Speculation Episode VII Could Be Filmed @60FPS And In 3D !

http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/faq.html

Just because it was digital projection, doesn't mean that it was 48fps. I don't know how someone could be claiming that they saw the 48fps version in 2D. Unless you're Jon Bon Jovi or Richard Branson, and PJ made a special print just for you.

 

I saw the Hobbit HFR 3D on Saturday morning and it just made me want to see every movie like that. It definitely looks like you are watching the movie taking place through a window instead of projected on a screen which is jarring at first but you get used to it pretty quick. Here are the pros and cons as I saw them with the Hobbit in this format.

PROS:
-Stunning high definition unlike anything I've ever seen. Similar to a BluRay being displayed with TruMotion on a good TV if you've ever seen that
-The 3D actually pops AND gives depth. I usually lose the 3D effect halfway through a movie, not here.
-No motion blurring on intense action sequences making everything very easy to follow
-Vivid colors and a richer palette

CONS:
-Very easy to tell when the effects work wasn't quite finished or up to par due to the detail presented. Gollum for example was flawless, but the Brown Wizard riding his rabbit sleigh looked like he had a projector behind him on closeup shots. Kind of jarring to transition from good effects to bad from scene to scene
-Also you can tell when the characters are on a soundstage compared to on location. It looks similar to behind the scenes footage as opposed to film in some instances.
-Sometimes the detail is TOO distracting. During the White Council scene I was focused on a waterfall in the forground instead of the actors because you could almost swear that you could reach out and scoop up some water.

I definitely can see the argument against the format but I think it would look great for fantasy/sci-fi movies. I would have loved to have seen Tron: Legacy filmed like this. Also it doesn't allow special effects artists to take shortcuts because they will be glaring which might limit what they try and do (which could be a good or bad thing, personally I think limiting directors is good in both terms of CG and Practical Effects.)

I don't want to see most movies made in that format (a historical drama like Lincoln would look surrealistic but awful) but things like Star Wars and The Hobbit are a great way to use it.

EDIT: As far as the movie, I liked it just fine but it seemed to me like a young reader version of the Lord of the Rings (which the Hobbit always was to me). Juvenile humor and a lack of suspense hurt it, but overall an enjoyable movie with some good performances. It really picked up steam during the Goblin King and Riddles In The Dark sequences that carried the movie. Glad I saw it once, but have no desire to revisit anytime soon.

 

Dranem, Tron 3 would probably be as good a candidate as any for HFR3D.

 

I saw it this weekend. I have to say that I (somewhat unexpectedly) really liked the movie for the most part, despite juvenile humor (snot humor? SRSLY?). I liked the 3D. Now, maybe it's because I'm somewhat astigmatic, but the majority of the time I had a hard time seeing the differences between HFR and regular 24FPS. Maybe I'll have to watch them side-by-side or something to see the standouts. When I did notice it, though, I very much enjoyed the HFR. I'd like to see a nature documentary in this kind of 3D, HFR style.

BTW, I see I'm not the only one who noticed Jackson's tendency to make the movies "rhyme." I wonder where he got that from?

Also, I looked for Stephen Colbert's supposed cameo, but I didn't find it...

 

He may not even be in the first movie.

 

Hell yes. I was board after awhile. A shameful attempt to hash the last drop out these books.

 

I'm kind of hesitant to see The Hobbit. I loved the book as a kid, and I still love the fact that it's just a simple little story, which is why watching three two-and-a-half hour movies with a bunch of bloat added for no good reason doesn't sound that good to me. I may just read the book again instead.

I used to say that The Phantom Menace is to the Star Wars saga as The Hobbit is to Lord of the Rings--a simple, light adventure story with a hook that leads to a larger epic. At least TPM wasn't stretched to eight hours.

 

I'm really hesitant to the fact that they are stretching it to 3 movies, especially if each will have a nearly 3 hour run time like the Hobbit An Unexpected Journey. Though I enjoyed the film and will see the next one, I'm not salivating it like I am for Star Wars. Part of the problem is I think Peter Jackson falls in love with the source material too much and tends to let scenes linger (see the end of The Return of the King or the whole King Kong movie for examples, or don't I'm not your mom). I think these movies would have been fine with about 30 minutes cut and only 2 of them. At the point the movie ended I have a hard time seeing how how they fill up 2 more movies unless they show them sleeping on the way to the Lonely Mountain in real time.

 

Well, don't forget the movies aren't just based on "The Hobbit," there's an added subplot with the White Council and the Necromancer, which comes from "Unfinished Tales" IIRC. This subplot will be further developed in the next couple of movies. I hope I didn't just spoil something for someone.

 

Yeah I noticed that too, but it kind of took the steam out of the main story.

 

So basically blah, blah, blah, trade disputes, senate hearings, vote of no confidence, pointless cameos, stuff we already know, blah. (The Tolkien geek in me loved seeing the White Council, but let's be real.)

On another note, the amount of CG "airbrushing" done on Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, Chris Lee, Ian Holm, and (yes, even) Elijah Wood should be a good test case for how to have the OT actors age gracefully in the ST.

 

As a side note, Dave Filoni just posted a link to this blog on Facebook:
http://starwarsblog.starwars.com/index.php/2012/12/14/loving-the-hobbit-building-the-clone-wars/

 

So you're saying you know for a fact that it wasn't 48fps? Then why did it look so much better than normal 24fps? I've seen many digital projection movies and they still have motion blur. This movie didn't.

 

I don't recall the theater's name, but it was a Muvico theater here in the Chicago area. Maybe the HFR filming has a trickle-down effect into the 2D realm. I know what I saw looked infinitely clearer and less smeared than any other movie I've seen. I just assumed it was 48fps in 2D.

 

Motion blur has to do with shutter speed rather than frame rate, no?

 

I'm saying that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of any 2D HFR releases of this movie, including the official language of the movie's website, and all of the related press. Supposedly the 2D, 24fps prints have had digital motion blur and other effects added back into them, to give them the "traditional" look. So maybe that's what you're experiencing.

Did your ticket say HFR or 48 anywhere? From all of the evidence, you seem to have seen a 24 fps, 2D print. But I have no personal experience with what the 2D digital prints for this flick are like.

 

It could be. But if it doesn't catch on with other sci-fi films before then I don't think Disney would chance it.

 

I agree. 3d movies are a gimmick IMO. However, playing games on a home PC 3d is awesome and realistic, especially when you can adjust how exaggerated the effects of it are. Some RTS games are like action figures you could swear you could pick up. Very cool. But I think 3d in movies is too subtle, and then one object that is supposed to be 4 feet long ends up poking out of the screen like it's 30 feet long, and usually for only 2 scenes for the 'wow' factor. Bugs me.

With the 48 fps stuff, if it is TRUE frames, then it's maybe ok. If it's like that 240hz crap on your t.v. which is creating fake frames in between, the movement is artificial looking. 48 true frames, I agree would look great for a documentary. Something about the higher frames looks bright and 'camcorder-ish' like a reality show or a soap opera.

 

I saw The Hobbit 3D HFR on Sunday and I would considering it a work in progress that has great potential. It took my eyes about half an hour to adjust to the high frame rate. In the beginning it look like characters were moving too fast (like 16 fps films from the silent era) and it certainly had a BBC television feel too it. However once my eyes adjusted many scenes were indistinguishable from 24 fps. If the characters weren't moving that much or having a conversation it looked like a regular movie. It was only when there was fast action or quick cuts in the editing that I really noticed the high frame rate. Several action scenes with dozen's of characters were overwhelming because there was so much going on my eyes couldn't quite take it all in. Some of the digital characters look unbelievably real because it does look like your watching something live as it happens but as someone pointed out poor special effects stand out even more.

Considering this is the first 48 fps film there will be a learning curve for the filmmakers and the filmgoers. It will take time for our eyes to adjust to the high frame rate (especially for action scenes) and it will take time for filmmakers to figure out how to stage scenes that don't overwhelm the audience.

 

60fps would be dumb, eyes only detect up to 50hz as far as I know.

I didn't rate the 48fps Hobbit, would you have to adjust to it every time you see it on DVD/Blu Ray? I don't want to have a movie where Bilbo is rushing about like he's on fast-forward for 20minutes.

Star Wars should not look like a documnetary.

 

I'm sure that's not true. It would depend on a lot of things like lighting, motion, color, and so forth. See here:
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Anyway TVs and computer monitors typically run at 60 Hz, and IIRC that's the frame rate many live TV shows are broadcast.