DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Penny Can
HTML https://pennycan.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Drive-In Theater
*****************************************************
#Post#: 8180--------------------------------------------------
48 fps Frames Per Second
By: Mac Date: April 25, 2012, 10:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So Peter Jackson is trying to set new industry standard by
shooting The Hobbit at 48 fps. At a recent short viewing of some
material, reviews were all over the place. The negative comments
I think I know what is being displayed. My latest television has
settings that allow a hyper real look. Like the article says, it
has that day time soap opera. It's even more than that. It
doesn't look right. I actually hate the look and would never sit
through that setting again... Given the choice.
[glow=red,2,300]The Hobbit's game-changing 3-D may be a little
too game-changing, apparently[/glow]
Although Peter Jackson's The Hobbit has thus far survived the
Seven Publicity Plagues and endured epic trials of casting to
achieve the not-insignificant triumph of becoming an actual
movie, there is already a new Hobbit controversy brewing, after
Warner Bros. previewed 10 minutes of footage yesterday at
CinemaCon. The presentation offered attendees not only the first
significant look at the film, but also their first experience
with the 48 frames-per-second rate Jackson shot it in—and which
he and other 3-D proselytizers like James Cameron (who plans to
use it on both Avatar sequels) have argued should be adopted as
the new industry standard.
Unfortunately for their cause, reaction to the latter was
decidedly mixed, ranging from breathless reports in which
critics called it "mind-blowing" and actually used the words
"creaming in my pants" to numerous complaints that—while the
aerial landscape shots of which Jackson is so fond were truly
awesome—the overall effect on character-based scenes was a
little too realistic. According to those skeptics, the new,
perfectly blur-free frame rate robs the film of any "cinematic"
quality, rendering it something akin to the too-brightly-lit,
obvious artificiality one sees in soap operas or pornography
(which, ironically, had no one creaming in their pants).
Variety's Josh Dickey offered perhaps the most diplomatic
assessment, saying that while 48 fps "does bring 3-D to a
different level," the immediacy is "jarring" and "unfortunately
looks a bit like television." The L.A. Times' Amy Kaufman
concurred by proxy, interviewing an anonymous projectionist who
said it was "too accurate—too clear" and "looked like a
made-for-TV movie." And Deadline conducted its own survey of the
audience, quoting exhibitors who called it "kinda cold" and
deemed it "a little like the look of a soap opera," suggesting
that it would be "quite startling" to those who are used to the
slight grain of film. But perhaps no one offered a clearer
picture of how much he detested the clearer picture than Badass
Digest's Devin Faraci:
Here's what The Hobbit looked like to me: a hi-def version of
the 1970s I, Claudius. It is drenched in a TV-like —
specifically 70s era BBC — video look. People on Twitter have
asked if it has that soap opera look you get from badly
calibrated TVs at Best Buy, and the answer is an emphatic YES.
The 48fps footage I saw looked terrible. It looked completely
non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets. I've been on sets of
movies on the scale of The Hobbit, and sets don't even look like
sets when you're on them live ... but these looked like sets.
The other comparison I kept coming to, as I was watching the
footage, was that it all looked like behind the scenes video.
The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely.
Of course, that stripping away of the veil between cinema and
reality seems to be exactly what Jackson is going for, based on
a taped introduction to the screening in which he said pretty
much that. But unfortunately for Jackson, while most of these
negative reports have been preceded by caveats that this may all
be more finely tuned in post-production, the general reaction
from attendees—the majority of whom were theater owners—is that
they're not sure their audiences are really in the market for
this sort of reality, particularly at the movies, and
particularly at a movie about fantastical creatures. So this
debate seems likely to rage on for a little while, at least
until James Cameron finally convinces everyone to adopt his
planned upgrade for the human eyeball.
#Post#: 8182--------------------------------------------------
Re: 48 fps Frames Per Second
By: Chiprocks1 Date: April 25, 2012, 10:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Interesting, but I need to check these clips out myself before I
make a decision one way or another.
#Post#: 11374--------------------------------------------------
Re: 48 fps Frames Per Second
By: Mac Date: August 12, 2012, 8:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[glow=red,2,300]You Probably Won’t Have A Chance To See THE
HOBBIT In 48FPS [/glow]
Warner Bros is only releasing the 48fps version in a very
limited number of theaters.
[quote] A couple of months ago Warner Bros was pretty high on
The Hobbit's 48fps look. They proudly trotted out ten minutes of
footage at CinemaCon, the annual gathering of theater owners -
the very folks who would have to pony up the money to upgrade
their systems for the new frame rate. But the response was bad.
I hated it. And then at Comic-Con WB only showed the footage in
standard, 24FPS - and 2D, at that.
Now Variety is reporting that the studio is scaling back their
plans for the 48fps release of the movie. Sources tell the
trade: 'the [high frame rate] version will go out to only
select locations, perhaps not even into all major cities.'
So probably just LA and New York? The article spins the
decision, saying that the studio wants to 'protect' the format
and roll it out slowly... assuming audiences in those cities
like what they see. What's interesting is that WB will have to
pony up money to downgrade the footage to 24fps for the majority
of its release. An extra, pointless expense (I've also heard
rumors that the films are being further worked on in post so
that the home video release maintains the same look as the
original trilogy, so another cost).
I think it's sort of weird that most people will never even have
a chance to see the film in its intended framerate. And that the
decision on whether to release the 48fps versions of the next
two films will be made based on the reactions of very limited
groups. On top of that Variety doesn't mention what, if any,
extra cost there will be for 48fps. If it's high having this
version be super limited could be a way of convincing folks it's
worth ponying up extra cash.
What a bummer that this is what we're talking about. I think
that content-wise The Hobbit looks great. I wish that was all
that mattered these days.[/quote]
#Post#: 11387--------------------------------------------------
Re: 48 fps Frames Per Second
By: Chiprocks1 Date: August 13, 2012, 10:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am curious to see what the footage looks like just so that I
can have a frame of reference of what all the commotion is
about, but it's not a deal breaker that I don't have access to
it that it would keep me from seeing The Hobbit.
*****************************************************