The Hobbit

Coming soon to theaters in December

http://www.theblaze.com/s...looks-weird-heres-why/

apparently, they are using twice the normal frame rate of movies to shoot this which should make the viewing much more realistic. 

This one's finished and they are working on at least 2 sequels already.

I loved Lord Of The Rings, but it's one of those movies that I can only take once.

I hope these movies aren't as long.

I'm not sure about this 50FPS technology. I watched the samples video's on the web site and I was not impressed at all ... but they were outdoor, live shots. I'm sure the actual movie is a lot better.

Gentleman Bub?

 Mesh your brofromanomo was loojking for you and your dad I think.

musicman100

BUB LINCOLN????

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XNFokmDKrE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That ultra crispness just looks cheap, like direct to video movies, give me the soft film look with a bit of grain any day.

I am worried about the high frame rate. A movie I did the music for was shot in a Digital HD format instead of film and not only did they hate the look of it they had to filter the hell out of it just to get it to look right afterwards. I have heard they will release it in several different versions so that we can choose. I can't imagine sitting looking at such crisp lines and shots for over three hours. Tough on the eyes.

I was just reading that during the advanced screenings, some people are getting sick because of the way the movie was filmed ...

http://news.yahoo.com/why-hobbit-making-moviegoers-sick-150200400.html

Bub


I was just reading that during the advanced screenings, some people are getting sick because of the way the movie was filmed ...

http://news.yahoo.com/why-hobbit-making-moviegoers-sick-150200400.html

I bet every one of those who got sick had smoked a bowl in the parking lot before the movie. 

I love Elvish. Especially 'Huge Suede Shoes'.

With regards to frame rate:

Over or under cranking has been routine in movie making since the 1930s.

The frame rate has a lot to do with the emotional response you get from the motion picture and has little to do with how we make judgement about "realism"


Slow frame rates garner soft images that are often referred to as "film like".  People often assume that film has great resolution. Classic 24 fpm film is usually shot with a slow shutter speed and each frame has a soft blur on any thing moving in the frame. Some folks think it gives a deluxe vibe, and they describe it as "film like". It's important to note that each frame can seem blurry while the motion picture or stream does not seem blurry to the viewers eyes. One can only sense the 'vibe".

High frame rates have to be shot with faster shutter speeds so you get sharper images when there is movement. It provides a more aggressive vibe that can help add tension to a sequence. fast shutter speeds are popular in sports because it makes stuff seem exciting.


The thing to appreciate is that we watch movies AFTER they have been conformed to presentation frame rates.

What that means is that there is one frame rate for capture and then another frame rate for presentation.  You can do several things when you are "conforming" to another frame rate to achieve different effects.



One of the most time honored techniques is to under crank action sequences so that they are sped up for the presentation and seem more exciting. This is done routinely but subtlety... have you ever noticed how a fight scene in a great movie seems so exciting but if you see a behind the scene video of the movie being made it seems the "fight acting" is slow and almost comical. That is the magic of under cranking.

The other famous effect is over cranking where you shoot at a higher rate and then get a slow motion effect in presentation that adds drama and seriousness to a sequence. If it's done subtler it just lends itself to the story telling and if it's done overtly it looks like "slow motion". It's a common film making technique.




If you simply shoot at a different rate with out intent to achieve a motion effect then you can use modern digital compositing tools to "conform" the source footage to some target frame rate. So for example you can shoot fast shutter speed at 60fps and later conform the whole thing to 24fps by stacking frames and throwing out info. This has some benefits for basic story telling as it gives you some control in post over the look or feel of the sequence.

It also gives you clean sharp images for digital compositing tasks such as green screen keying... the types of things that classic 24p soft look film is not ideal at.

Then after you use the sharp imagery to do all the digital post work you may conform down to 24p and purposefully "blur' it up a bit so it looks deluxe and "film like".

Conforming has been around a long time as it has been used to convert 24p films to 29.97 TV for decades. Now there are lots more reasons to conform... there is just so much variety that conforming has become sort of routine.





To make it more confusing... most actual film theaters display 24p film with double taps... in other words we see 48 flickers that are made up of 24 frames each flashed at us twice. This is totally different than the 24 24p flashes we see on our BluRay big screen TVs.... so when lots of people talk about 24p and a theatrical "film look" it can be kinda confusing to know what they think they are speaking of.



Random thoughts.


best regards,
mike

Bristol_Jonesey


Loved the book, but how he thinks he can get 3 full length films out of this material is a bit of a mystery.

I was not aware that they were splitting the book into 3 full length movies. 
 
that's good news/bad news.  good news is that they can keep a lot of detail of the books in the movies the longer they make the overall length of the story for the film.
 
bad news is that there's not really any good places to cut the book into 3 movies, IMO.  it's "one story"

Hi Mosh,

 All the "frameworks" that digital video streaming technologies are based upon are intended to deliver discrete frames at the output.
 
 All the intermediary or edit codecs emphasize access to discrete frames.

 The low budget capture and the mass distribution codecs use technology to create the illusion that there are discrete frames because the actual presentation is still made with complete frames*.


 *please note that I have not addressed interleaved a.k.a. "i" analog video because it is quickly disappearing in distribution... and a discussion about it would only add to confusion before it added any clarification.

That ultra crispness just looks cheap, like direct to video movies, give me the soft film look with a bit of grain any day.

I agree. It's funny, but the better the resolution the less it looks like a movie. You become aware of things like where the lights are positioned, things you'd normally just integrate into the scene. 


I recently upgraded my TV. I was surprised and disappointed that after spending more on it than every TV I've ever previously owned combined, everything looked cheesy on it, like old Star Trek or Dr. Who episodes. I was able to blur it somewhat by lowering the contrast.


Nevertheless, I already have tickets for December 27th to see The Hobbit in IMAX 3D with my 8-year-old granddaughter. Her generation will simply accept high resolution as the norm, at least until true holographic 3D becomes available.