[tony le mesmer]

Originally Posted by Deserana 12

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.

Don't think Blu-ray supports 48p

[James2001]

Originally Posted by Margo Channing

surely the whole 48fps thing will be pointless once its released on blu-ray????

Why would it? While blu-ray can't handle 48fps natively, they can speed it up to 50 or pull it down to 60 (which is basically what they do with 24fps material shown in SD anyway) and wrap it into either 720p or 1080i. I can't think of any reason why they won't do this.

[James2001]

Originally Posted by GARETH197901

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

Indeed, I can't beleive the doom mongering I've read online. Some people (many of which will be film purists who were against high frame rates from day one) have reacted negatively or neutrally to a screening of 10 minutes of unfinished footage, and some people are talking as if it's a massive disaster, not just an unsure reaction to something different, Quite ridiculous really.

And, to be honest, I get the opinion that the vast majority of the online negativity stems from the "Bad Ass Digest" article, which is only the opinion of one of the people who were there.

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by James2001

Why would it? While blu-ray can't handle 48fps natively, they can speed it up to 50 or pull it down to 60

I'm not sure about this (so feel free to correct me), but i don't see any reason really why Blu Ray wouldn't be able to handle 48fps. I mean i guess the additional fps would mean that the film would take up more space (the film data on the disc would be twice as big), but i don't see any reason why they couldn't present it as it was filmed (i suppose it's possible that the slow disc drive could be an issue, but i don't know really). I think TV's can handle higher fps than 24fps so that wouldn't be a problem. I know it's different, but there's videogames (like the Call of Duty series) that run at 60fps, and there's games on PC that can run double that on a standard 1080p monitor.

Originally Posted by James2001

And, to be honest, I get the opinion that the vast majority of the online negativity stems from the "Bad Ass Digest" article, which is only the opinion of one of the people who were there.

True. Infact most of the other opinions that i've read have been far more positive, or at least neutral. The general consensus seems to be that it takes a bit of getting used to, but once you're used to it the detail in the film is quite staggering.

[James2001]

Originally Posted by CJClarke

I'm not sure about this (so feel free to correct me), but i don't see any reason really why Blu Ray wouldn't be able to handle 48fps..

Blu-Ray can't handle 48fps, it's not part of the specs. What Blu-Ray can handle in HD is 1080p24 (HD-DVD could handle 1080p25/30, but BD can't), 1080i50/60 and 720p50/60. So there's nothing to stop the 48fps being converted to 50 or 60 and wrapped up into 720p or 1080i (I'm not sure why so many people seem to assume they'll downconvert it to 1080p24!), but it can't handle 48fps natively.

[RealityReal31]

As long as it doesn't look like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8xOgO7_eT8

[James2001]

There's nothing wrong with how that looks. People have ideas on how films "should" look which are based on 85 year old technology, and are resistant to change and just hate it straight away.

[RealityReal31]

Originally Posted by James2001

There's nothing wrong with how that looks. People have ideas on how films "should" look which are based on 85 year old technology, and are resistant to change and just hate it straight away.

Believe me, I'm not one of those people. But I hate how Public Enemies looks. It looks cheap and like a low budget tv show (the jailscene with Depp and Bale is horrible imo).

New does not always mean better.

However I have an open mind with The Hobbit. It's a different type of movie so will obviously be treated with a more 'cinematic' effect despite the fps.

[Johnny Clay]

Public Enemies did look awful, but then Mann had applied much the same flat, digital technique to Collateral where it worked far, far better.

As with all aesthetics, it perhaps boils down to suitability to the material, and/or simply getting used to seeing things differently.

That said, you can imagine FX teams and DoPs having a right old mare with it. Presumably a clearer image means the production values etc will have to be absolutely spot on to convince now.

[James2001]

Something I've noticed is that one of the negative quotes getting the most attention is from a projectionist- from a rival studio. Becuase of course he wouldn't have a vested interest in talking it down!

[DRAGON LANCE]

I think the real point of 48 frames is its it gimmick to get people back into the cinema's (like 3D).

Now many own large flat screens +home theatre systems the wow factor has gone from the picture houses. This is obviously intended to put it back.

Whether it does or not is another question. A lot of flatscreens have frame enhancement modes that with names like "motion flow" on the Sony's or "intelligent frame creation" on the Panasonics. All these modes do in reality is create an artificial 60 frames a second animation. Thing is, most people think they look crap. They just make everything look weird unnatural and spacey, like everything’s moving underwater. It often gets referred to as the "soap opera video effect" on av enthusiast sites. Most people therefore switch them off.

I have a nasty feeling 48p films will probably look rather similar. Far from looking more natural they'll just look like videogames. Hope I'm wrong but it doesn't sound promising.

As for Blu-Ray I'm sure they'll eventually bring out 48p players. That will also require a new TV to handle it. The TV makers can smell the £$£$£'s.

[Noiseboy]

Interesting...

1. Those who are saying "whoa, this is 10 minutes of non-post-produced rough footage"... then why on Earth show it? The point of a teaser is to tease, not to say "yeah I know it's crap, but it'll be fine when it's finished, trust us, so don't worry about it..."

2. I was immediately struck in the Hobbit trailer that it looked like a set, not a real place in a movie, far more than anything in LOTR. Obviously that was on quicktime HD. So perhaps not all this problem is the 48p... or actually that it is a HUGE problem and the perception of being set-like is captured in camera, not an effect of the projection per se. In other words... the film may look awful for everyone, unless they damage-limit and artificially change the look in post (which they very well may do).

3. For years, people have emulated the look of film by trying to recreate that subtle flicker. Footage without that is perceived as being video-like. 48fps is therefore a pretty bold, and potentially stupid, decision.

[GARETH197901]

Originally Posted by Noiseboy

Interesting...

1. Those who are saying "whoa, this is 10 minutes of non-post-produced rough footage"... then why on Earth show it? The point of a teaser is to tease, not to say "yeah I know it's crap, but it'll be fine when it's finished, trust us, so don't worry about it..."

2. I was immediately struck in the Hobbit trailer that it looked like a set, not a real place in a movie, far more than anything in LOTR. Obviously that was on quicktime HD. So perhaps not all this problem is the 48p... or actually that it is a HUGE problem and the perception of being set-like is captured in camera, not an effect of the projection per se. In other words... the film may look awful for everyone, unless they damage-limit and artificially change the look in post (which they very well may do).

3. For years, people have emulated the look of film by trying to recreate that subtle flicker. Footage without that is perceived as being video-like. 48fps is therefore a pretty bold, and potentially stupid, decision.

but as people have already said those who have tended to say its crap,are those who either older and don't want change or those who have a vested interest in keeping the old system,those who are willing to give it a try have commented on how good it looks for example the article below the writer says

"Forget the windowpane. You're right there and it's breathtaking -- no strobing, no flickering, pure fluidity and much more density of information. This makes the action scenes seem more realistic because it looks too real to be tricked up, and the CG stuff looks astonishing for the same reason."

so there are two sides to every coin at the end of the day

[CD93]

"... then why on Earth show it?"

Some of the footage was on green screen which hadn't been edited in yet - let's ask Peter Jackson!

[skribbleuk]

If something looks like a cheap and tacky made for tv movie, then telling them that its really 48 fps and an advancement in technology doesn't make it look any less cheap. I don't think the people who saw the movie had ulterior motives, it looked cheap and jarring to them, and that's it.

I agree with the poster above me, to those who are saying that it's really easy to make it look better post production then why not do it now? It's the first 10 minute preview of your movie which is going to go a long way to drumming up interest by word of mouth, why wouldn't you make it NOT look like a soap opera if it's so easy?

Or in fact if it isn't as easy as some people say and is difficult but still possible, just get it done for the small 10 minute clip? It's probably some of the only footage to be released for a long time, for film which is a VISUAL MEDIUM make it look as decent as possible.

I think what's more likely is that this is just how the film will look. I'm sure it can be cleaned up slightly but by and large, it is what it is and either you will like it or you won't.

I'm willing to give it a try, but I already know I'm pretty sensitive to things like this so I can't say I'm expecting much, which is a shame because I felt like a kid again when I watched the trailer.

[Voynich]

Doesn't Jackson know that silent and black & white is what the critics want!?

It'll be an interesting experience! I usually go to IMAX. I wonder if it's capable of showing 48 fps? I know what they mean by 'video like' when I play my media player at x2 speed, films take on a 'video' quality.

[skribbleuk]

Originally Posted by Voynich

Doesn't Jackson know that silent and black & white is what the critics want!?

Haha, if he'd made it in black and white we'd all be raving Oscar inc!

[Superior]

Originally Posted by Deserana 12

LA Times - "It looked like a made-for-TV movie. It was too accurate -- too clear."

Does'nt that sound like the sort of quote people will laugh about in 20-30 years?

Digital Spy 2032 - "Hahaha, remember when people said it was too clear, too real........."

[Margo Channing]

Originally Posted by Voynich

I'd say the idea is to try and lure you into the cinema with it.

Originally Posted by Deserana 12

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.

Originally Posted by James2001

Why would it? While blu-ray can't handle 48fps natively, they can speed it up to 50 or pull it down to 60 (which is basically what they do with 24fps material shown in SD anyway) and wrap it into either 720p or 1080i. I can't think of any reason why they won't do this.

I'm sorry I'm not in the slightest bit technical and just didn't understand it which is why I asked the question.

[James2001]

I've read numerous articles about this on the internet, and I've struggled to find many quoting anything but the Badass digest article and the quote from the rival studio's projectionist. For a demoe that supposedly "everyone" hated, those two people seem to be the only outright negative (as opposed to neutral or unsure) quotes they can find.

[grimtales1]

I dont really like the IFC/100Hz mode, the times I've switched it on it makes characters (especially on BD) look like cheap CGI figures, everything is TOO smooth and it looks weird imo.
I always turn it off now. It doesnt look anything like how film appears in the cinema

[Straker]

Originally Posted by stafs

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.

Agreed. Recently rewatched Spearhead from Space (Pertwee’s first story) and it looked brilliant because it was all shot on 16mm, inside and out, on location. No video was used so there was none of that clumsy transition that destroys the atmosphere of most other Who stories. I’d be in favour of filmising the whole lot as it adds immeasurably to the believability (ironically) because of the grain and it makes cheap sets look expensive.

[barneyboy]

My eyesights shite anyway, ill just leave my glasses at home.

[James2001]

We need to get away from this idea that video and higer framerates are "cheap" and "tacky", becuase they're not. It's all a matter of conditioning and perception of what we've come to expect over the years. Basically, people think "low framerates= big budget TV and cinema. high framerates= low budget TV", and it's an assosiation that needs to be broken. Let high frame rates become standard, and in a few decades time the idea that the "film look" is better and high framerates are "cheap" will seem as ridiciulous as the ideas of the past that sound and colour would destroy cinema.

Some people are just stuck in the past, resistant to change. Heck, you only have to look at the crap that's spouted about 24fps. The amount of people who are insistent that it's "the best" and was chosen because it looked "best" just proves people don't have a clue (24fps exists because it's the bare minimum they could get away with for sound in 1927, and therefore cost the least- nothing to do with it "looking better" or a "dreamlike state" or whatever other crap people spout), and leads to the ridiculousness of US TV shows being shot at 24p, with the dreadful 3:2 pulldown artifacts that come with it (Americans won't even shoot shows at 30p, despite the fact it would still have a "film look", but without the awful 3:2 pulldown, becuase of this stupid idea that 24fps is how it should be. 24fps did make sense in the days of 35mm due to cost, but now most stuff is shot on HD video, there's no need for it at all in TV production). The sooner both TV and movies get out of this mentality and sentimentality, the better.

To be honest though, I think for Americans at least, the 3:2 pulldown is part of the "film look" and if anything, helps prove all this stuff about framerates is all about perception and assosiation not about it actually being better. I've heard a lot of Americans moan about the look of Blu-ray, and the only reason I think they do this is because it actually shows 24fps films natively- without the 3:2 pulldown they've got accustomed to, so looks "wrong" to them because it's not what they're used to- same goes for 48fps, it's not "worse" or "bad", it's all conditioning. Probably also explains why US TV stupidly clings to 24fps for TV production when it makes no sense.

[pocatello]

People keep saying the goal of media is to represent reality, not really, all films are colour graded, the palette is altered for artistic style, it isn't real at all. In fact the entire image is not real, real vision is not all in focus the same way a film image is. So artificial "improvement" in some ways can simply be off putting and not cinematic at all. "Realistic" video/camcorder lighting is not more real, it just looks cheap as michael mann has shown so clearly. People do expect a heightened reality in film, not reality.
Just take a look again..
http://host.trivialbeing.org/galleri...1217191644.jpg
http://www.nolanfans.com/images/gall...night/7big.jpg
That is not real colour. It is an artistic choice.

Directors choose what is in focus, what is not in focus, what lens to use to exploit certain distortions and the rest, it is not about making reality.