1507
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 5,960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: A far green country
Re: The Hobbit
If I have the option to see the film in 48fps, I will definitely do that first, and then decide whether I "need" to see it in 24fps for my second viewing, or if 48fps will be the preferable frame rate for me.
#1508
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: The Hobbit
....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.
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.
#1510
Banned by request
Re: The Hobbit
Mod Note: Listen, Strevlac, we don't allow personal attacks here. You care about what you think is important in film, but not everyone has the same opinion as you, and that's okay. If you can't discuss it without being rude, then you will be suspended or banned.
#1511
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
#1512
Banned by request
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.
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.
#1513
DVD Talk Hero
Re: The Hobbit
Per wiki regarding Soaring Over California:
As noted above, I will agree with the others that it does not look like video.
The scenes were shot with an IMAX HD frame rate - 48 frames per second, twice the conventional output for regular films.
#1514
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: The Hobbit
#1517
DVD Talk Hero
Re: The Hobbit
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.
Last edited by Draven; 04-30-12 at 09:28 AM.
#1519
DVD Talk Hero
Re: The Hobbit
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.
#1520
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
I can't wait for higher frame-rate movies, and hope it becomes a standard soon (don't care about 3D, though).
#1522
DVD Talk Hero
#1523
DVD Talk Legend
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).
#1524
DVD Talk Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,024
Received 1,052 Likes
on
489 Posts
From: Detroit, formerly known as Obi-Wanma
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).
#1525
DVD Talk Legend
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?




