"Spill has GOT TO to a Live Spoiler Talk Chat for MAN OF STEEL."
The Spill Movie Community
If it's crap ... We'll tell you
Follow Spill!
Latest Activity
Ian The Birthday Boy posted a status"It was awesome seeing robocop in theater with the cast & crew."
Admiral Phil-Good posted a status"I found The Cabin In The Woods to be very disappointing i give it an angry Rental! Almost Some ol Bullshit i was so angry..."
Photos
Music
Peter Jackson Unveils Controversial Hobbit Tech
Source: Facebook
Last night, Sir Peter Jackson posted a note on his official Facebook page confirming the rumor that both of 'The Hobbit' films are being shot at 48fps (frames per second), as opposed to the film standard of 24. With this decision, Jackson joins a growing movement of directors (championed by James Cameron) who are pursuing higher framerates in their films, anywhere from 48 to nearly 60fps. However, this decision has ignited an already-heated argument amongst filmmakers and filmgoers alike as to whether the decision is based on quality or simple financial gain.
Jackson had this to say about the technology:
"The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps, rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920's). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok--and we've all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years--but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or "strobe."
"Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D. We've been watching HOBBIT tests and dailies at 48 fps now for several months, and we often sit through two hours worth of footage without getting any eye strain from the 3-D. It looks great, and we've actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive."
"Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D. We've been watching HOBBIT tests and dailies at 48 fps now for several months, and we often sit through two hours worth of footage without getting any eye strain from the 3-D. It looks great, and we've actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive."
The director was also quick to point out that 60fps video is already currently in use at several theme park rides, such as the Star Tours ride at Disneyland and the new King Kong attraction at Universal Studios. While new digital projection technology makes it possible to project film at the proposed 48fps, many moviegoers are concerned that higher framerates tend to look more like video or live sporting events (video is 29.97fps, HD sports broadcasts are often filmed at much higher rates, then converted down). Unlike video games - whose computer animated scenes look better at higher framerates due to the lack of real-world blur - the motion-blurring between frames that occurs with 24fps is what gives film it's "film look".
Many film buffs and cinematographers are accusing the new trend as a rampant cash-in on the 3D craze. Moving to higher framerates may not help regular ol' outdated 2D, but shooting at a much higher rate eliminates some of the viewing artifacts in 3D footage (which occurs due to the regular motion blurring of the two separate frames being composited together in the 3D process). Fans are quick to accuse Cameron and his fellow filmmakers of attempting to advance 3D film at the cost of 2D quality. However, Jackson is quick to defend himself and his team:
"Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew--many of whom are film purists--are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience. It's similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs. There's no doubt in my mind that we're heading towards movies being shot and projected at higher frame rates."
Regardless of the feverish battle happening in comment sections and threads across the internet, we have a strong feeling that it will boil down to exactly one thing - how the final product looks. When the man who made 'The Lord of the Rings' says it looks better, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and cross our fingers.
Comment
-
Comment by Trey Dixon on April 17, 2011 at 8:13pm -
The framerate should not be a selling point to this, it should be the story. Everyone that's complaining about this are those who are too cheap to go see 3D versions of films. Also, everyone knows that Christopher Nolan is shooting The Dark Knight Rises in High-Def and IMAX as much as possible because he believes in telling a story, not if the film looks like film.
What Peter Jackson is aiming for is not really a faster framerate but to catch more detail in the shoot, because he is very much into giving us an immersive experience into Middle Earth. I mean, if this was in 3D, I would save up to pay for a 3D ticket because the experience that PJ may do with The Hobbit may be to have it in 3D. If he did, this would be smart because I agree with Fungusmonkey that 48 fps is great for 3D, and every time we had a 24 fps-shot film converted to 3D, it looked like crap (Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender comes to mind in this case). If it were to be downconverted to 24 fps to "look like film," Weta would easily do it, but PJ is not really Hollywood (a New Zealander would defy conventions most of the time), and this sounds very cool that this is the plan.
Oh, and by the way, I saw Public Enemies and I never minded the realism of the cinematography because I was interested in the STORY and the CHARACTERS. If The Hobbit has those two, would I give a crap about the fact that it looks real? No, I wouldn't, I would have a good experience. If the story, the characters, imagery, and the visual effects suck, then I would be complaining about it in the aspects we're arguing about.
-
Comment by Ingalook on April 13, 2011 at 5:50pm -
I guess this will be like looking at a blu-ray movie on one of those new-fangled 120hz TVs. I remember the first time I saw my bro watching TF2 (which I hope he rented) on his new TV and it tripped me out... no motion blur... felt like I was watching the movie in 4x speed...
No motion blur is fine in quick FPS style games, but in a movie it borders on creepy... its kinda like what makes "stop-motion" animation have that otherworldly quality... not sure I want in in my movies
My bro kept saying "you get accustomed to it, its way better..." perhaps the kids in the future will look back on the movies of today and be like "why are they so blurry?"
-
Comment by Happy Birthday Roboto on April 13, 2011 at 4:49pm
-
Comment by Preston Jones on April 13, 2011 at 4:06pm -
im up for it. for some movies that hyper-real look is kinda cool and it might look good with this one particularly with so much detail that i know is going to be put in it.
-
Comment by Alex Reynolds on April 13, 2011 at 3:25pm -
Why do people complain about 3D? You can still watch movies in their 2D form if you're not into the whole "3D Bullshit" that's been happening for the past 2 years.
-
Comment by stiver on April 13, 2011 at 2:42pm -
FUCK 3D
-
Comment by Bunnystick on April 13, 2011 at 2:28pm -
man, fuck 3D.
-
Comment by Knight7sk on April 13, 2011 at 1:09pm -
So they're gonna film 48 fps instead of 24 fps now...
... okay -_-
-
Comment by metalraygear on April 13, 2011 at 12:38pm -
YES! I will watch that!
-
Comment by Happy Birthday Roboto on April 13, 2011 at 12:18pm
-
(Don't worry I airbrushed out the nipples!)
© 2013 Created by The Spill Crew.
You need to be a member of The Spill Movie Community to add comments!
Join The Spill Movie Community