4 ms·

Bad review. That "video look" he's mentioning is the absence of 24fps artifacts I'm very glad we get rid of. He could as well just have written "meh, reality

by Gring 14y ago

Bad review. That "video look" he's mentioning is the absence of 24fps artifacts I'm very glad we get rid of. He could as well just have written "meh, reality has a video look".

shock-value 14y ago
No, you're wrong. It has nothing to do with artifacts. Higher frame rates just do not have that "otherworldly" look that everyone associates with high quality cinema. It's a completely psychological effect, but it's nonetheless entirely real and it absolute cheapens the look and is very distracting. Moreover, anyone who knows anything about film would have seen these problems a mile away upon hearing that The Hobbit is shooting at 48fps. I honestly can't believe these directors were (initially) behind this, but then again they were apparently backers of 3D as well which also has a reputation for cheapening the look, although that is more debatable. I think moviegoers will outright hate 48fps though, rather than just gradually shy away from it as in the case of 3D tech.
- taligent 14y ago
  Of course this IS the director that took a great story like The Lovely Bones and butchered it into a special effects laden monstrosity.
- Gring 14y ago
  "otherworldly" is just a nice word for "1920s technology". Getting closer to reality is a common thread in the arts. As soon as man had a way to move from one-color cave paintings to using colors, he started to use them. This is the artistic expression that Peter Jackson is going for. In one of the video blogs he said: "The result looks like where the screen was, there is now a hole in the wall, and beyond that is reality". Imagine, instead of looking a film of Bilbo, you're transported right there into Middle-earth and it looks absolutely real. Wouldn't that be great? I'm very much looking forward to that experience.
  - shock-value 14y ago
    Yes you are right in a way that it looks more "real". But real in the sense that you are acutely aware that it is a staged production when viewing it. The author of this article directly addresses this when he says just that, and also notes that it looks like a behind the scenes featurette. I have not seen footage from The Hobbit but I have worked with other dramatic content at high frame rates and I know exactly what the author is describing. It's really gonna bug people if they really do release at 48fps.
    - Gring 14y ago
      I've seen several Showscan films, and I loved them. I think the biggest problem is acting. 24fps lays a veneer of "movie look" over all performances. With higher framerates, actors can no longer count on that. They have to sell it much more, like in a theatre, but with large screen closeups projected on a 20 meter screen. In a way, it's a new challenge actors never had before. It will be interesting to see whether there are indeed performance differences among the Hobbit actors.

by Gring 14y ago

Bad review. That "video look" he's mentioning is the absence of 24fps artifacts I'm very glad we get rid of. He could as well just have written "meh, reality has a video look".

shock-value 14y ago

No, you're wrong. It has nothing to do with artifacts. Higher frame rates just do not have that "otherworldly" look that everyone associates with high quality cinema. It's a completely psychological effect, but it's nonetheless entirely real and it absolute cheapens the look and is very distracting. Moreover, anyone who knows anything about film would have seen these problems a mile away upon hearing that The Hobbit is shooting at 48fps. I honestly can't believe these directors were (initially) behind this, but then again they were apparently backers of 3D as well which also has a reputation for cheapening the look, although that is more debatable. I think moviegoers will outright hate 48fps though, rather than just gradually shy away from it as in the case of 3D tech.

taligent 14y ago
Of course this IS the director that took a great story like The Lovely Bones and butchered it into a special effects laden monstrosity.
Gring 14y ago
"otherworldly" is just a nice word for "1920s technology". Getting closer to reality is a common thread in the arts. As soon as man had a way to move from one-color cave paintings to using colors, he started to use them. This is the artistic expression that Peter Jackson is going for. In one of the video blogs he said: "The result looks like where the screen was, there is now a hole in the wall, and beyond that is reality". Imagine, instead of looking a film of Bilbo, you're transported right there into Middle-earth and it looks absolutely real. Wouldn't that be great? I'm very much looking forward to that experience.
- shock-value 14y ago
  Yes you are right in a way that it looks more "real". But real in the sense that you are acutely aware that it is a staged production when viewing it. The author of this article directly addresses this when he says just that, and also notes that it looks like a behind the scenes featurette. I have not seen footage from The Hobbit but I have worked with other dramatic content at high frame rates and I know exactly what the author is describing. It's really gonna bug people if they really do release at 48fps.
  - Gring 14y ago
    I've seen several Showscan films, and I loved them. I think the biggest problem is acting. 24fps lays a veneer of "movie look" over all performances. With higher framerates, actors can no longer count on that. They have to sell it much more, like in a theatre, but with large screen closeups projected on a 20 meter screen. In a way, it's a new challenge actors never had before. It will be interesting to see whether there are indeed performance differences among the Hobbit actors.