Peter Jackson Confirms He's Shooting The Hobbit at 48 FPS
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
BINGO.
Director: "We've been using the same damn FPS for nine decades. Why hasn't anyone ever thought to change this?"
Executive: "Meh, what's the point, really? They'll buy and watch whatever we make. I see no reason to spend more money just to upset the apple cart that lays the golden egg."
Director: "I know, but don't you think it'd be nice to give them something more? Think of the fidelity we could achieve with twice as many frames per second! Hell, it's so much data you'd positively need a blu-ray to store it all!"
Executive: "... so people would have to buy blu-rays for this?"
Director: "Uh, yeah, I suppose. That's the only way we can deliver so much info."
Executive: "Interesting..."
Director: "As an added bonus, it looks like the switch might really improve 3D."
Executive: "... so it'll also make 3D viewing worthwhile?"
Director: "Um, sure, possibly."
Executive: "You've convinced me of the artistic merits of this expenditure. Let's do it. For the people."
While I agree that this could improve visual quality in films, it's pretty damn obvious why it has taken this long to change things. There wasn't any money in it until blu-ray and 3D came along. Now, armed with higher FPS, they're going to force everyone to buy those blu-ray players and 3D televisions by altering the product - as always, under the guise of "improvement".
Bleh. I wish I were wrong.
Yes, actually, "high bitstream" would put that back, if by that you mean larger sample sizes and higher sample rate. Sample sizes influence the dynamic range that's possible, sample rate the amount of "odd" frequencies you capture; combine both, and your harmonics are back. It's no surprise that digital audio recording tends to use larger samples + higher sample rate than ends up on the final CD. Try SACD recordings for comparison. That doesn't help the plain old CDs, but higher bitrate digital recordings can reproduce the original sound more faithfully.Spangles said:
You do understand, though, that the equalization required for vinyl also results in losses relative to the original sound, right? I'm not trying to argue which is "better", here, I really don't care (though I have prefrences). But I've found many vinyl enthusiasts to be under the impression that vinyl delivers an accurate representation of the original sound, and that's just not true, I'm afraid.
Ugh...I don't like it, though I acknowledge I'm being a tight ass.
I like the old 24fps simply because it looks unreal (no pun intended). I've seen European stuff before and theirs runs at about 28 or 30 frames per second (I think, though it does run higher) and has always seemed somewat off to me. Must be out of habit.
I'd be open to having my mind changed though.
I like the old 24fps simply because it looks unreal (no pun intended). I've seen European stuff before and theirs runs at about 28 or 30 frames per second (I think, though it does run higher) and has always seemed somewat off to me. Must be out of habit.
I'd be open to having my mind changed though.
I think Avatar in 1080p is some 15GB, double that and you've got 30GB (that's one Blue-Ray disc, right?) I was talking about a hypothetical behemoth of a movie that you'd need a Blue Table to store and knowledge of ENN to understand that reference.Xzi said:
Hurray for experimentation!
Although it might have been smarter to test the waters with a less important film. Then again, maybe a higher profile film will get the framerate issue some attention.
Although it might have been smarter to test the waters with a less important film. Then again, maybe a higher profile film will get the framerate issue some attention.
Sounds like a plan. Even though we're not supposed to be able to tell the difference beyond 30fps, I think it'll make the whole thing play out smoother.
Thanks that was pretty interesting and concise.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
OT: I'm not really to sure how much of a difference this will make, I guess when you make big blockbuster movies their isn't a problem to do this sort of thing with the budget they get.
A friend of mine always gets headaches in 3D films, so if he doesn't when he see's this, then I believe it was worth it.
Cheers mate, I stand somewhat corrected, then! Promising to learn, as well, as it 100% validates Jackson's decision to heighten the framerate at which the movie will be filmed.Numachuka said:
Such as how far fans will let him go as he mutilates the Lord of the Rings universe.HankMan said:
I know right. Game at 60fps, then go watch a movie at 24. Realllly doesn't work out for the cinema experience.Gennadios said:
Although changing framerate won't help much if they still project onto white screens and use appalling resolutions. The blacks are absolutely terrible in cinemas and the resolution makes everything look so grainy. And I'm only running 1440x900. Need to increase framerate, screensize of LCD/Plasma/latest version of flatscreen and resolution. Also fix sound. Then I'll be partially appeased.
I definitely don't believe the nay-sayers, I'm all for upping the frames per second. Anyone who can't tell the difference between 30 & 60 fps just isn't all there or isn't paying enough attention, the change is quite obvious. I'm all for a smoother ride...
cool quote at the bottomNumachuka said:
"No way should films and TV be shot at 30fps. Unless you want No Country for Old Men to look like Days of Our Lives.
The goal of motion pictures is not to recreate reality, it's not even to show reality. I want to create a little psychic link between you and my pictures. I want to suck you into the world of the story, suspend your disbelief and make you forget about yourself and your life and just be in the moment of the film.
By not showing enough visual information, we force the brain into filling in the gaps... it draws you in even more. It's part of how you let go to the point where you can laugh or cry or feel tense or afraid or elated."
-Naim Sutherland
Huh, looking at his description of how 3D looks, I might actually get excited to see The Hobbit in that strange new dimension. Viva la revolucion indeed.
If this is an actual quote, I'm left wondering when this man last heard music from a turntable. Not that I have strong preferences either way, but we have some records at home, and I certainly can't detect any noticeable improvement from digital recordings. If anything, I'd argue the vinyl sounds better than digital at common bitrates.Greg Tito said:
Sure, high-bitrate digital recordings would be the ideal for combining quality and reliability, but old CD's usually aren't notable for that.
Particularly funny since this guy comes from an industry where analogue film, in the form of 70mm horizontal pulldown IMAX, still looks vastly superior than any digital distribution format they've introduced.
//=====
OT: while I'm not sure I've ever cared all that much about 24FPS versus higher for regular motion picture, 48FPS may very well improve stereoscopic 3d to the point where it's almost worthwhile. Sure, it'll still have the incurable focal accommodation problems that won't get fixed until someone comes up with a hologram-like approach that delivers actual 3d imagery to the screen instead of arbitrary-focus stereoscopic 3d, but at least it might be smooth.