| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting bbbbb: Quote:
Quoting Voltaire53:
Quote:
Did nobody learn that 'video-ising' the look of film (which is essentially what shooting at 48 fps will do) looked awful when they tried it before and I doubt things have changed
So whom to trust, Sir Peter Jackson, who had pushed the bounds with his mega-project The Lord of Rings trilogy, using most advanced technology, 20 Oscar wins, Weta Digital & Workshop at his side, currently shooting The Hobbit(s) in 3D?
Or Voltaire53, forum member?
I'm on the fence. Well, I was thinking that if it had that tacky "video" look to it, I'm sure Peter Jackson wouldn't approve of it. So it's my assumption that he found a way around that. But I guess you already captured my thoughts in a... different manner.  | | | Get the CSVExport and Database Query plug-ins here.
Create fake parent profiles to organize your collection. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,293 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mdnitoil: Quote:
I'm guessing "good" is in the eye of the beholder. With modern audiences almost expecting that somewhat plastic sheen that HD tends to give things, 48 fps might be right up their alley. Yes, I think you're right. With the number of people using the 'High Hz' settings on their flatscreen TVs to smooth out the action they will probably be used to the video sheen and it will look fine to them. As someone who tries to be as 'purist' as possible and play film and video as much at their native rates as possible I suspect I'll be in the minority... along with other classic Doctor Who fans who have seen the effect of VidFire accidentally applied to filmed material instead of just returning video -> film transfered material back to the original video look. | | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,737 |
| | Posted: | | | | This is not intended as sarcasm or picking...just asking.
I thought a purist was someone who wants things as they were originally presented to the public? In this case, the original presentation is going to be what the director intends you to see...48 fps and 3D with whatever filters and enhancements he decided to use from the outset.
If I'm wrong about that, please explain so I can come away with a better understanding. Thanx. | | | | Marty - Registered July 10, 2004, User since 2002. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 55 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | | Last edited: by Dennis |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,195 |
| | Posted: | | | | Peter Jackson is a genius. Now it will only take him half as long to shoot the films, 10 months instead of 20. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 | | | | Last edited: by Nexus the Sixth |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 | | | | Last edited: by Lewis_Prothero |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,321 |
| |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 5,734 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting KinoNiki: Quote:
Peter Jackson is a genius. Now it will only take him half as long to shoot the films After all the films are about halflings. | | | | Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played. [Ken Cole, DVD Profiler Architect] |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,436 |
| | Posted: | | | | So will the cost for special effects go up? After all, all CGI must now be rendered twice as much... | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,293 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mreeder50: Quote:
I thought a purist was someone who wants things as they were originally presented to the public? In this case, the original presentation is going to be what the director intends you to see...48 fps and 3D with whatever filters and enhancements he decided to use from the outset.
Very fair point and yes, you're right, it's "as the director intended" but, in this case, I get the feeling the director is only intending it because so many people watch old material "incorrectly" smoothed so whilst I wouldn't want deliberately get my TV to remove frames from the Hobbit (even if I could) I am concerned that he wants to put them in in the first place. Interesting that TV has over recent years tried to make everything look like film (except News and reality TV which are supposed to be 'immediate') and now films are trying to get the smoothness of video  | | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 951 |
| | Posted: | | | | For those of you who don't know, Douglas Trumball developed "Showscan" a process using 70mm filmed and projected at 60fps.
http://douglastrumbull.com/patents | | | Are you local?
This is a local shop the strangers you would bring would not understand us, our customs, our local ways. |
|