• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

In a hole in the ground, there lived a HOBBIT TRAILER

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

apana

Member
I remember watching a video on this once. Apparently they can film something at a higher frame rate (48 or 60) to elminate the motion blur and then go back down to 24 fps to give it a movie look. Is this true?
 
F

Foreign Jackass

Member
no it's not. It's running at 24fps. You need a 48fps projector to get the end result. HOWEVER, the pulldown tactics to reach 24fps from 48fps alter the general look of the film. And, well, it looks like shit.

Actually, it looks a lot like the motion smoothing effect that is oh-so popular with recent TVs.
 
I

ItAintEasyBeinCheesy

it's 4th of July in my asshole
Edmond Dantès;33636978 said:
This day just keeps on giving. The sixth report from AICN's Quint is up.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/52353

cOeYt.jpg
Click to expand...

My hair is the Star of David, your argument is invalid.
 
S

SCULLIBUNDO

Banned
Foreign Jackass said:
no it's not. It's running at 24fps. You need a 48fps projector to get the end result. HOWEVER, the pulldown tactics to reach 24fps from 48fps alter the general look of the film. And, well, it looks like shit.

Actually, it looks a lot like the motion smoothing effect that is oh-so popular with recent TVs.
Click to expand...

Apparently you're the only one that thinks so. But keep going.
 
F

Foreign Jackass

Member
BruceLeeRoy said:
Well I don't get paid cash for that shit so I'm not really qualified.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you aren't. I'm saying I am.
Evlar said:
No no man, only 48fps projectors can decipher this eldritch technology. PCs and human eyeballs run at 24fps.
Click to expand...
You can also read my answer, and see that you're just trolling me for no reason.

I'm sorry to be the only one disappointed by this trailer, good god. Am I in a Nolan thread?
 
V

Vulcano's assistant

Banned
Thank goddess strict visuals rules define the medium. I mean, have any of you watched those so called Disney animated movies that are all hand draw to emulate movement with less than 24 cells per second! awful stuff. And don't even get me started on those animators from japan, I though the reel stopped moving!
 
S

SCULLIBUNDO

Banned
Foreign Jackass said:
Is anyone who's actually knowledgeable on this going to argue or anything, or is just going to be PETER JACKSON IS BOSS, YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT?

Well, yeah. If it's shown at 48fps. This trailer was made to be shown in 24fps theaters.
Click to expand...

Well you apparently don't know shit. The pulldown method is usually the same for any footage shot with a Phantom camera for example - or any sequence where a director might want to project it in slow motion. They'll overcrank it to 48fps (or higher) and then if they decide they want to screen it at 24fps they'll usually delete every second frame. There literally shouldn't be any difference, except that the new EPICS they're shooting with allow in a whole lot more light in the shutter than anything that has shot at the frame rate before.

So yeah, I'm still pretty sure you're talking our out of your ass. It looks gorgeous, so unfortunately I have to agree with Andrew Lesnie and PJ - which is sad, because according to you they don't know the first thing about what this looks like. If only they had done camera tests!
 
F

Foreign Jackass

Member
Vulcano's assistant said:
Thank goddess strict visuals rules define the medium. I mean, have any of you watched those so called Disney animated movies that are all hand draw to emulate movement with less than 24 cells per second! awful stuff. And don't even get me started on those animators from japan, I though the reel stopped moving!
Click to expand...
No, actually, those look good. It's sad that you're trying to generalize, when all I'm saying is that this particular technique looks, again, like cheap shit to me.
 
P

pottuvoi

Banned
BruceLeeRoy said:
Are you saying that you could pick up on the 24 fps difference from the trailer? What are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Perhaps he doesn't like the slightly lower amount of motion blur in the image.
When shooting with shutter of 270 degree and 48fps the and dropping half frames you get images which look same as with 135 degree shutter and shooting 24fps. (if my fast dirty math is correct.)
 
E

Evlar

Banned
Foreign Jackass said:
I'm not saying you aren't. I'm saying I am.

You can also read my answer, and see that you're just trolling me for no reason.

I'm sorry to be the only one disappointed by this trailer, good god. Am I in a Nolan thread?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, your only complaint is the result of the 48 -> 24 process? Because that was completely invisible in your first post ("this 48fps thing is awful"!) and an absurd reason to declare you'll never see this film

BECAUSE

UNLESS I'M VERY MISTAKEN

you will at some point be capable of watching the movie, which has been filmed at 48fps, displayed at 48fps. Probably on release day in a theater near you. Certainly more or less immediately upon home video release from a media player doohickey in the comfort of your living room.
 
F

Foreign Jackass

Member
Scullibundo said:
Well you apparently don't know shit. The pulldown method is usually the same for any footage shot with a Phantom camera for example - or any sequence where a director might want to project it in slow motion. They'll overcrank it to 48fps (or higher) and then if they decide they want to screen it at 24fps they'll usually delete every second frame. There literally shouldn't be any difference, except that the new EPICS they're shooting with allow in a whole lot more light in the shutter than anything that has shot at the frame rate before.
Click to expand...
If they really did that, it wouldn't look like shit, and PJ wouldn't talk about how they love the effect it has on the 24fps footage, since it would look exactly like 24fps footage.

Unfortunately, it does look like shit. To me, again.

Evlar said:
you will at some point be capable of watching the movie, which has been filmed at 48fps, displayed at 48fps. Probably on release day in a theater near you. Certainly from a media player doohickey in the comfort of your living room.
Click to expand...
I'm disappointed by the effect the 48fps shooting has on this particular trailer, which is shown in 24fps.

That means :
a) I won't like the look of the 24fps version.
b) I won't like the look of the 48fps version, because I know what 48fps looks like, and it looks like cheap video.

So, incidentally, I won't like the look of this movie. It's sad, really.
 
B

Branduil

Member
Foreign Jackass said:
Dude, I do video editing for cash, I know about that shit. I never explicitely stated that the trailer was 48fps, I was referring to the fact that it was shot in 48fps. I'm sorry I didn't give enough explanations for you to really understand.

The end is : it looks like shit.
Click to expand...

Sometimes usernames are entirely fitting.
 
T

TheThunder

Member
Foreign Jackass said:
Is anyone who's actually knowledgeable on this going to argue or anything, or is just going to be PETER JACKSON IS BOSS, YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT?
Click to expand...

Since I don't get paid cash to edit video I'm obviously not, but since you are the authority on what is and isn't shit, I will trust whatever you say
 
S

SCULLIBUNDO

Banned
Foreign Jackass said:
If they really did that, it wouldn't look like shit, and PJ wouldn't talk about how they love the effect it has on the 24fps footage, since it would look exactly like 24fps footage.

Unfortunately, it does look like shit. To me, again.
Click to expand...

So, you just assumed they didn't do that and are the only one that thinks it looks like shit. Maybe the problem you're seeing isn't the result of the framerate.
 
F

Foreign Jackass

Member
ITT : People are offended when I'm acting like a jackass after people actually put me in doubt because I thought something LOOKED bad.
Scullibundo said:
So, you just assumed they didn't do that and are the only one that thinks it looks like shit. Maybe the problem you're seeing isn't the result of the framerate.
Click to expand...
I'll point out the exact place where it looks like a framerate problem. Wait up. It's from 1:58 to 2:07.

It definitely doesn't look like a 2:1 pulldown, because everything looks weird/accelerated/too smooth.

Again, it looks that way to me.
 
E

Evlar

Banned
Foreign Jackass said:
That means :
a) I won't like the look of the 24fps version.
b) I won't like the look of the 48fps version, because I know what 48fps looks like, and it looks like cheap video.

So, incidentally, I won't like the look of this movie. It's sad, really.
Click to expand...

Ahhh. So you knew you wouldn't like it before you even saw it!

You could have said that to yourself and saved us a lot of effort trying to read your mind.
 
S

SCULLIBUNDO

Banned
I don't think anybody is offended, so much as they are relishing the opportunity to make you look stupid when you act like a jackass.
 
M

milkyjay20

Member
i thought big hollywood action and melodrama had no place in LOTR, but it REALLY has no place in the hobbit. it was a lighthearted and fun children's book; not an epic. there is no way that it needs two movies.
 
F

Foreign Jackass

Member
Vulcano's assistant said:
We are just humoring in the fact that you can easily state that you will never watch the movie because its frame rate looks bad.
Click to expand...
I think it looks cheap, like a home video, and makes the whole thing look like a bad play with costumed actors.

To be honest, even if you take out the framerate thing, the special effects in the trailer are pretty... weird/cheap looking compared to the original trilogy.
 
D

derFeef

Member
Looks fantastic. It's going to be a long wait.

Foreign Jackass said:
Dude, I do video editing for cash, I know about that shit. I never explicitely stated that the trailer was 48fps, I was referring to the fact that it was shot in 48fps. I'm sorry I didn't give enough explanations for you to really understand.

The end is : it looks like shit.
Click to expand...

Haha oh man I am lying on the ground...
 
Z

Zabka

Member
The whole PJ quote for those interested.
Peter Jackson said:
The news about us filming The Hobbit at 48 frames per second generated a lot of comments. Of course, it’s impossible to show you what 48 fps actually looks like outside of a movie cinema, but there were several interesting and insightful questions raised.

We will be completing a “normal” 24 frames per second version—in both digital and 35mm film prints. If we are able to get the Hobbit projected at 48 fps in selected cinemas, there will still be normal-looking 24 fps versions available in cinemas everywhere.

Converting a film shot at 48 fps down to 24 fps is not a hugely difficult process, but it requires testing to achieve the best results. Some of this involves digital processes during post-production. We are also shooting the film a slightly different way, which is a question several of you asked. Normally you shoot a movie with a 180-degree shutter angle. Changing the shutter angle affects the amount of motion blur captured during movement. Reducing the shutter angle gives you the stroby (or jerky) “Saving Private Ryan” look.

However, we’re going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master.

More soon ….

Cheers, Peter J
Click to expand...

I'm gonna guess that motion blur will be done shot by shot and not by just deleting frames or applying a motion smooth algorithm to the whole shebang. Not to imply that motion smoothing is a bad thing when you're working with more frames than you'll end up with.
 
D

Discotheque

Banned
SpeedingUptoStop said:
Still can't believe they got PJ back for this, 10 years after the trilogy. Nuts man, must be a crazy feeling to reopen that chapter of your life.


Not really feeling the new actors (aside from Martin Freeman), but I guess Elijah Wood and the like weren't all the recognizable or distinct when they got the job either.
Click to expand...

Note: Viggo Mortensen was just some noob who was in GI Jane prior to LOTR and also lol

so you never know.
 
V

Vulcano's assistant

Banned
Foreign Jackass said:
I think it looks cheap, like a home video, and makes the whole thing look like a bad play with costumed actors.

To be honest, even if you take out the framerate thing, the special effects in the trailer are pretty... weird/cheap looking compared to the original trilogy.
Click to expand...

Ok, so it is visually unappealing. Is really that all what matters to you in a Movie?
 
F

Foreign Jackass

Member
Scullibundo said:
What special effects in particular?
Click to expand...
Best examples are in the same sequence I mentioned earlier.

Flying plates, the waterfall shot (ew), the weird faces on the dwarves, the bloom/lighting, the weird integration of the landscape with the mountains, dwarves falling through the door...

Everything looks weird.
 
B

Bjoern the Smexy

Member
Holy crap, this is by far the bestest OP I have ever seen for a TRAILER.

The trailer itself looked awesome and I can't wait to see the movie next year.

It'll be awesome.
 
P

PersonaX

Member
Foreign Jackass said:
I think it looks cheap, like a home video, and makes the whole thing look like a bad play with costumed actors.

To be honest, even if you take out the framerate thing, the special effects in the trailer are pretty... weird/cheap looking compared to the original trilogy.
Click to expand...

Compared to the original trilogy? what? i mean, LOTR looks amazing, but the effects have not aged all that well, if anything, the effects in this look better, but then again, we haven't seen much.

can't wait for smaug and shit.
 
F

Foreign Jackass

Member
Vulcano's assistant said:
Ok, so it is visually unappealing. Is really that all what matters to you in a Movie?
Click to expand...
No. But for a movie like The Hobbit, it's definitely a major part of it. We're not talking about a Bergman study of the mind or even a freakin' Scorsese movie here, we're talking about fantasy.
Zabka said:
The whole PJ quote for those interested.


I'm gonna guess that motion blur will be done shot by shot and not by just deleting frames or applying a motion smooth algorithm to the whole shebang. Not to imply that motion smoothing is a bad thing when you're working with more frames than you'll end up with.
Click to expand...
After re-reading that quote, I'm pretty sure the choice of upping the shutter angle is what's annoying me in the current look of the 24fps version. So whatever the pulldown process was has pretty much no impact, now.

In the end.. I still think it looks bad.
 
M

Munin

Member
ITT fanboys get their panties in a bunch


TBH it looked just like every other 24p movie to me but at least I don't forbid others their opinions.
 
G

GCX

Member
Foreign Jackass said:
Best examples are in the same sequence I mentioned earlier.

Flying plates, the waterfall shot (ew), the weird faces on the dwarves, the bloom/lighting, the weird integration of the landscape with the mountains, dwarves falling through the door...

Everything looks weird.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be so sure that the mountains have been integrated to the landscape.
 
F

Foreign Jackass

Member
GCX said:
I wouldn't be so sure that the mountains would've been integrated to the landscape.
Click to expand...
I know, but there's something weird about that shot. The lighting perhaps? Something doesn't feel real.

I dunno, the whole thing feels off to me. It kinda looks like Game of Thrones. I was expecting something game-changing, and I don't like the end result.
 
EviLore

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
Looks lovely. Great choice with the song. Martin Freeman seems perfect for the role.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I've completed my 20th re-reading of The Lord of the Rings.
2
60
4K
NecrosaroIII replied
LTTP: Return of the King
Opinion Drama Community
11
1K
poppabk replied
Shadow of War should have led into/become a LotR "What If?" story (SPOILERS)
25
6K
brawly replied
  • Locked
Imagine A Hobbit/Lord of the Rings Mega Movie: How Would You Do It? (Spoilers!)
13
1K
davepoobond replied
  • Locked
LTTP: The Hobbit: BoFA Extended Edition (Also ME movie post-mortem)
3
2K
Megalosaro replied
Top Bottom