syd syside Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 everyone take a deep breath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 yeah at least he's not back peddling, maybe some professional 3d animators here can speak to this. Am i correct in thinking that Weta will at the very least need to let their creations render for twice as long, given that there are twice as many frames? Sometimes when i skip frame by frame in HD quicktime trailers, i can see sometimes how 'half-assed' the frame by frame animation is of some of the explosions and particle animation. Its almost like a cartoonist, using the limitation of 24 fps to create visual illusions for the person watching it by creating movement so fast you cant really tell whats going on. I'm looking forward to seeing how 'clear' and fluid the 3d animations and creations WETA comes up with for the hobbit. Seems like 48fps will make it much more difficult for a 3d artist to 'cut corners' when doing complex action shots and stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 remember the alamo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 yeah at least he's not back peddling, maybe some professional 3d animators here can speak to this. Am i correct in thinking that Weta will at the very least need to let their creations render for twice as long, given that there are twice as many frames? Sometimes when i skip frame by frame in HD quicktime trailers, i can see sometimes how 'half-assed' the frame by frame animation is of some of the explosions and particle animation. Its almost like a cartoonist, using the limitation of 24 fps to create visual illusions for the person watching it by creating movement so fast you cant really tell whats going on. I'm looking forward to seeing how 'clear' and fluid the 3d animations and creations WETA comes up with for the hobbit. Seems like 48fps will make it much more difficult for a 3d artist to 'cut corners' when doing complex action shots and stuff. yeah it will take twice as long to render everything, but from some of the impressions, critics are saying the CGI has more weight and is more physical feeling compared to 24fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 I really don't know how that could be (the increased weight and physical feeling). As said it's just increasing the render time, it's not like it magically moves animation keyframes or something...The one thing I could think of is it might make some vfx a bit more accurate if the live action bits are clearer and have more "in betweens". For rotoscoping, for example. So if a scene blended live action and cg, the live action elements could be separated out more cleanly, with fewer artifacts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 I really don't know how that could be (the increased weight and physical feeling). As said it's just increasing the render time, it's not like it magically moves animation keyframes or something...The one thing I could think of is it might make some vfx a bit more accurate if the live action bits are clearer and have more "in betweens". For rotoscoping, for example. So if a scene blended live action and cg, the live action elements could be separated out more cleanly, with fewer artifacts. I think it has something to do with CGI generally having a bit of a clean/plasticy element to it, unless its really well done... so at 24fps the natural blurring that occurs is not entirely matching the blur applied to the CGI, leaving you with something that sticks out more... while when everything is at 48fps it doesn't change much in regards to the CGI, but because everything is more defined it allows the CGI to blend better with the actors and real elements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Remember when they really did used to use a hook to get you offstage in vaudeville? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 well i remember when i first saw CGI in an HD movie, it looked significantly better to me than normal resolution. I really don't know how that could be (the increased weight and physical feeling) just from seeing frame by frame separations of action shots in movies like Transformers, i can easily see how an extra 24 frames would make the movement look a lot more clean and less blurry. It seems like a lot of the time they do traditional 2d cell animation tricks to make an explosion or fast action shot look more complex than it actually is. thats just my 2 cents, last time i did any 3d rendering was in 1997 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Npoess Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 didn't the Public Enemies movie have that 48fps technology aswell? It made the movie look awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I like the title of this thread, I see Frodo grasping vainly at the air, as a tiny Guillermo Del Toro tumbles into Gollum's outstretched hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 didn't the Public Enemies movie have that 48fps technology aswell? It made the movie look awful. I think it was 24fps, but they used a different shutter speed which made it look all funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 also: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baph Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Remember when IDM had snare rushes? go on, give us a stutter edit edit edit tid eerrrrrrrrrrrrsgh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubin Farr Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 Jackson has officially decided to turn the shortest book in the series into 3 drawn out movies: http://m.ign.com/articles/2012/07/30/the-hobbit-3-officially-announced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baph Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 The third movie is going to be 2:35 of awkward homoerotic plot resolutions and goodbyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLA FUR BIS FLE Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 there was a day and an age where i would have had triple boners for this movie, and the recent news. but now.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 what i don't get is why Peter Jackson wants to spend such a large chunk of his life doing the same thing over and over again. It makes me wonder how effected he was by the Lovely Bones critical reception. The movie was widely regarded as a pile of shit, and since LOTR universe it's the only thing he's done. I'd like to see him spending more time doing stuff like District 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J3FF3R00 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 what i don't get is why Peter Jackson wants to spend such a large chunk of his life doing the same thing over and over again. It makes me wonder how effected he was by the Lovely Bones critical reception. The movie was widely regarded as a pile of shit, and since LOTR universe it's the only thing he's done. I'd like to see him spending more time doing stuff like District 9 You're forgetting that piece of shit King Kong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cear Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 as long as he's doing tolkien stuff :) i do hope this first one is going to be as good as the lotr trilogy, otherwise i'm not even going to care for any prequels obviously. but i've got a good eye on the production, since i followed all the vlogs and stuff. really wonderful stuff, huge studios lots of filming outside, not too much green screen we'll do it in postprod bs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 so... a third movie, should i go into another ineternet rage fit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Bring it on! I want more dwarf beards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaarg Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I'm a hater and I'm gonna hate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubin Farr Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 Of course theses movies all rest on the realism and design of Smaug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLA FUR BIS FLE Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I still think the best version of Smaug is from the cartoon, so realism isn't exactly a necessity for me. But considering that they are like, 1000% off the mark with the Dwarves, I think we can assume that Smaug will look like a piece of shit dipped in piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.