137th Gebirg wrote:
Interesting. 48fps. I'm curious how that will translate to home viewing. 1080p hi-def still operates at 30fps. True, they're experimenting with 50 and 60 fps standards for the future, but probably won't be ready for prime-time any time soon. If the film relies on the higher frame rate, it may loose something when it hits BluRay. I'm genuinely curious how this is going to look in theaters.
Well, yes, they'd have to add something to the blu-ray spec to handle 48fps at 1080p, but you make it sound like it's more of an issue than it really is. Plug in an Xbox with the latest Call of Duty and it'll send 1080p at 60fps to your screen.
How hard would it be to convert it back to 24? Just take out every other frame...
...hell, they could make 2 prints, one with the odd-numbered frames and one with the even-numbered ones. Two versions, just slightly
That would actually be a really bad way to do it. The versions would be unnecessarily choppy. You'd probably want to blend adjacent frames together to get down to 24fps in order to preserve motion.
I agree, except that Uwe Boll could
in fact frak it up...
...but I do trust PJ to figure out what works and what doesn't -- when push comes to shove he'll do what's best for the film even it means admitting he made a mistake.
Unless he's so far committed to it that he can't back out.
By the way one thing I hope folks are noticing, and it will happen when the video production comes out too. All this debate over the technology - with people hating it and a few people loving it (sorry, I'm seeing a majority opinion against so far) - is completely overshadowing discussion over the actual content. I've seen very little discussion over whether the 10 minutes is any good or not as far as being a dramatic presentation. If the same holds true when the complete video production is released later this year, then Jackson will have indeed frakked it up because it'll become about the tech and not about the actual story and the adaptation. I hope that doesn't happen as it would make for a sad coda to the Lord of the Rings films.
BTW you'll notice I've stopped using the term "film" or "movie" when referring to The Hobbit; it's now "video production". As the term "soap opera effect" has now taken hold and is being used quite a bit to refer to the resolution issue, I figure there's room for another neologism.
Oh boy. Do you realize that what you seem to be objecting to doesn't even have anything to do with film inherently? If someone really wanted to, they could record 48 fps on actual film. There have been plenty of films
shot digitally in the past few years at 24fps that you are probably ok with.
A sad coda to the LOTR films? You realize that those movies pushed the tech envelope as much as anything. Somehow their adaptation and story seems to have satisfied your standards despite the time they spent mo-capping Andy Serkis and rendering computer animations into the thing.
How exactly is using a camera you don't like to film things going to fuck up the story?
If anyone is interested in seeing comparisons of various frame rates, I recommend checking out this site: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/