Very interesting SJ. So my layman's understanding is that this will look like an 80's soap opera on TV (that weird, too clear look where all the furniture looks oddly cheap)?
That seems to very much soft peddle the issue. They refer to it only as "a matter of taste" and then shift to arguments like "there are plenty of places that will show it in 24 fps."
I was actually more interested in the content break-down rather than the technical aspect of 48 fps... And to be perfectly honest, I'm not really that bothered about it. I'll wait and see the final result for myself, then I'll pass judgment. I'll see it in both in 3D at 48 fps and in 2D at 24 fps and compare. But they still have 8 months to finish the effects, to correct the lighting and colouring where needed, and other final touches. Plus, in one of the videoblogs, they were telling how they had to adapt the set-building and wardrobe for the fact that they were shooting in 3D and at 48 fps. So they clearly know about the potential danger of "cheap-looking", and it's not something they're taking lightly. Hey, and when it comes down to it, it IS a matter of taste. Some people may love it, some people may hate it, some people won't care. I think a lot of people are just worried prematurely because it is a big change...
Well, I accept that it's quite probable the film hasn't been fully color graded yet. And you can do a hell of a lot in Lustre or DaVinci, whatever pro color grading utilities they're using. I've been fortunate enough to be able to use these through my school (normally they're $500 an hour...) and they're amazing. I mean, you can see on the LotR behind the scenes stuff the sort of things they did with color there. I'm guessing they will be able to get the color looking better for the 3D version which will probably help with the cheap look of the sets. You can really change so much stuff in post when you have that much color depth information (though, IMHO having seen people in thesis work with both, there's still more info in 35mm than the Red Epic ). The bigger issue to me is still motion. You might be able to add some motion blur. Honestly, I'm not sure because it's not a problem I've ever had to deal with myself. I've shot 48fps on film before, but it was run at 24fps so it just looks like half speed slo-mo ad with the regular motion blur. I don't actually know what sort of options there might be for the 24fps version to add in more blur to make the 135 degree shutter look and feel a bit more like 180 degree.... but if there is a way to do that, the question remains whether PJ will do that. He seems insanely convinced that it looks 'silky' and better this way. I have no idea why, quite honestly. But I can only hope that: 1) there's a way to add more blur to the 24fps version 2) the concern about this is loud enough that PJ actually does it That's several big IFs though.
I trust PJ. He's not an idiot - I'm sure he and the other people in the production will consider and take into account the feedback from the CinemaCon preview of the Hobbit footage. And maybe in 3D it really is better to have less blur... Also: Everyone is talking/complaining about the 48 fps - and no one is worried about Radagast's bunny sled? Srsly?
The thing is, people have seen the footage in 3D and still felt it looked awful. And who knows, it may have already been color corrected. I have really, really wanted to trust PJ over this all through this last year. I'm just honestly not sure I can. Big directors do stupid things all the time. He's not immune. Boys and their toys, you know... GL has shown us how much of a detriment that can be, and just how wrong the directors can be about the technology they like.
I'm much the same. Myself and my friend Allan both admit that if we were suicidal, the only thing that would prevent us from killing ourselves would be the fact that we haven't seen the Hobbit yet. That is how much it means to us. Or it means we have issues, but either way Sylvester McCoy as Radagast the Brown is just awesome. Bunny sled or not.
Nope. I haven't actually kept super insane close track of the casting for the film. Quite frankly, it's been a while since I read The Hobbit so I don't remember many of the characters. I kind of just see a blur of names when I look at the cast list I didn't want to re-read because I wanted to be a bit more surprised by the film. So, no. I didn't realize Seven was in this movie, no
But you do at least know about Stephen Fry playing the Master of Laketown and Benedict Cumberbatch playing both Smaug and the Necromancer, right? RIGHT?
Was I not clear about the fact that we aren't actually suicidal? Well, George might be, and sometimes I randomly declare that I'm going to jump off the roof, but other then that... Oh no, we have read the book. But with Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, how can we refuse it? It's the Hobbit. On film. With Martin Freeman, Stephen Fry, Sylvester McCoy, Benedict Cumberbatch, and a host of returning actors.
