Hobbit at 48FPS

Started by rcallicotte, April 14, 2011, 10:25:03 am

Previous topic - Next topic

TheBadger

Saw it last night.
Just the regular version.

I can say I really noticed the blur in every shot that there was a camera pan. It was really irritating, because there were so many grandiose camera shots; big establishing shots and the like. And in every shot where the camera paned, regardless of scene scale, there was a dreadful amount of blur. The entire film was basically a blur.

So from that perspective I am sure I would have preferred to see it in the HFR. None of the issues in HFR could possibly be as bad as the blur in standard frame rates, that thanks to this thread, I am now painfully aware of.

All in all, I liked the movie. It is so far mostly a kids movie series. But I had fun anyway. There were things I did not like about the film, but over all its a pretty fun movie. I will look forward to seeing it on BluRay.

I think in the end, I really have developed a preference for seeing movies on the big screen at home.
It has been eaten.

PabloMack

Quote from: Tangled-Universe on April 20, 2011, 02:26:15 am
60fps = 2,5 x 24fps...I guess that makes more sense than 50fps Oshyan ;)


I have heard somewhere that the human eye's ability to detect flicker is somewhere between 50 and 60 Hz. This would mean the Europeans are barely perceiving flicker while watching TV and Americans are not. I heard from my brother who took a EE course that the professor claimed that 60 Hz line frequencies have less energy loss through power transmission than with 50 Hz. Both of these arguments favor 60 Hz over 50 Hz. However, I can't verify either of these two reasons to use 60 over 50.

zaxxon

Just saw the movie recently at an imax theater, just in time I guess as the DVD's are hitting the shelves in March. Seems I'm in the minority here as I really enjoy 3D. Admittedly the imax experience was less satisfactory to me then the Real3D movies I'm more accustomed to, haven't had a chance to compare the various versions and at this late point it probably won't happen.
I have a wonderful home entertainment center and it takes a BIG screen movie to lure me into a movie theater (think 3D). So Hollywood understands the need to pry people away from their 60" flat screens and surround sound systems in the comfort and convenience of their own home. That being said, I too thought the blurred pans and distorted peripheral views to be annoying (at least at the imax 3D in San Francisco). Also, as a lifelong Tolkien fan, the Jackson rape and pillage of the original concepts of Middle Earth are at the least disheartening. But, I still enjoy the movies. A willing suspension of disbelief and ability to put aside the memories of the beautiful arcane lore these movies are based on is a necessary prerequisite to viewing (IMO). Sadly it is not true to the book, but what is? Nor would a production aimed at the 'true believers' achieve the monetary and popular success that it has achieved. Christopher Tolkien, the guardian of the Tolkien Lore had this to say recently (his first public comments on the movies):

"Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."

That's from an interview in Le Monde late last year (translated here for the non-french speaking folks):
http://worldcrunch.com/culture-society/my-father-039-s-quot-eviscerated-quot-work-son-of-hobbit-scribe-j.r.r.-tolkien-finally-speaks-out/hobbit-silmarillion-lord-of-rings/c3s10299/#.USK1LKV4L2b

Yet. Yet, the movies and what Weta continues to create with digital technology is breathtaking. Put aside Peter Jackson's flamboyant exaggerations and script hacking; I really loved the great overblown scenes, the sheer over-the-top flight of the eagles, the great Maxfield Parrish like backdrops in Rivendel, the Rock Monsters in their cataclysmic duel, the Trolls (wow, the Trolls!). This is why I go to the big screen! And even more: wouldn't you love to have access to some of Weta's treasure chest (talk about Dragon's Gold!). I mean, take 'Lumberjack', the inhouse proprietary tree growing toolset that can configure it's 'growth' around the available light in the environment, 'Synapse' the solver software that made those wonderful waterfalls (co-developed by the Exotic Matter guys of Naiad fame), the eagle's feathers from Weta's 'Plummage' tools, and on and on. Sitting close-up to a huge demonstration of the most cutting edging 3D tools is a true thrill.

So in a few weeks I'll have a high res version on my blu-ray and then really look at the detail and gather my final thoughts on the movie itself, but for now I'm already starting to anticipate Part II!

TheBadger

Zaxxon, very well put.

On the Blu-Ray stuff... Absolutely agree. For example, I hated the last star trek movie when I saw it in the theater. I was really disappointed with what I thought was a campy take on what should have been a serious movie. But when I saw it again at home I really loved it!
I feel like Hobbit will go likewise.

The stuff you posted about the Tolkien's clan really made me sad. Basically what Christopher is describing is the rape of western culture. By a lazy, stupid, cheep population. Though perhaps not in so many words.

^^Ah well, its nothing that a good catastrophe can't cure  :-\
It has been eaten.

Oshyan

Quotethe rape of western culture. By a lazy, stupid, cheep money-driven media industry.

Fixed that for ya. ;) Honestly I think the media consumers deserve a good deal of blame for their really poor taste, but equal if not greater blame is on the dollar-above-all-else approach of the media producers/owners/conglomerates.

- Oshyan

TheBadger

I think you are right. But its the serpent eating its own tail.
Quotetheir really poor taste, but equal if not greater blame is on the dollar-above-all-else approach of the media producers/owners/conglomerates.


^^This is the part I don't get. Fantasy and syfy movies always do better when they are done in a more realist style. I don't mean the philosophical ideas of "Realism", but just in terms of gravity and physics and the like. For example, the new batman Vs. the Batmen of the 90's.

Avatar was a fun movie, but it would have been much better if they left the simple minded preaching out and done it like it was a true story. Conversely, the Hobbit and LOTR should have left more of the philosophy and worldview (judgments) in. They would not be popcorn movies then, they would be high art.

Nothing against popcorn movies, I love em'. Just thats all they make anymore, it feels.
It has been eaten.

Oshyan

When you say movies "do much better" when they're realistic, do you mean at the box office, or... in your mind? :D Box office for Avatar might have something to say about this idea...

- Oshyan

TheBadger

Im saying Avatar would have done even better. Because as it was, if you ignore the eye candy, it was a terrible movie. By contrast, even the animated version of the Hobbit, from way back, is a more deeply felt and better told story, than Avatar.
It has been eaten.

Oshyan

I'm pretty sure the animated version of The Hobbit was not a box office success though, and I'm also not sure I'd agree that Avatar would have done even better if it was more realistic... I agree that you and I would prefer it to be more realistic, but does that mean everyone does, or that it would have made more money? Questionable...

- Oshyan

TheBadger

We need someone with 200 million dollars and a script to test it. Im betting on quality to win. If not, than people are the problem, not the producers.
It has been eaten.

Tangled-Universe

February 21, 2013, 05:23:55 am #85 Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 09:58:02 am by Tangled-Universe
Michael, I think the realism aspect you just addressed isn't really about graphical realism, but rather being 'realistic' in terms of the characters, their behaviour/decisions, the events which happen and the setting they take place?
Basically these movies are often also supported by good CGI.

zaxxon

A good example might be comparing 'Blade Runner' to The original 3 'Star Wars' movies.  The difference at the box office was no contest, Blade Runner was a 'bust' both at the box office and with the critics.  Not to offend anyone's cherished memories, but rewatching the old Star Wars movies are acutely embarrassing for me. The poor dialogue, all the little creatures that Lucas was even then including, eyeing future revenues from toy manufacturers. Contrasted with Ridley Scott's atmospheric adaptation of Philip K. Dick's dark drama of emergent android sentience. Harrison Ford was able to create a character of 'gravitas' as Rik Decard, the hard boiled detective in a gritty future run by the oligarchs, and who can forget Rutger Hauer as the dying warrior android, Roy Blatty. The Disney Corp. just paid an enormous sum of money to continue the Star Wars franchise, yet at this point in time Blade Runner is clearly the better movie. Remember that it only grossed 1.2 million dollars US in it's initial release in 1982!  Graphically the Blade Runner environments had less 'Kapow!' then the Star Wars trio, but in the light of time and digital tech evolution Blade Runner still sits atop the lists as portraying a 'realistic' future environment, indeed that style has strongly influenced subsequent film makers in the genre.

Tangled-Universe

I just ran in this fresh discussion on CGSociety where a guy posted a 25 vs 50fps animation:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=7526827&postcount=7

Perhaps the fact that he didn't use motion blur here allows you to see the difference.

TheBadger

@T-U
Thanks Martine! That test makes me think that at 30fps and no blur added, or in the render, and you could get pretty close to a HFR result. Someone may have suggested it already, but I will make sure to have motion blur turned off on my next render. Now that I know how to add it back in, in an amount I can more easily control in post, cant hurt to try.

On your question to me. I loved the graphics in the films we have been discussing! I am in awe of it all. So yes, i meant what you said or rather the way you asked it.

@ zaxxon
I agree with everything you said. But I also think its unfair to compare the movies that you do in your post. Just because star wars is a typical hollywood  good guy wins in the end film series. Nothing wrong with that at all, just I think that those types of films will always do better than dark dramas like blade runner. Blade Runner also has a much slower tempo, in terms of editing and everything else.

What I was imagining was a comparison between the Avatar we have, and the one that could have been made. Perhaps in 20 years someone will remake the LOTR movies in a more true to the books way, and then we can really have a comparison to discuss.
Don't know if that would solve mine and Oshyan's debate though. The culture will probably be different in 20 years, so that would not answer our questions about life now.

Anyway, this is one of the best conversations about media I have been apart of since college. Probably better than then too.

Thanks guys.

It has been eaten.