The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by BluLobsta

Peter Jackson Explains Why He’s Shooting ‘The Hobbit’ at 48 Frames Per Second

Interesting, and we hear straight from Jackson that the release date is set for December 2012. Fantastic.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by BluLobsta

Peter Jackson Explains Why He’s Shooting ‘The Hobbit’ at 48 Frames Per Second

Great read! Thanks for posting the link.




Thar she blows!!!!










LOVE this pic of I assume...Gollum's cave.

[vegeta88]

From the links above:

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. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring. We’re getting spoilt!

... sounds kinda ...

[Show spoiler]awesome!!!

I am definitely interested in seeing that.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Uh-oh, it looks like PJ has started back on the Hobbit 7-meal-a-day plan...

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Uh-oh, it looks like PJ has started back on the Hobbit 7-meal-a-day plan...

But that's the jolly old PJ that we know and love right? I wonder if he knows about second breakfast yet, elevensies, luncheon, afternoon tea, dinner, supper?

I don't think so Pip...

seriously one of my favorite parts

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Uh-oh, it looks like PJ has started back on the Hobbit 7-meal-a-day plan...

Yea, I was thinking the same thing.

Anybody up for 'Elevenses' or 'Afternoon Tea'? LOL


However, notice how happy he seems in that pic. That's what I like the most about it.

[Duffy12]

So this appears to be the official logo for the film.











Seems to match the LotR logo-

[Show spoiler]

.

[anomynous]

Hm....where have I seen something like that before?

[kristoffer]

Originally Posted by BluLobsta

Peter Jackson Explains Why He’s Shooting ‘The Hobbit’ at 48 Frames Per Second

Sounds cool but will require new tvs and blu ray players for home viewing...

[Josh]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

Sounds cool but will require new tvs and blu ray players for home viewing...

Maybe. Most TVs these days are 240Hz refresh, meaning 240 fps. 48 is divisible into 240 (by a factor of 5), so it would technically work on those screens. The same way 24fps works on both 120Hz and 240Hz screens. They just multiply the frames by a standard factor to get up to the refresh rate without having to create new frames.

[PlisskenReplicant]

i just read the news on comingsoon.net

now i know that if you put a 24 fps movie and raise the auto motion + crap on tvs you get the damn soap opera effect.
but since those real soap opera effect are filmed with higher fps and that is what it is....

will the hobbit look like ****ing santa barbara?

im kinda worried there.

no judder = no cinema feeling for me. i dont know for others but i think it will look :made for tv.

at least there will be no artificial fps as it will be SHOT in 48 fps. will it be smoother but look the same speed of a 24 fps movie:?

[My_Two_Cents]

Discussed at length in The Hobbit thread.

[42041]

Maybe it's silly, but I don't really like this whole 48fps push from Cameron and Jackson. It's not like fast frame rates are anything new, any TV show could shoot 60fps, but big prime time shows are usually 24fps. it's become part of the visual language of cinema.

Of course you could easily just halve the frame rate on home video.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by PlisskenReplicant

i just read the news on comingsoon.net

now i know that if you put a 24 fps movie and raise the auto motion + crap on tvs you get the damn soap opera effect.
but since those real soap opera effect are filmed with higher fps and that is what it is....

will the hobbit look like ****ing santa barbara?

im kinda worried there.

no judder = no cinema feeling for me. i dont know for others but i think it will look :made for tv.

at least there will be no artificial fps as it will be SHOT in 48 fps. will it be smoother but look the same speed of a 24 fps movie:?

Originally Posted by 42041

Maybe it's silly, but I don't really like this whole 48fps push from Cameron and Jackson. It's not like fast frame rates are anything new, any TV show could shoot 60fps, but big prime time shows are usually 24fps. it's become part of the visual language of cinema.

Of course you could easily just halve the frame rate on home video.

You know there is a Hobbit movie thread that has been around for a while.

And why do you want lesser quality and jittery images when the camera pans? In that case why would you want to watch anything on Blu-ray? Isn't it to have the highest quality possible?

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by radagast

You know there is a Hobbit movie thread that has been around for a while.

And why do you want lesser quality and jittery images when the camera pans? In that case why would you want to watch anything on Blu-ray? Isn't it to have the highest quality possible?

It's the soap opera effect that we fear.

How was Mel Gibson's Apocolypto shot during the chase scenes? I remember the fps changed during those scenes to avoid blur.

[42041]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

It's the soap opera effect that we fear.

How was Mel Gibson's Apocolypto shot during the chase scenes? I remember the fps changed during those scenes to avoid blur.

Apocalypto was shot in 24fps, but film cameras need to close the shutter and move the film between each frame; with digital cameras the sensor can record continuously giving it that smooth video look.

[LordCrumb]

48fps won't end up giving it that 'DTV' look will it? Not sure if anyone understands what I mean, its hard to explain.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by KaiGusto

48fps won't end up giving it that 'DTV' look will it? Not sure if anyone understands what I mean, its hard to explain.

No, we get you. It's the same as the Soap Opera effect others have mentioned. Something about it just feels...off. I won't judge it until I've seen it in action, but color me cautious right now...I like the way film looks and feels. I'm not sure I really want that to change.

[Rizor]

Can anyone explain the difference between the processes directors like Michael Mann and David Fincher use to shoot their films? Both shoot digitally, but Mann's films look like cheap DTV stuff while Fincher's look and feel much more film-like. Why do the results look so different?

[42041]

Originally Posted by Rizor

Can anyone explain the difference between the processes directors like Michael Mann and David Fincher use to shoot their films? Both shoot digitally, but Mann's films look like cheap DTV stuff while Fincher's look and feel much more film-like. Why do the results look so different?

The equipment is far less important than how the filmmakers are using it. I think Fincher goes for a more traditional look. Mann did not want Public Enemies, for example, to have a filmy period look, he wanted it to look hyper-realistic and use minimal artificial light, and used HD video specifically for its low-light sensitivity.