The Hobbit loses Guillermo Del Toro

[awepittance]

i thought the mountain fight in and of itself was fine but the fact that no one really commented on what was happening was a little strange. In fellowship when they climb into the snowy mountains and are wading up to their waste in snow the tension is great, Legalos says 'there is a foul voice in the air' and Aragorn screams 'sauramon is trying to bring down the mountain!' then Gandalf is like 'we must not turn back!' and followed by probably one of the most lol and best lines of the movie where Boromir says 'this will be the death of the hobbits!'. compared to that part, where it was just an old wizard making snow fall on top of them there seemed to be far less dramatic tension

[gaarg]

The mountain fight was pointless. In the book it was the thunder that made them (Bilbo actually) imagine giants were chucking rocks at each other and it kinda made the wild more wild. Here it just got silly like, we can make it - let's make it. I'm glad they didn't do too much stupid shit like that.

[syd syside]

Alright finally saw this. (On 48fps) Some sequences were some of the most visually stunning special effects I have seen. For example the mountain fight, gollum close ups, the very end, some of the goblin king stuff... I found the stuff in the beginning to be very TV feeling, the sets, makeup etc. Some of the Rivendale shots looked incredible, some very beautiful water scenery going on. The scene with the giant wolves jumping up the trees at the camera had me nerving, felt like it was right in front of me. Problem I had was the 48fps was very inconsistent in terms of it clicking. I noticed that action sequences would sometimes be way more fluid while other times everything would appear to be sped up. I was high off my ass and was mostly observing the movie for its visual aspects so I can't really comment on the film itself compared to the other LOTR, but I was surprised at how quickly it went by. I am gonna be seeing it again at 48fps to see if the experience is dramatically different. My feeling is that pure CG sequences were pretty amazing, stagey sets with some green screen behind actors looked terrible. 48fps simply looks real so I think for future films that use it they will need to go for more natural lighting and makeup. I definitely think 48fps improved the 3D, no eye strain, tho I wasn't as impressed with Peter's 3D composition. He does waaaay too many close ups that give off the TV mini-series vibe or something. He should have pulled the camera back, more natural lighting.

 

It's clear also that for action fighting sequences more convincing fake punches/blows is needed. So overall I think 48fps will have a great future ahead of itself and props to Peter for jumping on board first, but there are many kinks to be worked out before it truly delivers a visually consistent experience.

[Braintree]

I was pretty underwhelmed. I felt like I was consistently just waiting around for Gandalf to save them.

[Silent Member]

Haha, yes, that pretty much sums up the conclusion of every action sequence.

[syd syside]

I have been re-reading the Hobbit and it seems the script follows the book very closely. There was a lacking sense of suspense compared to LOTR films and a bit of identity crisis, but it is more of childrens story so I suspect it will be more enjoyable on repeat viewings as I won't be expecting huge emotional pay offs.

[pcock]

i was quite impressed by visuals on the action bits, 48fps took about 30 minutes to get used to, and the film was as just your average action fantasy lord of the rings shit.

 

il be looking forward to some really good films coming out with this technology in a few years basically.

[BOCfan]

Saw this again in 24fps and it was a much better experience. Still have lots of problems with the movie, however.

[Salvatorin]

I just watched it, I felt like I was tripping balls for the first 10 minutes, didn't even pay attention to anything that was said, just ogled everything with amazement. then It seemed, like everyone else said, like some history channel reenactment for a little bit, then I got over that, and enjoyed the movie immensely.

 

Did anyone else experience some peculiar errors with the 3d? When gandalf exited the troll haunt and gave bilbo the sword, it looked like one of his eye sockets was inverted! it was bulging outward instead of inward. very lol. also when bilbo came running out of the mountain with the ring on, for me he was popping out from behind the trees, the depth was all fucked.

[pcock]

sometimes the 3d looked like three seperate layers of 2d aswell sitting behind each other like a cardboard nativity scene, which was weird

[Silent Member]

Oh man, I thought it was only me. Yes!

[Joyrex]

since you saw it in 24fps I'm curious, did any of the film presentation seem 'off' to you? Such as jittering during panning shots or odd motion blur? Reason i ask is because digital effects were employed to give the 48fps master a traditional 24fps look. Repeating myself from earlier (as i often do) if you simply just dropped 24 frames out of the 48 the movie would end up looking like the opening scene to Saving Private Ryan, so i'm very curious if they achieved a unnoticeable traditional 24fps look from the down-conversion they did. Even Peter Jackson claims that it (the down conversion from 48 to 24) looks slightly different from a normal movie shot in 24fps, but he claims he prefers it.

 

and not to be a nitpicking dick-wad but what you saw was 2k resolution. The only movies that have been shown in 4k so far in the cinema are Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Skyfall (in very few theaters)

 

I saw both Prometheus, Spiderman, and The Dark Knight Rises in 4K (at least they advertised it as using Sony 4K Digital Cinema) at my local AMC theater...

 

You'd be surprised at how many theaters have 4K capability now: http://sony.links.channelintelligence.com/oemsites/6553221/4K/sony4k.html?pg=2

[awepittance]

you might have misunderstood my post, the projectors can all go up to 4k now, but they are up-scaling a 2k master similar to a blueray player upscales regular DVDs. Only a handful of movies (jncluding Skyfall and Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) have actually been mastered and finished in 4k.

technically speaking these sony projectors are not capable (due to bandwidth limitations) of playing a file with 4k source, 48fps and stereo(3d) at the same time. This is why PJ chose to do 48fps and stereo instead, since he wouldnt have been able to show it with all 3 at the same time anyways. You could technically do 24fps, 4k and stereo all at once, but i guess the 48fps and 3d was more important to him. I personally would rather see a movie in 4k (not upscaled but actually in true 4k) than in 48fps.

[Guest maus]

just to clear up a bit of the 4K confusion, awepittance has the most correct overall understanding thus far.

 

the hobbit was indeed finished in 2K, that means even if you're watching it in a theatre that has a 4K projector (most AMCs in major markets and a few others) you're still watching a 2K file.

 

the girl with the dragon tattoo was shown in 4K in SOME theatres. it gets very confusing very quickly because even theatres that were equipped with 4K projectors were, in some cases, still showing 2K delivery files. the reduser forums became somewhat useful in determining (usually via frustrating phone calls with cinema managers) which theatres were actually showing true 4K.

 

skyfall was shot on the arri alexa which shoots at a maximum of 2K... so once again the 4K here was not true 4K. (as a matter of fact there were quite a few noticeable digital artifacts as a result of this process... but only to someone who is a pixel-peeper - the film overall was an absolutely phenomenally shot and processed work.)

 

i own a red (among other various cameras with various sensor types) and make my living working with these formats (albeit not to the level of fincher or jackson... yet...) and even the pros get confused with the pipeline. a lot of this can be chalked up to the aging and decaying industry monoliths that are DRM-crazy and unwilling to change... but it's happening.

 

RED's new REDRAY allows anyone to have a 4K delivery device in their livingroom that hooks up to the new ODIMAX network to access true 4K content. kind of like a netflix on steroids.

 

as for the 48K thing, i haven't seen the hobbit in 48k yet, but i absolutely ABHOR the "smooth-motion" or "240hz effective refresh rate" on newer consumer televisions. my girlfriend's parents just bought a VIZIO that doesn't even let you turn this effect off. we watched 'beasts of the southern wild' via xbox last night and it looked like it was shot on a handicam. absolutely DISGUSTING. some people don't even notice, but i think it's the worst bit of marketing bullshit to come along in a long time.

 

ok now i'm just ranting.

[awepittance]

just to clear up a bit of the 4K confusion, awepittance has the most correct overall understanding thus far.

 

the hobbit was indeed finished in 2K, that means even if you're watching it in a theatre that has a 4K projector (most AMCs in major markets and a few others) you're still watching a 2K file.

 

the girl with the dragon tattoo was shown in 4K in SOME theatres. it gets very confusing very quickly because even theatres that were equipped with 4K projectors were, in some cases, still showing 2K delivery files. the reduser forums became somewhat useful in determining (usually via frustrating phone calls with cinema managers) which theatres were actually showing true 4K.

 

skyfall was shot on the arri alexa which shoots at a maximum of 2K... so once again the 4K here was not true 4K. (as a matter of fact there were quite a few noticeable digital artifacts as a result of this process... but only to someone who is a pixel-peeper - the film overall was an absolutely phenomenally shot and processed work.)

 

i own a red (among other various cameras with various sensor types) and make my living working with these formats (albeit not to the level of fincher or jackson... yet...) and even the pros get confused with the pipeline. a lot of this can be chalked up to the aging and decaying industry monoliths that are DRM-crazy and unwilling to change... but it's happening.

 

RED's new REDRAY allows anyone to have a 4K delivery device in their livingroom that hooks up to the new ODIMAX network to access true 4K content. kind of like a netflix on steroids.

 

as for the 48K thing, i haven't seen the hobbit in 48k yet, but i absolutely ABHOR the "smooth-motion" or "240hz effective refresh rate" on newer consumer televisions. my girlfriend's parents just bought a VIZIO that doesn't even let you turn this effect off. we watched 'beasts of the southern wild' via xbox last night and it looked like it was shot on a handicam. absolutely DISGUSTING. some people don't even notice, but i think it's the worst bit of marketing bullshit to come along in a long time.

 

ok now i'm just ranting.

 

so the skyfall thing was bullshit, i wonder where i heard that.. hmm. So historically speaking Dragon Tattoo so far has been the only major hollywood film delivered to (some) theaters in 4k. For some reason i find that really deflating, that these mega studios and theater chains are very much trying to resist being ahead of the curve. 3d and 48fps in my mind at least are not the 'future' of cinema. But insanely high resolutions could be, because to most people they would look automatically better and not divisive or weird like 48fps has to many people. Thanks for clearing that up

[Guest maus]

4K is absolutely astonishing when presented properly. dragon tattoo looked great, but as fantastically shot as it was, it doesn't stack up to some of the 4K material i've seen (to the point that i'm still not 100% convinced that the screening of dragon tattoo i saw was truly 4K.)

 

higher resolutions are an inevitability. you'll find plenty of naysayers who claim that the human eye can't really see such resolution, and that it's a marketing gimmick, etc., but even downscaled 4K acquisition looks incredibly more rich and detailed than 1080p. it's not just a question of how many pixels we're cramming into an inch (or indeed foot)... higher resolution allows for smoother gradation between light and dark tones, much more believable VFX integration and so forth. couple this with the RAW workflows that RED (and the blackmagic cinema camera) allows and you've got unprecedented control over imagery.

 

48p is what it is... i have no problem with a filmmaker using higher framerates, narrower shutter angles or whatever other techniques they choose to create their art. i most certainly DO, however, have a problem with TV manufacturers arbitrarily turning content that i (or anyone else for that matter) have painstakingly and at great expense produced to look a certain way into smoothed-out "high refresh rate" bullshit.

 

8K displays are already being played with by samsung and such. the RED dragon sensor makes its debut in 2013 which raises the stakes to 6K for the EPIC and SCARLET cameras, and also promises to revolutionize the low-light acquisition that we've come to expect from the 5DII and its ilk.

 

just for fun, here's a quick piece i shot on my RED shortly after getting it in march. this was lit with two LED light panels in a garage. but thanks to the 4K RAW workflow, it's still one of the most cinematic-looking things i've yet produced. i may have posted this here before, but whatevs. and yes, the VFX work is cheezy as balls, but we put this together in about 8 hours start to finish.

 

[vimeo]37924477[/vimeo]

 

sorry to be geeking out on digital cinema, but i fucking LOVE this stuff.

[awepittance]

<p>nice clip! <br />

<br />

i wonder what you'll think of the 48fps look for the Hobbit once you get a chance to see it. To be totally honest it looks far more like live-tv or video than even that 'tru-motion' bullshit on televisions like you're talking about. Since I'm not an expert in video I speculated to myself that part of the reason it looked so oddly like TV might be because it was 48fps recorded on a video camera (albeit one of the world's best video cameras) instead of that rarely used 48fps 35mm film stock on a film camera. Would something shot on film at 48fps remind us more of BBC television video than traditional 24fps film? It's a strange thing that i'm not sure if it really is even the frame rate itself that gives it that cheaper look.<br />

<br />

I'd love to see some 4k or 6k content. I'm sure at a certain point there are diminishing returns as far as perception resolution of the human eye but I would imagine that for a giant movie screen you could play with much higher resolution than you would be able to do on a 50" plasma screen.<br />

I've been lurking in the red-user forums for a while just out of curiosity about the technology (I do hd video work occasionally on a  sort of low end canon still camera). </p>

[syd syside]

I think the TV look had more to do with over lighting and tight composition than the faster frame-rate itself. Everything needed to be darker with the extra clarity achieved with the 48fps. Natural lighting and stuff. Copying a review that sums up my feelings

 

 

As for the HFR. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't dominating my mind for the first half hour or so. It really is jarring, but also so very clear. Forget the CG sticking out like a sore thumb - it's the lighting. Everything immediately looks very much like a lit stage play. None of this is the fault of HFR, but I think Lesnie really ought to have played with the lighting a bit more, because with the increase in clarity and the wide shutter angle, it became apparent that things could have stood to be a little darker. All ghosting/strobing was completely gone and 3D becomes completely easy on the eyes. CG was a lot better than I expected for the most part. Radagast's animals were off, but a lot of the orcs/trolls looked rather good I thought. I loved Gollum's scene - especially the staging callback to his appearance in the prologue of Fellowship.

So I'm totally for HFR, but think - like anything, the filmmakers need to work out what does and doesn't work in it. I also think that while HFR made 3D much better, Peter Jackson's use of 3D has been talked up a bit much in terms of how he has staged his scenes. Scorsese's HUGO still remains the bar to be cleared.

[awepittance]

could be the case, the outdoor scenes looked the least like 'video' that had no cgi in them.

[Guest maus]

planning to check out the 48p hobbit this weekend, so i'll chime in with a more relevant opinion then.

 

i can, however, say that shooting 48p (or even 30p) on the RED yields a far more VIDEO-like look than 24p. we occasionally overcrank shots (shoot at a higher framerate like 48 or 60p to then play back in a 24p timeline for natural and fluid slow motion) and IMMEDIATELY upon seeing the 48/60p image on the monitors clients on-set will say "woah hang on why does it look like video now?"

 

we've all been conditioned over the years to recognise 30fps (or more accurately 29.97) as a more "video" or "tv" look. it's understandable that the younger generation has less of a sense of this, as the majority of scripted television (and even more recently, reality TV and live events) are now shot at 24fps (23.98fps technically) and exhibit a lot of the characteristics of the "film" look.

 

the best explanation of the look of higher framerates (be they shot at that higher framerate or "smoothed" after the fact with consumer TV technology) is that it looks like behind-the-scenes footage. the lighting and colours are typically correct, but it just feels more "present" or "real". i personally feel that the motion of 24p is more dream-like and conducive to dramatic storytelling, but this might be an opinion that goes the way of folks who like vinyl more than CD... even though i think it's a far more significant difference.

 

the one thing that the 48p might really address is the 3D aspect of the film. by essentially 'sharpening' every frame, the 3D should be more pronounced and intense.

 

ok enough blabbing, i'll check out this hobbit thing and see how jackson's 48p implementation works.

[Squee]

Fuck The Hobbit... I'm watching the Russian version from 1985

 

http://youtu.be/6m0l3Yr1B50

[syd syside]

 

[goDel]

What's wrong with Gandalfs pink in the first picture!? What the...

[Silent Member]

I started watching the russian version.

Then I lol'd.

[syd syside]

Just saw it again with some family at 24fps, I think I like this one more than any of the original LOTR films. Was visually far more consistent than the 48fps, 3D was even denser and more impressive, but definitely was more wearing on my eyes. Will be interesting to see it at 48fps again and see how I feel about it again. The scenery was breathtaking as were the colors.