And its official, Cameron to shoot Avatar 2 in 48-60fps

[Elee s]

According to wiki there hasnt really been any hollywood productions for showscan. Ive seen 48fps productions at Imax. But again arent hollywood productions so there isnt really any 'acting.'

[Lee Stewart]

According to wiki there hasnt really been any hollywood productions for showscan. Ive seen 48fps productions at Imax. But again arent hollywood productions so there isnt really any 'acting.'

Correct. Showscan films were docs. I saw Niagara Wonders at the Niagara Falls, NY Showscan Theater.

There was a single feature shot and shown in IMAX 48 FPS (called IMAX HD) called; Momentum. You saw this feature?

[Lee Stewart]

Showscan Digital from Douglas Trumbull

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg

[Master X]

Waterworld 2...........



The Hobbit is shooting 48fps also.

[twonunpackmule]

Not to toot my own horn, but I told you so.

The Hobbit ... Didn't Look So Good

Warner Bros. screened roughly 10 minutes of footage from The Hobbit today at their CinemaCon presentation in Las Vegas. The footage was projected in 3D at 48 frames per second for theater owners and press attending the conference.

A taped intro from director Peter Jackson preceded the footage. There is no honest discussion that can be had about this Hobbit footage without emphasizing the 48fps presentation. The film was shot this way and will be digitally projected this way, as well as presented in 3D. So what does 48fps movie footage look like as opposed to your usual 24fps theatrical movie experience? In this reporter's opinion, it looks like live television or hi-def video. And it didn't look particularly good. Yes, this is shocking, but I was actually let down by the Hobbit footage, as were a number of the other journalists that I spoke with afterward.

It looked like an old Doctor Who episode, or a videotaped BBC TV production. It was as shocking as when The Twilight Zone made the boneheaded decision to switch from film to tape one season, and where perfectly good stories were ruined by that aesthetic. Here, there were incredibly sharp, realistic images where colors seem more vivid and brighter than on film, but the darker scenes were especially murky (and the 3D only dims that image even more). Frankly, it was jarring to see Gandalf, Bilbo or the dwarves in action against CG-created characters or even to move quickly down a rocky passage. The whipping of a camera pan or the blur of movement was unsettling.

While 48fps may create a more realistic, "you are there" picture quality, it actually works against The Hobbit from the 10 minutes of footage we saw. This undeniable "reality" kept pulling me out of the movie rather than immersing me fully into its world as the Lord of the Rings films did; the very fantasy element, the artifice of it all (whether it's the wigs, fake beards or CG monsters) was plainly, at times painfully evident. There was none of the painterly gentleness that film offers a fantasy film, as was so beautifully the case with the original (shot on film) LOTR trilogy. I fully expect the 48fps issue to become the much-talked about "mumbling Bane" flap to come out of CinemaCon.

The best sequence shown was one between Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and Gollum (once again played by Andy Serkis). The latter is his old, split personality self as he debates between killing Bilbo or helping him out. Bilbo finally agrees to play a game of riddles with Gollum. If he wins, Gollum will show Bilbo the way to Bilbo's destination. If Gollum wins? Well, makes you wonder if Hobbit tastes like chicken. One reason why the 48fps wasn't as distracting here was that it was an extended sequence, the longest by far of the clips shown from An Unexpected Journey today. The CG-ness of Gollum was more evident in this digital format than it was on film back in the LOTR trilogy, but you'd be hard-pressed not to feel goosebumps seeing Serkis back in deceitful action as Gollum.

Also back in action in the footage screened today? Orlando Bloom's archer Legolas and Elijah Wood's Frodo Baggins, although we only got a few glimpses at those two characters. There were also scenes shown between Gandalf the Grey and Radagast the Brown, as well as an action-oriented one seeing Bilbo imperiled by three giant troll-like monsters before Thorin Oakenshield and the dwarves come to his rescue. There were some moments of Ian Holm as the elder Bilbo, life in the Shire, and the heroes' journeys across the snow-capped mountaintops of New Zealand, er, Middle-earth. Jackson stressed in his intro that the footage was unfinished, and this was evident in many of the green screen backdrop scenes we saw, such as the Rivendell one between Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel.

I didn't go into CinemaCon expecting to write anything less than great things about The Hobbit, but the very aesthetic chosen by Peter Jackson has made me very nervous about this film. It just looked ... cheap, like a videotaped or live TV version of Lord of the Rings and not the epic return to Tolkien that we have all so long been waiting for. I still have hope for The Hobbit, but I'd be lying if I didn't say my expectations for the film have now been greatly diminished.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html

[Elee s]

IGN isnt alone.

With those caveats out of the way, here's what The Hobbit looked like to me: a hi-def version of the 1970s I, Claudius. It is drenched in a TV-like - specifically 70s era BBC - video look. People on Twitter have asked if it has that soap opera look you get from badly calibrated TVs at Best Buy, and the answer is an emphatic YES.

The 48fps footage I saw looked terrible. It looked completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets. I've been on sets of movies on the scale of The Hobbit, and sets don't even look like sets when you're on them live... but these looked like sets.

http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/24/c...mes-per-secon/

[twonunpackmule]

I'm waiting for the inevitable counter points like, "Well, wait until real critics talk about it." Anyway, I actually like seeing opinions from "average critics" or real people, because that actually covers the "true" demographic.

[Elee s]

Man oh man. Heres what slashfilm thought.
http://www.slashfilm.com/cinemacon-t...eron-promised/

I’m a very enthusiastic person, wanting to embrace change. I’m an early adopter of new technology, I welcome improvements whenever I can. 48 frames per second made sense to me, but after seeing real movie footage shot and projected, I couldn’t be more unsure about it.

[timbobarry]

I think there will still be a group of people that will still like it. This is the same group that loves motion flow turned on on their TVs. I don't like it at home because that is not the director's intent. Now it will be and I think this is going to be the norm, like it or not. The technology has to evolve and we'll eventually get used to it.

[Snadinator]

I also find framerates that are too high to be a very bad thing.

[twonunpackmule]

I think there will still be a group of people that will still like it. This is the same group that loves motion flow turned on on their TVs. I don't like it at home because that is not the director's intent. Now it will be and I think this is going to be the norm, like it or not. The technology has to evolve and we'll eventually get used to it.

It won't be the norm. It's not getting th support you think it is. 3d isn't the norm either, and it never will be.

The Hobbit will be shown in 24fps. It will still look slightly off, but it'll be less drastic than the other way.

[rm082e]

Not to toot my own horn, but I told you so.

Toot that horn. You called a spade a spade.

[twonunpackmule]

Toot that horn. You called a spade a spade.

I tried to spell it out clearly a year ago. I tried. They ignored and argued with me. Basically, saying that I didn't know what I was talking about. Disregarding my profession and education on the subject. I get it...it's the internet. People will cling to this idea that blood can come from turnips. It can't. Something is always sacrificed in order to make gains.

I don't find 3D and higher framerates to be worth the loss. Instead, I'd like to see a return to treating it with respect. We've lost our vision for cinema. A few people are out there are fighting for it, but these "technical updates" aren't the way to do it. That stuff is for hacks, and people who've lost all creative thought. The only thing that stuff does is raise the cost, and alienate even more people. It also reduces the class of a piece, and turns most things into trash. Things that can be enjoyable, but somewhere along the way sold itself to just do something that really adds nothing.

At the end of the day, people want good films. They forget about the other stuff. As they should. Drawing attention to the craft is the opposite of what you're suppose to do. You're suppose to forget that you're watching a movie. Not be constantly reminded of it.


At the end of the day, I don't get a kick out of being right on this subject. It just saddens me. TV is the new format for "high quality" content.

[rm082e]

Agree with everything you said. Hopefully this turns out to be a milestone moment in film history and the tide of public opinion will turn back the other way.

[twonunpackmule]

Avatar 2 will look like a video game...not a movie.

The thing that amuses me the most about all these changes is that it's the "old guys" doing it. The young guys seem to actually know better. It's just sort of funny.