The Hobbit starts filming : )
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Sunday, September 16, 2012 02:43
VIEWED: 6207
PAGE 2 of 2
Hey Phoenix.
The reason he's shooting it at 48 fps is to make the 3D easier on the eyes, as part of the 'headache' felt by many whilst watching 3D is down to the traditional frame rate - apparently.
So the 3D should be less of a strain and Cameron is intending Avatar 2 and 3 to be filmed at 60 fps just to eliminate that very problem.
Personally I'm not a fan of Peter Jackson and I'm no fan of Tolkein but I applaude the endeavour to try and make visuals better for the cinema going public.
For fans of the Hobbit book though it does sound like he may be trying too hard with the story. But you can't blame him. With audiences these days being brought up on reality TV and youtube clips he has his work cut out in trying to visualize dense text into a blockbuster hit.
Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are reasons beyond greed for splitting the movie in two. The Hobbit is more detailed and eventful than people may remember. When you lay out the story, it is enormous and encompasses more than one film. Bilbo is gone so long that he is declared legally dead back home. In real time the story is lengthy.
Jackson on filming The Hobbit at 48 fps instead of the normal 24 fps:
We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. 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.
The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity," where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
- I hate 3D too - but Avatar 2D looked just fine.
Yeah, but it kind of precludes the possibility of Imax, and half the other theaters in the world.
Have you read there won't be a 2D version?? That would really tick me off.
No, I'm simply speaking from experience. Imax is always in 3D, I haven't been able to go to an Imax film since this whole craze started. And most theaters prefer to show the 3D version because they can charge more. I've had to scour theaters for one showing a 2D version of, say, Avatar or Tron.
I'm aware that films are made to make money, but charging the price of two tickets or two DVDs for a single book's story gets into irritatingly greedy territory. There's no good reason for it beyond wanting to charge twice. The LotR movies were all long, and they all did well and had millions of people more than willing to sit through them.
As to making it less headachy in 3D, that's well and good if it works, but at least half my problem with 3D is the damn glasses. They hurt. If they would design them to go over normal eyeglasses, that's one thing, but they're small, rigid, tight things that squeeze my head and give me a headache all by themselves, along with the disorientation and motion sickness I tend to get from the effect itself.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
3D SssuuUCcckKkssS
LOTR does have a bad rap and deservedly so - they released each DVD without just enough stuff to make another release seem marginally acceptable and desirable. And now they are doing it all over again with BluRay - just releasing the shorter version first - and people are getting pissed. I'm just not going to waste any energy over it.
But more importantly... did you watch the 10 minute short?!?! Daaaamn. I just got around to watching it and it's like it flipped a switch and I can't wait for whatever Jackson has to offer.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The eye takes in about 15 frames a second. Soaps are shot at 30fps, like all TV (except cartoons, which were filmed at 15fps, and then doubled to save money. Oppyh, surely not. A soap would go a penny over budget for quality?) I'm sure it's just that all TV (traditional) is played back at 60 frames per second. The reason for this is the rate of fade on a phosphor dot. It was later determined that the real rate of fade was 72 fps, which is why that's the freq on computer monitors made after the first viewsonics in the early 90s. That's why they don't flicker from a distance like TVs.
Film was originally 16fps based on studies on the eye. The problem was with hand-cranking, the speed could slow down, causing a noticable flicker. Speeds were then push to 18 and gradually stepped up to 24, which was the speed at the time they switched to motorized playback projectors. There's an added advantage to 24, even if you will only see 16 or so, which is that your eye sample is not going to exactly match the frame, and while it tends not to pick up the blank between frames on a single sample, it could happen, or one frame could be sampled twice, and a flicker could be experienced.
I'm assuming that 3d requires a frame from the left eye, and then one from the right, meaning that at 24 fps, the result would be 12 fps in interlace, which would definitely cause a flicker.
On the off chance that there's a human left who didn't know this: The fast paced movements associated with silent films are not intentional, they're the result of a film being shot at 16 or 18 being played back by a machine at 24. Some mid-20th c. projectors actually have a switch to change speeds.
Speaking of projectors, anyone have advice on a digital? I'm thinking of getting a Pico, of some sort. Should I wait? Is there a much better 1080P out there that a pico isn't worth it? Should I splurge for a pk301 or is something better around the corner? I really don't care for the idea of a heavy piece of equipment that you have to lug around, like a 42"+ Tv.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
