The Hobbit (merged thread) - Page 37

The reason for 48 fps over 24 fps is that its easier to downgrade for non-equipped theaters; you just drop every other frame, and you've got your 35mm print. Even a 24fps version of a 48fps production won't look the same as a 24fps production, because the exposure time on each frame will still be half that of traditional 24 fps. Less blurring, and probably a more artificial feel.

 

It also will introduce for Blu-Ray the kind of work around issues we had to deal with for DVD. The Blu-Ray spec only supports 1080P at 24fps. To encode with the full 48 frames per second would mean either dumping half the vertical resolution and coming up with some pulldown scheme from 1080i60, or downgrading resolution to 720P and then duplicating every fourth frame.

 

Do they really (still) actually expose at something all that close to 1/24 sec for each frame in practice (outside of very low lit situations)?

 

I wouldn't think that matters all that much in most cases since I'd expect frames to normally be exposed at faster than say 1/50 sec anyway, if not much faster.  If you're exposing at <1/50 sec, just about all motion will be blurred.

 

Still, I'd think the camera probably needs to expose at something like >=2x as fast as the frame rate to get it done due to all the other factors involved.  But even 1/100 sec exposure time isn't exactly fast nor would it yield blur-free captures of most things in motion.

 

OTOH, maybe since it's digital, the faster requirement would be reduced since other factors like the film advance mechanism won't come into play, so maybe the exposure time can come closer to the frame rate, if need be...

 

 

OK, so according to this, films are typically shot at 1/48 sec exposure time at 24 fps (although they sometimes go to 1/50 or 1/60 sec for certain artificial lighting):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_speed#Cinematographic_shutter_formula

  

Anyway, if the digital cameras they use can come close to that at 48 fps, then there should probably be little-to-no noticeable impact in this respect...

 

 

_Man_

 

Edited by ManW_TheUncool - 4/13/11 at 2:56pm

 

There's simply not going to be 48 fps Home releases, at least for the foreseeable future. Never mind it not being in the bluray spec, you're not going to find any players or TV's designed to accommodate it either.  (although there are some displays that theoretically could)

 

I've been trying to find a 48fps video sample online but there appears to be nothing available.

 

There is a nice 10 minute video PJ posted on Facebook which includes the opening ceremonies in NZ for The Hobbit filming, as well as some tours of familiar sets.  I grinned ear to ear watching it, as it brought back some VERY fond memories.

Yes.  There was a hollering of Hobbit fans worldwide at this video.  It is awesome.

 

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150223186041807&oid=141884481557&comments

Brought a tear to my eye. Sometimes you can go home again, after all :)

Quote:

For a camera running at 24 frames a second to expose at 1/24 per frame, the shutter could never close and it would be an unusable mess.  That's why the 1/48 second exposure:  about half the time, the shutter is closed while the film is advancing.

 

 

 

 

Even though I have my reservations about how they are expanding the story into 2 movies, watching that video almost brought a tear to my eyes.  It's great to see the team back together again and how it just feels like LOTR all over again.  PJ's video diaries during the making of King Kong were great, can't wait to follow these.

 

I know it is a long way off but, I also can't wait to hear some of Howard Shore's score.  Wonder when the complete recordings soundtracks will come out for these 2 movies!

Same here.

Man, I wasn't excited for the Hobbit yet but after watching that video I can't wait.  Seeing the sets, hearing the music....fantastic.  I'm so happy PJ is at the helm.  It would have felt wrong for anyone else to do these movies.

 

Aye.  I figured as much (and alluded to that in my comments).  However, like I also said, w/ a digital camera, it might be possible for them to come much closer between frame rate and shutter speed (ie. exposure time) so that there won't be a noticeable diff in that regard, ie. shooting at 1/48s (or 1/50s or 1/60s) for 24fps film vs something very close for 48fps digital.

_Man_

 

It might be me, but after all of the hullabaloo prior to actually starting the production, this movie made it feel as if it's finally real. The bad part is obviously waiting all of those years until we can finally watch it, but I'm sure there will be plenty of video diaries (if I can't resist the temptation to not watch them, that is) and of course the Blu-rays of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Video Blog... note: the same as the facebook feed, just can be embedded in this thread :)

 

 

 

 

PJ has posted an FB update where he confirms Ian Holm will be playing the older Bilbo :)

Bilbo Baggins at Bag-End (Dwarves in background)

Edited by Sean Bryan - 7/24/11 at 11:50am

The Dwarves

Very nice video. Very excited!

 

I hope that's not an actual frame of film footage.  It looks like a pretty shoddy Photoshop collage of various separately filmed elements -- closer in look and feel to a Zack Snyder film than a Peter Jackson film.

Ah...the good ole days of the HTF when Star Wars & LOTR threads ruled the day. Before the dark times...before the Empire.

Honestly have no idea what you're talking about

Quote:

It just doesn't look natural to me at all.  I find the depth of field odd for some reason - Bilbo seems too sharp and well-lit - as if his image was greenscreened in (which I guess isn't the case, but it looks that way to me).  Another troublesome part is the fellow front and center in the back room.  His face looks like a floating head in the darkness - where's the spotlight that's shining on him?  Speaking of lighting, the lighting on the paper Bilbo is holding seems off a bit, too - like there's light coming up from the floor.  Just not enough contrast for a place that appears to be lit by candlelight in the scene depicted.

 

The whole image just looks like it's been photoshopped like any other magazine cover image.  Doesn't have the "organic" feel you would expect of a finished film (which, it isn't so I guess that's another consideration).

 

This image that was revealed a while back of PJ sitting on the Bag End set, to me, is much more "real".  The lighting is much more natural, the depth of field is what I would expect, and the shadows are much deeper and provide a much more lifelike setting.

 

Hmm, I guess my display of something other than pure ebullience has shocked the discussion into a coma.

 

"Clear!"

 

<ZAP>

 

Beep...beep...beep...

 

OK, the transient ischemic attack has passed, just take a deep breath.  Everything's going to be alright.

 

Guys, if you have any concerns about how the Hobbit will look, when it's finished, please go pop in your copy of the Fellowship DVD. Watch it for a while and then breathe a sigh of relief while saying to yourself "How could I possibly have been worried about how the Hobbit will look? Look what he's already given us with LOTR".

In PJ I trust!

I have no concerns

Like with most people, PJ's astonishing success directing the LoTR trilogy earned him a "free pass" in my mind for whatever he chose to do next.

 

However, for me, the pass was rescinded after I saw "King Kong".  "The Lovely Bones" didn't pique my interest enough to give it a see, so my opinion on him is still somewhat soured by KK.

 

I truly do hope for the best with The Hobbit, but I for one, don't see PJ as "infallable".

I don't think he's infallible, either. That said, I think PJ's vision of Middle Earth is nearly perfect. IMO, all he needs to do is draw on his previous experience creating LOTR and all will turn out well. As for King Kong, I was never a fan of the story but when I heard PJ was going to make it I went to the theater to support him, as my personal thanks for LOTR. It's too long but I enjoyed it.

I also liked King Kong, despite it being way too long, as you mentioned. However, The Lovely Bones was a pretty big mess, so here's hoping he'll get back on track with The Hobbit.

The Precious is here!

It's funny, The Dark Knight is my must-see film of next year, but both trailers so far have underwhelmed me. I've had little to no interest in The Hobbit movies since I read they were dividing it into two films, but that is an excellent trailer.

It doesn't give away a whole lot, but it tells a story and gives you a feel for the texture of the film. The production design and technical credits are right up there with The Lord of the Rings and the casting of Thorin Oakenshield is perfect. One unexpected (but totally logical) side effect of the decision to shoot in 48 fps is the sharpness of the picture. Motion blur is significantly reduced since each frame is exposed for half the time of a traditional movie. That shines through even with every other frame dropped. Rather than try to imitate the look of the LOTR movies shot on film, Jackson and his DP have embraced the unique qualities of the RED Epic platform: no grain and brighter, more colorful images than the LOTR trilogy of films. All of these differences suit the feel of The Hobbit's story to me, which should be more child-like, warmer, less nuanced and more archetypal.

All in all, it did exactly what a trailer should do.