8mm Forum: Shoulda stuck with film

This is topic Shoulda stuck with film in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002138

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on April 24, 2012, 11:53 PM:

Read this:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html?utm_campaign=ign+main+twitter&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Posted by Akshay Nanjangud (Member # 2828) on April 25, 2012, 01:36 AM:

Do you think this will make The Hobbit more adaptable to streaming and Blu-Ray?

Am surprised with the release date. This seems more like a summer release than the Oscar time December release. I felt the same about the timing of release of Spielberg's The Adventures of Tintin as well.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on April 25, 2012, 01:02 PM:

Yes, but remember that the other LOTR films were oscar winners, and not just for special effects, as great as they were.

The most distressing thing about the ten minute "preview" shown, was that some of the beards and other touches, which would have looked just fine on 70 or 35MM, looked fake in this preview, and that has always been a great fault I have had with digital.

Film grain is quite often a film-makers friend, in that it actually adds to the details or at the least, distract from potential flaws in special effects, ect. With digital, that is taken away.

... but another problem with this 48 fps presentation, is that, you get above 24 fps ... well, you feel like your watching a video presentation, like a music video, and that takes away from the experience for me. Those is favor of this 48 fps presentation say, "well it will feel more immersive", but I agree with the reviewer, in that he felt immediately taken out and distanced from the presentation.

I hope that there will be a lot of back-lash against this 48 fps presentation, and that they will choose to also release a 35MM version to theaters as well. They will have to, here and there anyhow, as not all theaters are complete digital and some of the older ones haven't went difital, period.

However, with Peter Jackson at the helm, it's sure to be a great rendering (at least, story-wise) of the Hobbit tale.

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on April 25, 2012, 03:11 PM:

I wouldn't go see ANY film no matter what story, or who made it, if it looks the way it is being described. I've seen Showscan, which is 60fps, and it looked nothing like a live TV show.

Posted by Akshay Nanjangud (Member # 2828) on April 25, 2012, 04:22 PM:

Who made this decision of going 48 fps and digital with The Hobbit? If it was Peter Jackson, then it could be an honest attempt at experimentation. If the decision was made on some extraneous constraints, then it was probably out of the creative artists' hands.

This digitized release could actually help us film collectors. If everyone hates it, there could be motivation to stick with film. So us film collectors would probably hope for negative reviews on the digital format of this release.

Posted by Patrick Walsh (Member # 637) on April 25, 2012, 06:41 PM:

The film is being released here on 35mm, I hope that I dont need to speed up the projectors!

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on April 25, 2012, 06:53 PM:

On film it will have that digital look where the colors are exaggerated and faces have that pastel look. I saw a trailer for 21 Jump Street on film and it was shot with the Arri Alexa. I just don't like that look.

There will be a 24fps version. I think they were showing this to convince theater owners to buy an upgrade for their digital projectors, but I think this might have back fired. If I were WB I would be worried.

Disney says they will lose 200 million dollars on John Carter and the man in charge Rich Ross, chairman of Walt Disney Co. resigned.

So if the Hobbit fails, heads will roll.

Posted by Akshay Nanjangud (Member # 2828) on April 25, 2012, 11:42 PM:

Larry, I haven't seen John Carter. But I would like to believe it failed because it wasn't a good movie. The format may not have contributed to its failure.

As for The Hobbit, the target audience may not care, or be knowledgeable enough, to distinguish between film formats. They would walk in expecting a fantasy-fiction feature, and walk out happy if their expectations are met.

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on April 26, 2012, 12:53 AM:

John Carter was shot on film and looked fine. It wasn't that bad of a movie. It just didn't click with the public and it just cost too much. Poor judgement with the production overall. It's probably why Paramount didn't make it.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on April 26, 2012, 11:22 AM:

Just amazing. Thank you for insightful comments, Larry. Just noticed that our host Brad has some interesting posts on the pro side of this site:
He thought 48fps was troublesome last fall, and he has comments on the Cinecon demo now as well.

Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on April 26, 2012, 12:21 PM:

One thing that jumped out at me watching the trailer is the waterfall that appears at about 1:28. It looks fake, like a small scale model, which it probably is. It seems to me film grain would help this movie where digital video is hurting it. I agree with Osi's comment:

quote:
Film grain is quite often a film-makers friend, in that it actually adds to the details or at the least, distract from potential flaws in special effects, ect. With digital, that is taken away.

When the special effects, costumes, makeup and such look fake in a modern movie it distracts me from enjoying the film.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on April 26, 2012, 01:29 PM:

Has that ten minute preview been releaseed on the web and, if so, could someone post a link?

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on April 27, 2012, 03:28 AM:

quote:
you get above 24 fps ... well, you feel like your watching a video presentation

When watching real film at higher speeds (e.g. Imax @ 48fps or Todd-AO @ 30fps), the watching experience only gets better. Hence IMHO the "cheap video-look" isn't caused by the 48fps, but simply by using "cheap" video-cameras. And due to 3D, they can't use the usual "film grain"-fx in post.
(However the 48fps might have resulted in a higher compression of the videos and hence might have emphasised the video-look... . So the author of the article might be correct when thinking that the effect was caused by the 48fps.)

What I really wonder is: Why did Peter choose to shoot in 3D? After all the book "The Hobbit" isn't a stupid 3D-computer-action-game, but an epic fantasy novel! But with 3D I fear that whole story gets reduced to brainless action-sequences (without any plot)...

Jörg

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on April 27, 2012, 10:26 AM:

I was really disappointed when I read Peter J. was shooting with the Red camera. Why he would shift gears mid-stream is beyond me. Maybe he was hoping for a better 3D experience.

Posted by Klaus Kirchner (Member # 815) on November 09, 2012, 04:18 AM:

Hello, as the hobbit comes closer, warner prepares the audience for a special soap opera look caused by the 48 fps technique.

http://gizmodo.com/5958487/the-hobbit-comes-with-an-faq-explaining-why-itll-look-so-weird

Now that´s weird [Frown]

Klaus

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on November 09, 2012, 05:27 AM:

The best thing about it is the fact that there are only 3-5 cinemas in Germany that can actually show the film in 3D at 48fps. All other have to decide whether to show the film at 48fps (and hence in 2D) or in 3D (and hence only at 24fps) - unless they're getting new hardware.
(That is because most cinemas are using HDSDI for the communication between server and projector. And HDSDI isn't fast enough for 3D at 48fps.)

Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on November 10, 2012, 12:21 PM:

Often left out is that Peter Jackson was present when the preview footage was screened and he warned the audience that the footage they were about to see was, "Raw and unfinished", direct from the original digital files.

I'm 100% sure the final footage will look far more professional.

It was Peter Jackson's idea to use 48 fps after consulting with James Cameron, who will be using 48 fps on the Avatar sequels.

James Cameron said that 48 fps make 3D look smoother and will reduce eye strain and headaches. Cameron also said that you get used to it after a half hour or so. We'll soon see.

The Hobbit's release date is this winter because it is a two part film. Part 2 will be out next summer.

Because only a few theater will be able to screen the film at 48 fps, the majority of theaters will indeed be showing The Hobbit at 24 fps 3D and 2D.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on November 10, 2012, 04:48 PM:

Now that, Thomas, can make all the difference.

So suddenly it's gone from criticising a finished "print" to criticising an un-graded "print"...

And how many journalists have really seen one of those?

And with digital, the grading / post can make even more difference.

I love film, but let us all just be careful.

Raw digital often looks absolutley awful, but is in NO way an indication of the finished product.

Careful, folks, with your eager criticism...

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on November 10, 2012, 08:06 PM:

I saw it. It looks awful. At this point they are trying to use post-production techniques to do EXACTLY what pro video users have been trying to do all through the 90s and early 00s (up until 24FPS video cameras became available).

Without the 24FPS frame rate, it will ALWAYS look like video. There is no amount of grain and motion effects they can add to it to prevent it.

In theory, their 24FPS "downsampled" version should look ok. Just stay away from theaters playing it in HFR.

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on November 11, 2012, 05:13 PM:

There are now going to be 3 parts to The Hobbit. Milk it for all that it's worth. I loved Lord of the Rings and can watch those over and over again. I don't even like the costumes and the way the Hobbits look to the Hobbit let alone the way it was shot. I'll wait for the DVD/Blu-ray maybe just to rent.

I did see Flight which was shot on the same type of camera Red Deluxe or something, today's model tomorrow's junk, and it looked pretty good, but it was mostly a drama and the crash exterior was shown only as a video somebody's cell phone footage. No real action. One thing that really, really bothers me about digital shoots is the action scenes that have a weird look to them.

When I was working there was a scene, shot on the Red One camera, or some other digital camera that was shot at a high frame rate for a slow motion effect, I believe 48 fps. They decided not to use the slow motion effect and they skipped framed the scene to bring it back to normal and it looked awful. I took the shot and sent it through a program that blurs fast motion and it looked much better. They may be what they will do to The Hobbit for the normal projection version. If not, it will look just dreadful.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on November 11, 2012, 07:48 PM:

NO...NO...not three parts to the Hobbit [Eek!]

I had enough trouble sitting through a test screening of The Lord Of the Rings "The Two Towers" I sat along with one of the girls that I once worked with at our own special screening before that one was released that midnight. I had to keep asking her, does this make sense [Roll Eyes]

...to her it did, so I guess I must have put the reels in the right order. Anyway I dont do that for a living any more....but somehow I keep thinking of a bunch of "Ewoks" running around when somebody talks of The Hobbit.

Anyway I hope it does well [Smile]

Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on November 13, 2012, 10:35 PM:

Trailer for The Hobbit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0k3kHtyoqc

Discuss.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on November 14, 2012, 12:58 AM:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....just kidding [Wink]

I am sure it will do well.

Graham. [Smile]

PS. I understand its over 3 hours long, I do hope they put an intermission in.

Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on November 14, 2012, 12:04 PM:

Actually, the running time is 160 mins. No intermission.

The only modern movie to have an intermission was Gods & Generals and that was only due to the 4 hour running time.

Heck, Return Of The King didn't have an intermission and that was 200 mins!

As for The Hobbit, it looks like fun and I look forward to seeing it.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on November 19, 2012, 08:54 AM:

Brad, not sure I get this.

If we are re-inventing the wheel, which is what digital cinema is doing, why is 24 fps so magical?

Surely in the past valiant attempts to raise film rate to 30 fps was only headed off by economic factors?

Now, I've never seen the 48 fps demos, so I accept, based on views here, that they look awful; but why do they? Surely, all we want is an increase in quality and a format that a DP can work with and control aesthetics.

So why is digital failing so badly with this when it can potentially be so creative?

[ November 20, 2012, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: Rob Young. ]

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on November 19, 2012, 10:46 AM:

I honestly believe that when all the smart arse gimmicks are taken
away from modern cinema,there isn't a lot of actual talent on show.Time of course will be the judge,but I would hazard a guess
that the majority of this stuff wouldn't ever be shown again on a
cinema screen again.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on November 19, 2012, 12:32 PM:

Hugh, we've been through this discussion before and although I'd like to continue technology vs aesthetics in another thread, I really do believe that Cinema is truly dead at the moment.

I'm on your side...

[ November 20, 2012, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: Rob Young. ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2