Are there no IMAX HD 15/70 installs getting 48fps dual 3D prints? There are Imax auditoriums that exist that are capable. Are all the IMAX HFR 3D venues digital and all the 15/70 prints just 24fps?
 |
"It does take you a while to get used to," he said. "Ten minutes is sort of marginal, it probably needed a little bit more. Another thing that I think is a factor is it's different to look at a bunch of clips and some were fast-cutting, montage-style clips. This is different experience than watching a character and story unfold."
Because of that, he isn't planning to release a 48 fps trailer for the movie. "I personally wouldn't advocate a 48-frame trailer because the 48 frames is something you should experience with the entire film. A 2 1/2 minute trailer isn't enough time to adjust to the immersive quality."
Jackson himself has grown accustomed to watching 48fps imagery. He watches dailies in 48 frames every day, sometimes two hours worth.
"You get used to it reasonably quickly," he said, commenting that now when he views traditional 24 frames footage, "I'm very aware of the strobing, the flicker and the artifacts." "We have obviously seen cuts of our movie at 48 and in a relatively short amount of time you have forgotten (the frame rate change). It is a more immersive and in 3D a gentler way to see the film."
I'm kind of inclined to trust Jackson on this sort of thing, but holy shit do I get mad when people say "Everyone else is wrong and I'm right." I know this isn't exactly the same thing, but it's close enough that my nerd-rage is tingling. Hey, Pete -- if it still takes people 15 minutes of your 150 minutes film just to find it acceptable, it still might not be worth it, okay?
More links from around the web!
72 comments
I don't see how a higher frame rate could possibly look worse than a lower frame rate. Those 1 fps videos they used to have on cellphones were shit. 9 fps animation is watchable, but kinda jerky. 24 fps looks much better than that. And 60 fps is about the max for human perception, which obviously looks at least a little better than standard video. The idea that 48 might look inferior to 24 just... doesn't make sense to my brain.
I can't help but think that the people complaining about the 48 fps look are just too accustomed to looking at 24 and don't like it because they aren't used to it. Maybe I'm wrong; I haven't seen a whole lot of video at >24 speeds. But I for one am trusting PJ on this. Guess I'll find out when the movie comes out.
Quick question to anyone who thinks that Jackson is making a mistake: Did the trailer look bad? No, it didn't. And the film will look ever better than the trailer.
Not wanting to release a 48fps trailer doesn't make him look like he's absolutely sure that 48fps is a good change.
It might have to do with the 3D as much as anything. 48 fps in 3D may end up looking like an improvement over the usual 3D fare...
But you can't really do a 3D trailer.
Even if this looked like it was on older film it will still probably be good. To many other things to worry about than than "looks like it was shot in the 70's". Some of my favorite films were shot in the 70's. And many of those aren't even porn!
Short version: shitty argument for a (possibly) great movie. Let's keep that nerd rage in check until the final product rolls out, m'kaaaaaaay?
(reluctantly)Yes, sir...(stalks off dejectedly, mumbling under his breath)dumb logical posters and their obviously valid points that i cannot deny makes sense...
Anyone else think the white shorts and squatting/sitting in the little chair make it looks like Jackson is on the can?
Possibly, though I realize that he could probably insert himself into any given scene in the Shire and fit right in, what with the chubbiness, wild curly hair, beard, and having a natural "posing with my lazy leaf pipe" look.
-Hey, Pete -- if it still takes people 15 minutes of your 150 minutes film just to find it acceptable, it still might not be worth it, okay? -
Just the visuals, and the big visual stuff should be later in anyway. I'd be inclined to trust him too.
Could be worse, he could have pulled a George Lucas and decided to film the entire movie on a green screen with only 2 cameras.
I understand what your saying about the "Everyone else is wrong and I'm right" thing and its not like I've seen the footage so I can't make any judgements, but in Jackson's defense I'm sure it took some getting use to when people saw talkies and colored film for the first time. I'm just waiting and hoping it will turn out alright.
Everyone says "you'll adjust", "you'll eventually get used to it". The movie will only be 2 to 3 hours long. I hope to hell that it is a very fast adjust rate.
I don't think Jackson is suggesting he is right, and every one else is wrong. He even seems to admit that, he had to adjust as well. I think all he means is that, a vast majority of people, will more than likely have the same experience he had.
One of the 1st things i mentioned walking out from Avatar was that the frame rate was too low, and that it was really noticeable during action scenes because i couldnt tell what was going on with all the fast movements. I got a head ache because of it.
I think upping the frame rate is blindly obvious for 3D films. I never experience the same problem with 2D, so if anyone could explain why its so desperately needed please enlighten me. is it because the brain is assuming it work much like normal vision or something, and this doesnt matter so much viewing a 2D screen??
It took me a long time to get used to HDTV. I remember the first really nice HDTV my friend bought, and I told him it looked fake. Jackson is right, after a couple of weeks I loved the HD, and don't like low definition...
True, but applying a statement like "you'll get used to it" to justify it is a tad bit annoying at best. I don't watch tv or movies at 48 fps on a regular basis, I would guess that you don't, and let me guess that most of the posters here don't. The problem I have is that he is assuming that we all will get used to the different framerate based on only his experiences with it, with himself as the control group. What if some people don't quite get used to the framerate and get headaches because it's too fast for them? What if the film contracts a serious case of the uncanny valley, and the actors start to look like corpses that move like men?
Basically, being an innovator in the arts is one thing, but if a significant portion of your audience get a bit queasy from the innovation you have made, then until they can enjoy it as well without medicine, all you've really done is alienated that portion of the audience.
Thank you for your time.
"but holy shit do I get mad when people say "Everyone else is wrong and I'm right.""
Yeah, I know. .....especially when they ARE right.
Yeah, it's called "being butt-hurt and indignant when the truth, (as told by the person that shot the fucking movie himself, and who actually knows what he's talking about), is blindsiding you like a truck."
When uninformed, aggressively whiny people are told point blank that they're being completely asinine about something, it usually tends to trigger that response of embarrassed indignant.
Don't worry though. It goes away pretty quick, once you calm down and accept that you are, in fact, wrong, and the other person, is, in fact, right.
It goes away even quicker once you get used to The Hobbit, stop whining about it, and actually sit back, watch and appreciate the fucking thing.
(as NihilismX33/Nihilistic1)As I should know! Using my powers of prestigitation, I have looked past the veil of what is yet to be, and the wonders I have seen would force you to your knees in awe, you simple pleblians! I had found out that Peter Jackson's plan was not merely to make a fantastic movie, but to create a sensation for all the senses! Using 48 FPS, he has broken past the barrier of what is projected on the screen in relation to REALITY! We are finally able to live in the movies! Experience what the director was planning us to experience! Live in glorious fantasy! REALITY AND FICTION HAVE COLLIDED INTO THE EXISTANCE WE HAVE ALWAYS DREAMED OFF! AT LAST, AT LONG LAST, I CAN FINALLY HAVE SEX WITH A PORN STAR!!!(Runs toward his flatscreen tv)Jenna Jameson, I come for you at last!!!(vaults toward his tv headfirst, smashes right through it and collides with the wall)...he lied to me......(starts wailing)YOU LIED TO ME, PETER JACKSON! WHY?! WHY WOULD YOU LIE TO MEEEEEEE?!?!?!?!?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Then again, if we're going to get down to typos, I probably should have replaced "THAT WE HAVE ALWAYS DREAMED OFF" with "THAT I HAVE JERKED OFF TO WHILE CRYING OVER HOW MY LIFE HAS BECOME".
It fits him better.
I was with you until you put "DREAMED OFF" instead of "DREAMED OF." According to the rules of internet commenting, your argument is now invalid.
My point is, unless you have actually have seen this film before we have, which I doubt, our OPINIONS still matter. Remember, opinions? The things that other people besides yourself have, only we don't foist them off like the word of God as interpreted by a sad clown like yourself.
Later, pal! Hope to see you again!
When one side of a debate is composed of people that are basing their opinions on a very small sample size, I'm usually willing to give the creators a chance. I don't know how much of a difference the extra 24 fps is going to make, but I'm willing to take Jackson at his word that we should see the whole movie for ourselves first, especially since I'm going to see it anyway. Early negative reactions of this type usually end up seeming nit picky to me.
"I get mad when people say 'Everyone else is wrong and I'm right.' I know this isn't exactly the same thing...."
Sorry, but it's not even remotely the same thing.
Yeah, Jackson is up front saying "You are right," just also explaining why he's going on with it anyway. It's a gamble to do this sort of technological change, but it'll be neat to see if it works in the end.
Maybe he's just trolling the industry. You know, releasing this long anticipated project everyone wants to see in a film rate that makes it look like crap knowing full well pirates will still steal it and make it freely available in the sub par viewing rate, where it will coincidentally look like gold!
Dude made the Lord of the Fucking Rings, he can film on a fucking phone camera and I won't give a fuck, just shut up and take my money Jackson! Go on and take it you brilliant bastard!
I can kinda agree with this, Last year I bought a new TV, pretty much top of the line everything. BOY did the refresh rate make everything look diffrent. Now? I can't even see it, it looks normal to me. but any friend coming over it's instantly noticable. So I can imagine our eyes certainly will adjust within 15-20 minutes, and that'll be during the time where they are most likely still in Hobbington which is mostly practical sets anyways.
It goes to something an instructor taught me when I was in college: video looks like it's happening now, film looks like a painting from the past. That's why news reports are shot on video (and MTV's awards shows looked so funky when they started shooting at 24 fps even though it was supposedly shot live). Personally I don't want a fantasy film that looks like it's happening right in front of me, but then again I'm one of the few who didn't like the first LOTR and skipped the others (yeah, I know, flame on, but I summed it up as "talk some, walk some, run some, fight some - repeat 10 times").
I didn't like LotR, either. I never made it through the books (which is unheard of for me) and I thought the movies were all hype, especially Two Towers. Just the same old, cliche shit that every other fantasy movie has done. Yes, yes, I know that Tolkien is the one those fantasy movies were ripping off in the first place. That doesn't change that fact that the LotR movies were been there, seen that.
I loved The Hobbit and live action films but found the LotR books unreadable in four efforts over the years (pad a lot, talk some, pad a lot, walk some, pad a lot, run some, pad a lot, fight some, pad a lot - repeat 10 times) and people say my book is unreadably packed with worldbuilding - at least in mine it all ties into the plot, can't say the same for LotR.
Common complaint. The Hobbit reads very briskly, but Lord of the Rings is so dense if you can do it one sitting you must be some kind of freak.
"talk some, walk some, run some, fight some - repeat 10 times"
That was pretty much the books too.You know, minus the intense genealogies, poems, riffing off Wagner's The Ring Cycle and Beowulf, Linguistic wankery and Tom Bombadil. Really just another homoerotic romp in the woods....damn I missed Tom Bombadil.
The Tom Bombadil section of the book made me want to throw the fucking thing into the fire. ENOUGH OF THIS SINGING, DANCING ASSHOLE! GET BACK TO THE ALLEGED STORY!
We covered this stuff back in school when covering film vs video vs (the then new) digital. Higher frame rates seem "cheaper" because video has higher frame rates (but lower detail) and was used for cheaper productions (soap operas). People are going to get used to it eventually. It's just a matter of perception. Higher frame rates, 3D, and true 16x9, 1.85:1, and 2.39:1 filming (instead of anamorphic lenses) are evolutionary steps in technology that all require revolutionary filmmakers to understand and embrace the inherit advantages there of. They have all been around for decades but for matters of convenience and cost haven't been adopted yet. Well, except for the 3D. That's the case of film makers lacking vision combined with the studios desire to exploit it purely as a money-grab.
It does take some getting used to, but it's the sort of thing the industry as a whole needs to do - I'd rather Hobbit be at the forefront and take some getting used to than hold itself back.
The first time I saw an HD movie on a flatscreen TV it took me about ten minutes to get past the "this doesn't look right" sensation in my brain, and another 10-15 before my eyes would stop watering. But after that I was fine.
If I remember correctly IMAX operates at 48+ fps, but then it mostly does documentaries and I think we're more OK with a documentary looking like this.
No, normal IMAX and IMAX 3D are 24 fps -- IMAX HD is 48 fps, but as you said, is rarely used. Certainly any feature movie you see in an IMAX theater will be 24 fps. That's actually a problem, I understand, as the detail and scale of the screen makes all the strobing and blurring really obvious. Lots of movies look worse on an IMAX screen.
I've seen film at 48 fps, and I gotta say it looks fantastic. The problem here lies in that the footage I was viewing was nature footage, not a movie with sets and prosthetics.
The footage looked like I was looking at real life through a very large window, and it blew me away. And that's the problem here. It's going to look like a staged play right before your eyes, full of make up and other such "defects" life brings.
That's not necessarily a bad thing as it could redirect emphasis towards "ability" instead of "look" when casting actors. Subtle expressions are often lost in film unless they're done in a closeup maybe this could pick up that. Special effects can all be replaced with sock puppets for all I care - the best CGI looks just as fake... in fact I'd go see a MFB movie if it were done entirely with sock puppets, big red sock puppet jumps in frame for explosions, I think it's the man's true calling.
I think the controversy isn't focused on the technique or technical aspects, but simply caught up on the fact that this new technology is making it apparent that a person is just watching a movie, rather than becoming lost in the experience. An extremely high resolution and focus on every movement of a person means that it will be easier to see where the effects come into play. In a way, it just seems like an example of the technology for filming is outpacing the technology for creating "movie magic". That said, it is good that our favorite non-Spanish filmmaking dwarf is taking the plunge for the industry, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see a "Special Edition" like Lucas' own work, just so the film's effects can be upgraded retroactively, once the technology comes out. To me, it seems a bit like the dilemma news shows had to contend with when HD TV came on the scene, because the kind of make-up that worked for standard definition couldn't hide, say, some odd cyst on Anderson Cooper's eyelid, but that just led to the creation of HD makeup, of all things.
