Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

The Hobbit 48fps impressions


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24-04-2012, 22:28
Edmond-Dantès
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 372

WB screens 10 minutes of The Hobbit in 48fps at CinemaCon.
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.
http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/24/c...mes-per-secon/

More impressions:

"48fps makes it look like you're almost watching real life & not a movie. It's a massive change. Positive is the 3d has much less eye strain"
https://twitter.com/#!/colliderfrosty:
"Saw the 10 minutes of raw The Hobbit footage in 48FPS 3D. Intriguing, the footage looks amazing, but the 48FPS experience is an odd change."

"There are going to be endless debates about 48FPS and how good/bad it looks. I just think we need to get used to change after 80yr of 24FPS."
https://twitter.com/#!/slashfilm:
"Saw ten minutes of Hobbit in 48fps 3D. Very exciting, but I'm now very unsure about higher framerates"

"We're recording a video blog about the Warner Bros presentation shortly and will talk more in depth than 140 characters will allow"
https://twitter.com/#!/slashfilm:


Interesting info on the Nazgul there. I had suspected that they would be featured in some way.
Edmond-Dantès is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 24-04-2012, 22:59
Iggyman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,717
It sounds really bad. The badassdigest review is especially damning. This remark says it all:

"It's unlikely you're going to see The Hobbit at 48fps (especially if all the grumbling I heard from theater owners is any indication. Walking out of the theater I didn't hear a single positive remark)"
Iggyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 00:07
performingmonk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,744
These comments aren't good...though part of the problem (yet again) is the whole shooting for 3D bollocks! Avatar was fine because there's so many 100% CGI scenes. CGI in 3D is brilliant. Live action shot in 3D has to be overlit and the colours messed with so much just to get a useable picture. The result is usually something that looks fake and non-cinematic. (I say usually because Prometheus is looking pretty good in the trailers...)

The 48fps framerate won't help matters at all seeing as it's on 2fps away from a PAL interlaced look (i.e. how shows like Corrie and Eastenders look as opposed to more filmic-look drama like Merlin and Silent Witness).

I reckon they're gonna have to do a brilliant final lighting and colour grade on The Hobbit to hide that 'fake set' look if they expect anyone to enjoy the 48fps screenings. Maybe it looks okay on a 24" monitor, which is probably all anyone from the production team views the footage on, but on the big screen it evidently leaves a lot to be desired...
performingmonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 03:04
James2001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 24,856
Then again, the people making these comments are the sorts of film purists who probably hate anything "new" or "different" anyway. Considering how many people have been slagging off the decision to film in 48fps before they'd even seen a frame of footage, it's obvious some people's minds were made up and they were going to hate it no matter what. I'm sure plenty of critics were doing similar moans in the early days of sound and colour. Shall we wait until normal people have seen it, and actually get used to the look, rather than a few critics based on 10 minutes of unfinished footage?
James2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 03:08
Deserana 12
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,850
Then again, the people making these comments are the sorts of film purists who probably hate anything "new" or "different" anyway. Considering how many people have been slagging off the decision to film in 48fps before they'd even seen a frame of footage, it's obvious some people's minds were made up and they were going to hate it no matter what. Shall we wait until normal people have seen it, and actually get used to the look, rather than a few critics based on 10 minutes of unfinished footage?
Na. This convention consisted of fans, critics, journalists and other filmmakers and apparently on the way out there were NO positive reactions to what they saw. Apparently it looked like a soap-opera and not cinematic.
Deserana 12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 03:10
James2001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 24,856
and apparently on the way out there were NO positive reactions to what they saw.
None at all? Not a single one? Or is that just the opinion of critics who hated it and presumably heard what they wanted to hear. There's certainly a positive review here: http://movies.about.com/b/2012/04/24...e-screened.htm

And from what I'm reading online, a lot of the opinions seem to be neutral rather than negative, saying things like "it will take getting used to", "not everyone will like it" and "it's a big change" rather than flat out calling it bad.
James2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 03:20
Deserana 12
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,850
None at all? Not a single one? Or is that just the opinion of critics who hated it and presumably heard what they wanted to hear. There's certainly a positive review here: http://movies.about.com/b/2012/04/24...e-screened.htm
Then I guess it was very mixed responses -
@colliderfrosty Saw 10 min of THE HOBBIT in 48fps. It's def a drastic change from 24fps and many are not going to be on board with it. #thehobbit
@Variety_JLD Great Scott, THE HOBBIT in 48 frames-per-second is a thing to behold. Totally different experience. Not all will like the change.
@slashfilm Saw ten minutes of Hobbit in 48fps 3D. Very exciting, but I'm now very unsure about higher framerates #CinemaCon
LA Times - "It looked like a made-for-TV movie. It was too accurate -- too clear."
Deserana 12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 03:22
James2001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 24,856
Then I guess it was very mixed responses -
And isnn't "mixed" to be expected from something new and different to what you're used to? You can't expect people to jump with glee at a massive change to the norm from day one.
James2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 03:28
Deserana 12
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,850
Basically its gonna look very different to what we've seen before. I'm sure it will get some backlash no matter what but I think the main problem is that many will feel it sort of ruins the continuity between both "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings" its like having 4 well made and cinematic Harry Potters to begin a franchise and is then finished off by 4 ITV tv films (going by some descriptions), they suddenly don't feel like the same thing which is what many people would likely want.
Deserana 12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 05:08
CJClarke
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 7,265
I think that the key thing to remember here is that the footage shown at the convention was raw, unfinished footage from a film that isn't even out for another 8 months. The final thing will most likely look a lot better than whatever was shown at CinemaCon.

Plus, i think it's naive of people to think that the people behind the film have only seen 48fps footage on a small monitor, they will blatantly have done 48fps tests and viewed it on a cinema screen, i highly doubt that Peter Jackon would have pushed for it if he didn't think it would suit his vision for the film.
CJClarke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 10:08
CD93
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lancashire, UK
Posts: 10,534
48fps makes it look like you're almost watching real life & not a movie
Considering this seems to be the ultimate goal of most medias - expect to see more of it.

Additionally, the above - eight months is a fair amount of time for change. Patience hobbitses.
CD93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 10:10
grimtales1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: St. Albans, UK, Team Wagner
Posts: 38,952
Watching "real life" but in a fantasy with elves and dwarves? Hmmmm.....
grimtales1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 10:20
CD93
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lancashire, UK
Posts: 10,534
Watching "real life" but in a fantasy with elves and dwarves? Hmmmm.....
Real life, but not in our world. We're supposed to believe Middle Earth is real, after all. If it's so awful that you can't suspend your disbelief long enough to enjoy it - then it's a failure.

We're entering interesting realms if it's "too real."
CD93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 10:39
stafs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kingston Upon Thames
Posts: 1,513
Reminds me of watching TV Shows in the 70s and 80s, especially Doctor Who, where the studio scenes were videotaped and the external shots filmed. I always though the filmed sections looked better because they seemed less fake, probably because it hid many imperfections whereas with video you saw it all.

However, nowadays there is a lot of post-production work that can be done to hide those imperfections, so I expect it will look great when actually released.
stafs is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 10:50
Moony
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,712
I'm going to hold out opinion on this until I see it.

I went to see Star Trek on IMAX and hated it. The action was so fast and the picture so big - that at 24fps, everything was just a jumpy/juddering blur. I thought the same when I first saw Transformers at the cinema. Both movies look far better on a smaller screen/TV just because the jumps between frames is less noticeable - which is a pity. I always wondered why modern films were still shot at such an antiquated frame rate.

Fine, film purists may not like it because it no longer looks like the cinema of old and it may take a little getting used to for the rest of us (not to mention the film makers themselves) - simply because movies will feel different to how we remember, but I reckon many movies (especially fast paced sci-fi and CGI movies) will benefit greatly from a jump in frame rate.
Moony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 11:26
GARETH197901
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: XBL-JediScho PSN-Gareth1979
Posts: 21,992
As Many people have said its Unfinished footage,they add a filmic look to TV all the time these days so adding this kind of Post Production to it will be a piece of piss for Weta,so the chances of the film looking like the 10 minutes did is slim
GARETH197901 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 11:47
Johnny Clay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,917
Reminds me of watching TV Shows in the 70s and 80s, especially Doctor Who, where the studio scenes were videotaped and the external shots filmed.
Many moons ago I was talking about this to one of my tutors. We were discussing how films can express/accentuate the physical sensation of being inside and outside - something we as people acknowledge very strongly but film often doesn't capture. Who, with its claustrophobic sets and grainy exterior shots, always captured this exceptionally well.

I think that the key thing to remember here is that the footage shown at the convention was raw, unfinished footage from a film that isn't even out for another 8 months. The final thing will most likely look a lot better than whatever was shown at CinemaCon.

Plus, i think it's naive of people to think that the people behind the film have only seen 48fps footage on a small monitor, they will blatantly have done 48fps tests and viewed it on a cinema screen, i highly doubt that Peter Jackon would have pushed for it if he didn't think it would suit his vision for the film.
Quoted for truth.

We shall have to wait and see about this here 48fps, which seems to have kicked off on many sites as of last night. Personally, I imagine it may work best for films that are more reality based (war or docu-dramas say, could benefit from a more realistic presentation of human motion). Applying it to fantasy may just, as some already have said, underline the unreality of it all.
Johnny Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 12:43
Edmond-Dantès
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 372
In terms of the actual narrative content:

Spoiler


Radagast's depiction seems quite out there. There isn't really much written about him in any of Tolkien's works, so his character is certainly open to interpretation and Peter and co are certainly taking advantage of that.
Edmond-Dantès is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 13:42
Vashetti
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2,229
Gosh it sounds so disappointing.
Vashetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 13:44
GARETH197901
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: XBL-JediScho PSN-Gareth1979
Posts: 21,992
Gosh it sounds so disappointing.
i wouldn't be disappointed yet, after all its 10 minutes of unfinished footage that hasn't been through Post Production yet

i will keep an open mind and wait till december
GARETH197901 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 13:46
CD93
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lancashire, UK
Posts: 10,534
Gosh it sounds so disappointing.
For unfinished footage of a product eight months away from release without post? Featuring a change in framerate on top?

It sounds exactly as was to be expected. From the above post, sounds like the production holds up with it. Certainly nothing to be disappointed about yet.
CD93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 15:48
CoolioD1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 583
Here's someone who actually seemed to like the frame rate change

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/...ames_chang.php
CoolioD1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 16:00
Margo Channing
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bracknell
Posts: 4,808
surely the whole 48fps thing will be pointless once its released on blu-ray????
Margo Channing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 16:47
Voynich
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Western Scotland
Posts: 13,583
surely the whole 48fps thing will be pointless once its released on blu-ray????
I'd say the idea is to try and lure you into the cinema with it.
Voynich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 16:50
Deserana 12
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,850
surely the whole 48fps thing will be pointless once its released on blu-ray????
Isn't the whole point of blu-ray to be as close to the source material as possible, if the source material is 48fps then the blu-ray will also be like that.
Deserana 12 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:59.