Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 99

Thread: The Hobbit Movie being filmed at 48 FPS

  1. #1

    The Hobbit Movie being filmed at 48 FPS

    Peter Jackson revealed that The Hobbit movies will be filmed at 48 FPS in 3D making it the first film to do so. Article here http://the-hobbitmovie.com/peter-jac...medium=twitter

    I can't help but wonder if Lightwave will be utilized in the pipeline by Weta on these films.
    Threadripper 2990WX, X399 MSI MEG Creation, 64GB 2400Mhz RAM, GTX 1070 Ti 8GB

    https://www.dynamicrenderings.com/

  2. #2

  3. #3
    i'm quite sure LW will be used, too what degree, not sure...
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  4. #4
    It seems the only thing holding back films from being shot at 48 FPS was the cost of film otherwise it probably would have been done at a higher frame rate years ago.
    Threadripper 2990WX, X399 MSI MEG Creation, 64GB 2400Mhz RAM, GTX 1070 Ti 8GB

    https://www.dynamicrenderings.com/

  5. #5
    Running at 29.97 fps Titus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Mexico City
    Posts
    2,839
    So they want film to look like video? at least that's how new TV sets show when they interpolate fps.

  6. #6
    da what? daforum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally Posted by OnlineRender View Post
    He says (PJ) in the above link:
    "that films will become "easier to watch, especially in 3-D", with audiences being able to sit through "two hours of footage without getting eyestrain".

    Does that mean its 24 fps per eye?
    Montage Reel, Portfolio, PIN_01, Prime......«« go on, click on a link!

  7. #7
    Running at 29.97 fps Titus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Mexico City
    Posts
    2,839
    My understanding is they are gonna playback movies at 48 fps, or anything higher than 24fps:

    "In summary, Jackson said that shooting at 24 fps has been done since the 20′s and was a requirement due to projection speed and sound syncing. Now, with digital projectors, a higher frame rate can create a smoother playback experience."

  8. #8
    Banned OnlineRender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Glasgow , Scotland , UK
    Posts
    6,375
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas Jordan View Post
    It seems the only thing holding back films from being shot at 48 FPS was the cost of film otherwise it probably would have been done at a higher frame rate years ago.
    not just the cost of the film , the picture house / cinema need the tech to run it .

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    4,156
    Yes, it was a whole system in place all based on a 24 frames standard.
    Digital projection is a whole new world where the Director can pick and choose what frame rate works best for his story. People might even take another look at 60fps (Showscan).

    However, the issue with sitting still for 3 hour movies isn't eyestrain as much as it is your body gets achy and people's bladders get full. I don't think 48 fps is as helpful to the audience as would be to re-introduce the "intermission".

  10. #10
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Godshill, Isle of Wight. United Kingdom
    Posts
    572
    Not sure about this, as Titus hinted it may end up looking like video (yuk..). There was an interesting discussion on one of the excellent pod casts over at fxguide.com (can't remember which one) where they were talking about how some footage that was shot on one of the modern camera's although looking good was not quite right. But once printed onto film everyone was super impressed because subliminally the film look was imprinted onto the footage making the whole look much more "film" like. And I prefer the film look myself otherwise just go out and shoot on Digi Beta. However I guess a pro like Peter Jackson knows what he is doing so I will cast my amateur opinion on it once I have seen it. (Probably in my local picture house from a film print LOL.... )

    Dave

  11. #11
    24 fps might be good for 2D
    48 fps might be good for 3D
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    4,156
    "Looks like video" is a gray area at best. Color grading and depth of field have a substantial role to play. As mentioned even digital footage transferred to celluloid affects the harshness traditionally associated with video. With advancements in digital technology, even if you take celluloid out of the equation (and for digital projection you almost would), they could still get a great look. Even if it meant printing to celluloid and then scanning back it to get the diffuse quality of the medium...but I'm sure there has to be a way to mimic that digitaly.

    Sitting here watching 300 on Blu ray right now. The video transfer doesn't quite match up to my memory of how it appeared in theaters.

  13. #13
    Super Member Hieron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,685
    Ow come on, don't stick to 24 fps because is has some magical "film" quality. If people appreciate it that much, put on shutterglasses to black out half the frames of 48 fps
    imho, it could use a bit more fluent motion, less blur and strobing. The world outside isn't presented to us in blurry 24 fps either. Not like it is some scientific magical nr..

    OT: yay to Peter. Awesome. I've probably sunk too much $ into LOTR movies (5x to the movie theatre, bought normal DVD's, Extended Edition, BluRay version and will buy BluRay extended for sure). Worth every penny. Would love to see this at 48 fps in 3D.
    Last edited by Hieron; 04-12-2011 at 03:27 PM.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Hieron View Post
    Ow come on, don't stick to 24 fps because is has some magical "film" quality. If people appreciate it that much, put on shutterglasses to black out half the frames of 48 fps
    imho, it could use a bit more fluent motion, less blur and strobing. The world outside isn't presented to us in blurry 24 fps either. Not like it is some scientific magical nr..
    :agree: I really don't see any good reason to limit future films to 24 fps if 48 fps makes them look closer to reality.
    Threadripper 2990WX, X399 MSI MEG Creation, 64GB 2400Mhz RAM, GTX 1070 Ti 8GB

    https://www.dynamicrenderings.com/

  15. #15
    Running at 29.97 fps Titus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Mexico City
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Hieron View Post
    imho, it could use a bit more fluent motion, less blur and strobing. The world outside isn't presented to us in blurry 24 fps either. Not like it is some scientific magical nr.
    Talk for yourself. I've use glasses and my world is really blurry

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •