- This topic has 48 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Saw it, loved it. I almost think that it’s like visiting an old friend. I will have to do a mini-show devoted to it. Now, I must sleep.
@rob 49982 wrote:
I will have to do a mini-show devoted to it.
Heck yeah you will.
- Women sense my power and they seek the life essence.
And by “old friend” you mean “midget that runs around with other half-midgets and a guy wearing a dress that throws glitter while whispering, ‘Sparkle!'”. I’m looking forward to it. Not sure when I’ll be able to go see it, but hopefully soon.
For me the 3D with the 48fps was so different and non-filmic my brain just accepted it almost like it was a different medium. Like watching a hologram or something. It was only in the early scenes in Bilbo’s house I felt any of that sped-up effect I’d heard about, but the rest of the action scenes played really well. And because I knew what to expect from the pacing that barely bothered me either. I was in the groove for a kind of meandering, episodic, children-oriented adventure romp and it stayed in that groove really well.
The oddest thing visually for me, oddly, was Gandalf. There were several scenes where he looked very flat and 2D in his mid shots and 3/4 shots. I don’t know if it was just a case of rushed green-screening or some problem the tech has with the greys of his clothing and the shade cast by the brim of his hat but that was more distracting for me than any of the new-fangled 48fps action scenes.
I’ll link the mini-show here to keep all this stuff together somewhat.
http://www.theswitchedonshow.com/community/showthread.php?4908-Rob-s-Mini-Show-20121217
- Women sense my power and they seek the life essence.
I think for me, the 48fps thing is a lot like watching a TV with the motion smoothing effects turned on. I guess the people who hate this in theater, either have older TVs, or turn those features off.
Could be Captain. Do you watch movies on a TV with motion smoothing? I’ve heard about it but don’t have a new enough TV to know what that’s like first-hand.
- Women sense my power and they seek the life essence.
I’m more of a purist, I guess. I leave the smoothing features on my tv off, because mine is 120 hz. For every one real frame, there’s 4 interpolated digital ones, and for film, it’s just not right. In highly deatiled scenes, there are a lot of artifacts that detract from the story. I still believe that 3D in general is just a gimmick, and while the advent of 48 FPS does make the 3D even more palatable, it’s still just a gimmick. What I like about the work that Douglas Trumbull is doing is that you can film in a higher frame rate and the action looks smoother when you sample it back down to 24 Fps. Maybe it will just take more time to get used to it, but I think 24 fps is easier to watch and allows me to easily take in the film, which is really more important when it comes down to it.
Further, to me it’s just not right to watch film in higher frame rates across the board. It’s not as much of a faux pas as watching movies in incorrect aspect ratios, but I believe in watching material in its intended presentation, which includes correct aspect ratio as well as frames per second.
@rob 50033 wrote:
… I believe in watching material in its intended presentation, which includes correct aspect ratio as well as frames per second.
That’s my bag too. I was hesitant about spending 3 hours in front of 48 fps after all the reviews and commentaries I’d seen but ultimately I didn’t want to miss the opportunity to see it as Jackson intended it to be seen at least once. I’d be the same at home if I had a fancier TV. It’s also why I regret not seeing Dark Knight Rises in IMAX. I mean, I still had fun with the movie, but I missed out on some stuff that Nolan wanted his audience to see.
- Women sense my power and they seek the life essence.
I don’t have a TV with motion smoothing but one of my friends does and he always has it on. The first time I ever saw it, when I brought a Monty Python DVD over, it was disconcerting. It made the movie look like it was filmed with a handycam instead of regular motion picture cameras. It doesn’t bother me a huge amount once I get used to it, but I too prefer to see things how they were originally shot.
I also agree about the whole 3D movie thing. I’ve said before that it gives me a headache and it’s more expensive, and it doesn’t add anything to the experience. Even if the 48 fps 3D made it more palatable, I still wouldn’t be interested. One of my good friends wanted me to come with him and his family as they went to the next town over where they have a huge theater and were showing it at 48 fps in 3D, and while I appreciated the offer, I just wasn’t interested. I too simply think 3D movies are a gimmick. In fact, I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned this before on these forums or not, but one of our local theaters has actually stopped carrying 3D movies because people always complained about them and not that many people were going to see them, so now all their movies are only in 2D. A vast improvement, in my opinion.
@Bucho 50034 wrote:
I mean, I still had fun with the movie, but I missed out on some stuff that Nolan wanted his audience to see.
Like his wiener?
@digitaltopia 50035 wrote:
Like his wiener?
Specifically his weiner.
- Women sense my power and they seek the life essence.
@Bucho 50036 wrote:
Specifically his weiner.
“I thought so,” I say, as I stroke my chin knowingly. Very knowingly.
Yes, I do have a TV with this feature (240hz with that motiony stuffs), though I leave it off for the most part. Sometimes I turn it on just because it’s an entertaining look. It’s not a good look, it’s just odd to see the effect it has on some stuff. For example, movies like Toy Story, it makes them look slightly 3D. Movies like The Last Crusade look like they were made in the 20’s or 30’s with the staging and lighting effects, but with more modern equipment. Actually, a better way to explain what it does to the ‘look’ of a film, is that it’s got that kind of not-quite-right-but-oh-so-real look of daytime television and newscasts. I don’t know how else to explain it. It’s odd. I could see this same look in the higher frame rate of this movie.
@rob 50032 wrote:
What I like about the work that Douglas Trumbull is doing is that you can film in a higher frame rate and the action looks smoother when you sample it back down to 24 Fps.
That’s really boiling it down to something that becomes inaccurate. Taking real motion/real live and sampling it say, 120 times per second is not going to give you “more realism” or “smoother motion” when you bring it back down 24fps because you have less information than was originally available with which to capture. What you do REALLY have, is some degree of control over the effect at the initial capture, and the transcode. It won’t look “smoother” than if it were filmed straight up at 24fps to begin with, but if they are working the speed over or under a little for the effect, having the extra frames when shot would definitely create a better end result… though that’s not literally just bringing HFR down to the standard cinema frame rate.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.