The Hobbit

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Feien

Feien

Ploppers
458
382
Jait_sl said:
Braveheart used 48fps in their battle scenes, didn't they?
Click to expand...
Nope. What Braveheart did was using different shutter angles (or shutter speed). Usually during the battles they would use a faster shutter speed to make the movement feel more frantic. Saving Private Ryan is a great example of this as they use this technique in most of the movie.

There's a big misconception going on about what 48 frames per second really means and what it does to a movie visually. This past year I've had the chance to watch plenty of stereoscopic (or 3D) video projected at different frame rates to notice the differences. Something that bugs me is that people are saying that it looks just like a soap opera, tru-motion smooth-o-matic video, or whatever 120hz crap they are putting on TVs nowadays. While I do think that it is the closest thing we can easily "compare it to", I guarantee you that it IS NOT the same. It's very different when the camera actually captures 48 full frames a second instead of interlacing them and when its projected at full 48 frames per second, instead of recreating frames between frames.

I don't want to talk too much about it until I'm able to give my final opinion, though I've had the chance to watch bits and pieces of The Hobbit, I think it would be wrong for me to state an opinion without having seen the movie yet. Though I will have a chance to watch it tomorrow, so I'll make sure to come back and talk about it. In the meantime if anyone has any technical questions, I'll do my best to answer them.
 
Jait

Jait

Molten Core Raider
5,035
5,317
I would have thought a faster shutter speed would = more fps. I know nothing about this stuff though, I appreciate the explaination.
 
T

Teddite

463
0
I was planning on seeing this day one with my son, but now I think I'll hold out and wait for some reaction to the 48fps deal. My brother in law's TV has the higher frame rate shit on it, and it makes everything we watch there look like a Canadian made for TV movie.
 
Feien

Feien

Ploppers
458
382
Teddite_sl said:
I was planning on seeing this day one with my son, but now I think I'll hold out and wait for some reaction to the 48fps deal. My brother in law's TV has the higher frame rate shit on it, and it makes everything we watch there look like a Canadian made for TV movie.
Click to expand...
I'd say don't wait for a reaction. Give yourself a chance to make your own opinion if you are really interested. The good thing this time around is that Peter Jackson and the studio were smart about this. Sure, they filmed everything at 48fps, which is making some people shout with hatred without having seen the thing themselves, but there is still a 2D 24 fps version, which should look just like any other movie we've seen. In fact, the conversion is pretty simple. You take out every other frame and add a little blur.

Honestly, what I believe will happen is a very divided opinion. It's gonna be the younger people and hardcore gamers that are going to end up liking it more I think, and that's not a bad thing, because that is a big demographic for this movie. Some of us are just going to flat out hate it, and others are gonna dislike it at first, but as we have more things captured and projected at higher frame rates, I think we'll begin to enjoy it and start noticing the differences between real HFR capture and projection and fake "HFR" like the one TVs have nowadays. Just like most people can now notice a difference between SD and 1080p HD video.... and will be able to tell the difference between HD and the upcoming UHD (or 4k).
 
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
72,968
214,254
Jait_sl said:
I would have thought a faster shutter speed would = more fps. I know nothing about this stuff though, I appreciate the explaination.
Click to expand...
No a higher shutter speed just captures the action with better sharpness. but its not the same as film advance speed. its like still photography with a crappy point abd shoot camera as opposed to a high end camera with a professional auto winder. You can get action shots on a point and shoot you might even have an action option which has a higher shutter speed. But after each shot you get a delay of maybe a second. On a slr with an auto winder you get multiple frames in that one second. If you ever seen a movie with a fashion model photo session. You hear the camera go pchee pchee pchee as the photographer yells directions. Same thing here. you can blow through a 36ct roll of film in seconds. With digital you're only limited by your hd space. So basically no limits. so this has me wondering whats the hubub about. Your eyes process motion around 24fps so I dunno why a higher frame rate is having a negative effect on them.
 
Feien

Feien

Ploppers
458
382
Actually your eyes will adapt to motion. On average they say tat if we were to compare it, the eye sees as if a camera was shooting 60 fps. That is one of the reasons some people will say they like the look of 24 fps. Because our brain knows its not real, or what we are seeing is "another world or unnatural" Therefore our brain automatically accepts it as a narrative.
 
K

Kinner

Clear eyes. Full Hearts. Can't lose.
276
114
I picked up my tickets for the 2d version, then I will see the 3d 48fps version at a later date. If you have not heard of these theaters, I highly recommend seeing movies you actually want to pay attention to at one. Sure it costs a little bit more, but a recliner, less people in the theater, and beer makes it awesome.

http://www.ipictheaters.com/
 
Feien

Feien

Ploppers
458
382
Kinner_sl said:
I picked up my tickets for the 2d version, then I will see the 3d 48fps version at a later date. If you have not heard of these theaters, I highly recommend seeing movies you actually want to pay attention to at one. Sure it costs a little bit more, but a recliner, less people in the theater, and beer makes it awesome.

http://www.ipictheaters.com/
Click to expand...
iPics are awesome. Another alternative if you are in the southern California area are theCinepolis Luxury Cinemas
 
Frenzied Wombat

Frenzied Wombat

Potato del Grande
14,730
31,803
Saw this yesterday at an advanced screening and I must say that despite going in with low hopes based upon the reviews, it was in fact quite excellent. I fully expected it to be a three hour slog, but I really can't think of any moment where I was even remotely bored. I personally found the "fluff" in the first hour-- mainly dialogue between Bilbo and the dwarves, to be quite entertaining. Perhaps it's because though I am by no means a LotR fanboi, I am also far from your average viewer-- so I found all the dialogue and lore holding me in rapt attention. The gripes on rottentomatoes concerning pacing is total BS, at least to someone that enjoys the series/books. To each their own I guess.

As for the 48fps 3D debacle being debated, I'm on the fence. In certain scenes, particularly close in dialogues and small indoor sets, the realism and crispness the filming lends actually makes things look "fake". Gandalf sometime looks like an old dude in a costume, and the dwarves can sometimes look like they're wearing makeup. You do get used to it though.. Where the 48fps really does shine however is in action scenes, particularly CGI based action scenes. The crispness and fluidity is incredible.. The escape from the Goblin King's lair is probably one of the best action scenes I've ever seen. Same with dwarf capture by the Trolls. Also, I typically have found 3D to be historically blurry (like in the Avengers), while in 48fps the 3D was damn perfect-- no blurriness or "haloing"

The movie is breathtakingly beautiful from beginning to end, has great action scenes, and follows the book to the letter. What more can one ask for?

9/10
 
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
72,968
214,254
Blackyce_sl said:
I can't remember, was that song in the book as well as the 70's cartoon? I know the dwarf songs were in both.
Click to expand...
i think it was. the goblins like to sing. they even had that song about the birdies stuck in the tree as the goblin and wargs were discussing how they would kill bilbo and friends.
 
F

Faiona_sl

shitlord
113
1
Aww they don't sing when they're stuck in the trees?
frown.png
That is disappointing. I think I've just decided I'm going to go see it first in the 'normal' version, and then go again and see it in the 3D 48fps version.

frown.png


frown.png
 
A

Ames_sl

shitlord
66
4
I'm not sure I agree with spreading the story out into three movies but I am excited as fuck to see this never the less.
 
Fight

Fight

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
4,640
5,560
Frenzied Wombat_sl said:
The movie is breathtakingly beautiful from beginning to end, has great action scenes, and follows the book to the letter. What more can one ask for?

9/10
Click to expand...
Cool review bro.

I won't have the option of 48fps or imax, so I am just going to have to enjoy it the old fashion way. Can't wait.
 
Dacianprick King In The North

Dacianprick King In The North

Trakanon Raider
549
848
Lithose_sl said:
Gandalfhas cancer
frown.png
. Fuck cancer.
Click to expand...
That's terrible. And all the other crap he's dealing with is awful.

Movie is great, go see it. Singing is great. Frame rate isn't distracting, although I felt I had trouble focusing in the first few minutes although that could be a factor of the speed of the camera.

I thought it'd be cheesey based on the trailers but it turns out better than expected. Dwarves were solid and so was Bilbo.
My only issue I had was with the voice casting of one of the villains... when you see you'll know who I'm talking about.

I wish it wasn't going to be split up over 3 movies.

frown.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.