The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers)

[Professor Zoom]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

For me, the argument that 24 fps is "more cinematic" is silly. Its just something we've HAD for a 100 years. That's all. It's something that we are used to. We've been trained to accept as HOW films should look.

But WHY, why does motion blue equal more cinematic?

As far as it being "to realistic," I think as the technology improves, along with the cinematography, costumes and etc, I don't think that will be a problem.

And to be honest, I would LOVE it if it felt like a stage play. Stage plays, for me, are a more intimate experience, a more immediate experience.. For me, a stage play is watching something happen right in front of me, where as a movie at 24 fps is up there on a screen. And to be blunt, I've never lost track that Ian McKellan is playing Gandalf at 24 fps. I'm along for the story, but he doesn't magically literally become Gandalf.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

Movies don't look "cinematic" anymore anyways. Digital cameras and digital color grading, all that stuff ruined that long time ago.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

Movies don't look "cinematic" anymore anyways. Digital cameras and digital color grading, all that stuff ruined that long time ago.

While I don't agree, you do bring up a good question:

Are digital cameras LESS cinematic than film? There's no grain, which is something we are used to... Is Avatar LESS cinematic than Flight of the Navigator?

Is film stock MORE cinematic?

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

For me, the argument that 24 fps is "more cinematic" is silly. Its just something we've HAD for a 100 years. That's all. It's something that we are used to. We've been trained to accept as HOW films should look.

But WHY, why does motion blue equal more cinematic?

As far as it being "to realistic," I think as the technology improves, along with the cinematography, costumes and etc, I don't think that will be a problem.

One is not necessarily better than the other, in the absolute sense, but as you indicate, there is a cinematic look, or style if you prefer, that people are used to seeing in 24fps (which, admittedly has always changed and evolved), that is in many ways very different than a stage production. Some people like that style - not just because they are used to it, but because it appeals to them. This isn't new. People are often drawn to a specific artistic style - even when a more "realistic" presentation is available. Else, why black and white photography (or even instagram) when far more realistic captures are available? Why color grading?

I don't think there's an inherent criticism in going to 48fps (aside, perhaps, from the fact that, specifically for The Hobbit, it changes the aesthetic from LOTR to which The Hobbit is supposed to be explicitly connected) or striving for the most realistic presentation possible. But the question remains, will audiences (will I) want the stage presentation or the "cinematic" (for lack of a better word) presentation? I happen to think it's a fascinating question, and I'm looking forward to seeing 48fps myself to see what my own reaction will be to it.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

Movies don't look "cinematic" anymore anyways. Digital cameras and digital color grading, all that stuff ruined that long time ago.

While I don't agree, you do bring up a good question:

Are digital cameras LESS cinematic than film? There's no grain, which is something we are used to... Is Avatar LESS cinematic than Flight of the Navigator?

Is film stock MORE cinematic?

The problem is that "cinematic" has no definition. It's a feeling people have. When people say Best of Both Worlds feels like a movie, I don't get it, because for me it absolutely doesn't.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

I think "what is cinematic" is a question that is far too vague. Semantic debates rarely end well (if they ever end ). Better is: How "realistic" should cinema look? When you're in a theater (home or otherwise), is illusion preferable to near-reality? I suppose it all comes down to personal preference. There are people who still prefer 2D over 3D, models and puppets over CGI, b&w over color. But with very few of us actually having seen 48fps yet, it's difficult to say how this new development will fit into the evolution of: "what is cinematic"?

 

[JD]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

For me, the argument that 24 fps is "more cinematic" is silly. Its just something we've HAD for a 100 years. That's all. It's something that we are used to. We've been trained to accept as HOW films should look.

But WHY, why does motion blue equal more cinematic?

Exactly. If we'd had 48fps for 100 years, and someone decided to try something new and do 24fps, people would be saying the same thing.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

That might sound rational to say, but I don't think it's the actual truth. It only makes sense in syllogistic form

 

[Professor Zoom]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

That might sound rational to say, but I don't think it's the actual truth. It only makes sense in syllogistic form

You're right. We wouldn't want to bring rational thought to a discussion. It IS the internet after all.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

That might sound rational to say, but I don't think it's the actual truth. It only makes sense in syllogistic form

You're right. We wouldn't want to bring rational thought to a discussion. It IS the internet after all.

Har Har Har but of course you fail to see the actual point I was making.

But not just me:
From Den of Geek:

The suspension of disbelief is what cinema is built upon. Whether it is simply accepting one person can pretend to be another, or something as grandiose as believing a man can fly, films are nothing without it. And this suspension of disbelief is one step closer to being ripped away by High Frame Rate (HFR). It essentially makes most of the film look completely unrealistic and fake, which in a grand fantasy film is not something you want. While it works superbly in the large scale set-pieces and with CGI, removing the boundaries between what is model work and what is computer generated, whenever it cuts back to the actors you are instantly back in the studio with them, complete with terrible lighting and obvious prosthetics, and away from Middle Earth. It’s the first thing you notice from the very first scene, with a jerky motion blur apparent in many of the actors movements. You'll barely be able to get used to it over the three hours of the film, and as much as we like seeing every pore of Martin Freeman’s face, this is a film best watched with the more traditional filmic substance of 24fps.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

That Den of Geek quote is hilarious. It's the typical rant you hear every single time something new is introduced.

whenever it cuts back to the actors you are instantly back in the studio with them, complete with terrible lighting and obvious prosthetics, and away from Middle Earth.

But HFR is to blame?

and as much as we like seeing every pore of Martin Freeman’s face, this is a film best watched with the more traditional filmic substance of 24fps.

Sure it's not the 4K projection that's at fault here?




btw, anyone a fan of Miami Vice, Collateral and Public Enemies?

 

[Kegg]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

Frankly this entire argument reminds me of how people scoffed at Birth of a Nation because in many scenes you couldn't see people's feet or legs. It was a completely ridiculous way to shoot scenes, as obviously films should look like stage plays.

If your objection to 48 is that it doesn't look blurry and it looks too real, then I have no idea what to say to that because that's kind of the entire point (and also a good thing).

If your objection is, in the case of the Hobbit, this higher resolution makes the fact the film is fake appear more obviously fake, that sounds more like a problem with the movie, and one which I doubt blur would fix much if at all.

 

[Sindatur]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

Funny, that Den of Geek quote is exactly the opposite of what everyone else is saying, that the 48fps is making it look more unrealistic and the motion blur is jerky, while everyone else is saying it removes the motion blur and makes everything too realistic <sigh>

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

Funny, that Den of Geek quote is exactly the opposite of what everyone else is saying, that the 48fps is making it look more unrealistic and the motion blur is jerky, while everyone else is saying it removes the motion blur and makes everything too realistic <sigh>

I guess people don't know what it is exactly that they are criticizing. Again.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

That might sound rational to say, but I don't think it's the actual truth. It only makes sense in syllogistic form

You're right. We wouldn't want to bring rational thought to a discussion. It IS the internet after all.

Har Har Har but of course you fail to see the actual point I was making.

Har har har, you weren't making an actual point, other than some claim towards "truth" which any reasonable person couldn't make until they've seen it... And even then... it's still opinion...

But not just me:
From Den of Geek:

The suspension of disbelief is what cinema is built upon. Whether it is simply accepting one person can pretend to be another, or something as grandiose as believing a man can fly, films are nothing without it. And this suspension of disbelief is one step closer to being ripped away by High Frame Rate (HFR). It essentially makes most of the film look completely unrealistic and fake, which in a grand fantasy film is not something you want. While it works superbly in the large scale set-pieces and with CGI, removing the boundaries between what is model work and what is computer generated, whenever it cuts back to the actors you are instantly back in the studio with them, complete with terrible lighting and obvious prosthetics, and away from Middle Earth. It’s the first thing you notice from the very first scene, with a jerky motion blur apparent in many of the actors movements. You'll barely be able to get used to it over the three hours of the film, and as much as we like seeing every pore of Martin Freeman’s face, this is a film best watched with the more traditional filmic substance of 24fps.

1. Who cares what the Den of Geek says? Is it some sort of statement of fact that I should listen to over anyone else? When do Dens of Geeks become some sort of authority over my own experience?

2. Again, are we just so used to 24 fps that its going to take time, and certainly better technology, for us to adjust? What is so magical about 24 fps? Its just a number that we are used to. Its a frame rate chosen by technology we no longer use, why should we be beholden to something chosen by people long since dead?

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

This thread about revelations in TNG-HD should put that Den of Geek thing into perspective for some. Higher resolution, and you can suddenly see bad prosthetics and zippers and carpet seems and stuff. Some would argue that it takes you totally out of the film, and that it's devilry.

 

[Aeronef]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

So the only argument against it is, again, just like with 3D, is "OMG IT'S NEW I DON'T LIKE NEW!"

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

So the only argument against it is, again, just like with 3D, is "OMG IT'S NEW I DON'T LIKE NEW!"

It's not, I take?

 

[Neroon]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

Everyone take a breath and step away for awhile, if you feel the need to be this testy.

 

[Claudia]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers

I'm not a big fan of the 3d-technology. I'm wearing glasses and having to put on those 3d-glasses over my own... it's uncomfortable and causes headache. So, I've been really looking forward to seeing the Hobbit (and Star Trek, of course, in May) but my enthusiasm has waned quite a bit now.