Slashdot Mirror


Hollywood Acts Warily At Comic-Con

gollum123 writes "Peter Jackson wowed the crowd with 13 minutes of highly anticipated footage from the first of his two ultra-expensive Hobbit movies. But he also played it safe — very safe — by not so much as mentioning, much less demonstrating, the filmmaking wizardry at the heart of the project. That left big questions about the movie industry's future unanswered and added to a theme of this year's Comic-Con: Hollywood has come to fear this place. Mr. Jackson is shooting his two Hobbit movies, the first of which is to arrive in theaters in December, at an unusually fast 48 frames a second, twice the standard rate. But an estimated 6,500 fans did not have that experience when they gathered in Comic-Con's cavernous Hall H moments earlier to see the new footage. Still, Mr. Jackson, one of Hollywood's boldest directors, made the unexpectedly timid decision to present The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in a standard format here — it was not even in 3-D — because he feared an online outcry that could hurt box-office results."

52 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. More like Peter was angry by Pecisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Reading all press it sounds like too much generalisation - in fact, it *feels* like Peter Jackson was more angry about backslash and calling a "cheap TV movie" just because you are used to different frame rate. So he decided that discussion about "be or not to be 48 fps" could actually overcome discussion about movie itself. I think it was wise decision and not Hollywood fear about CC. Come on, they *love* CC - it's amplified publicity with fans all around the world. What a better way to get movie going buzz rolling?

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    1. Re:More like Peter was angry by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well who can blame him? I couldn't make any sense of the comments on /. about how 48fps looks "too real". Isn't that kinda the point? To make the TV show or movie look like just a window on another world? It's supposed to look real. (This reminds me of those persons who claimed CDs or lossless AACs were too perfect, and they'd rather hear the sizzle of downloaded MP3s. Illogical.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:More like Peter was angry by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fear is a poor choice of word. They want the publicity of CC, and they can't help but make a showing. But they do understand that this crowd has particular likes and dislikes, one of which is around, what I hope, is actually a dislike of technology gimmicks for sales $$$ sake.

      It's hard to understand sometimes, since 3D in particular, generates such an angry outcry, and these statements of "cheap TV movie" sound like knee-jerk ludditism. From the director's perspective, his boss wants these gimmicks in since it boosts revenue (particularly weekend gross numbers). From our perspective they are just cost adders that sometimes detract from our enjoyment (if 3D makes you sick). But that's not what ends up being put in the press, from the geek crew you just hear bitching about 3D being some sort of unformed evil being silently served in our cereal, and 48fps being a dark stormcloud on the horizon that will poison all our crops.

      It's not unreasonable for him to want to avoid that, since he's more focused (I hope) on the movie content itself. All I know is if the movie makes me want to vomit due to technology, or just poor camera technique (i.e. "shakeycam"), I'm going to hold that against him. But 3D movies look just fine on my 2D bluray or dish network spigot. I suspect 48fps will manage to work just fine too.

    3. Re:More like Peter was angry by Ryanrule · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It can also generate Internet levels of hate. Which the traditional media loves to report on.

    4. Re:More like Peter was angry by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ya it is just something that will take time. People have decided that shitty framerates look "cinematic" and thus that is the right way to do things. In time, they'll come over. I shoot video at 60fps (progressive) for instructional videos and it looks amazing. We don't host them at 60fps since there aren't any video services that'll let you that I know of, but I wish we could. They are just amazingly smooth.

      We've been after higher spatial resolution with video for some time, it is time to look at the temporal resolution as well.

    5. Re:More like Peter was angry by localman57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well who can blame him? I couldn't make any sense of the comments on /. about how 48fps looks "too real". Isn't that kinda the point? To make the TV show or movie look like just a window on another world? It's supposed to look real. (This reminds me of those persons who claimed CDs or lossless AACs were too perfect, and they'd rather hear the sizzle of downloaded MP3s. Illogical.)

      Dude. If you have to tell people over and over that it's better because they don't see it in your demos, then you probably ought to think twice before spending a whole lot of money on it. If I were a theater operator, and Pete comes in and tells me I should spend tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade my equipment, but the buzz on social media is "I wouldn't pay more to see it in this format" why would I do it?

      This seems a lot like the studios and Samsung screaming at me that I should buy a 3D TV and blu-ray player, even though the ones I've tried at Best Buy are fairly craptacular.

      I'm with you on the CD / AAC thing, though. If you want to add MP3 sizzle to them, that's a straightforward problem. Going the other way, not so much...

    6. Re:More like Peter was angry by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ya it is just something that will take time. People have decided that shitty framerates look "cinematic" and thus that is the right way to do things. In time, they'll come over. I shoot video at 60fps (progressive) for instructional videos and it looks amazing. We don't host them at 60fps since there aren't any video services that'll let you that I know of, but I wish we could. They are just amazingly smooth.

      I must admit that part of me wants to agree with this. But I also wonder if the fact that 24 to 30 fps footage somehow looks more "distant" and less "live" is part of why people prefer it, the "distance" it puts between the viewer and the action subconsciously aiding suspension of disbelief.

      This might be wrong, I don't know- it's just a guess. I do know that I much prefer higher frame rates for my own "real life" footage though- for precisely the opposite (or rather, same) reason- even to the point of running an interpolation filter on the footage.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    7. Re:More like Peter was angry by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      It's supposed to look real.

      No, it's supposed to feel real. There's a big difference between the two.

      The reason that reality-based programs are best viewed at higher frame rates is because it allows the audience to capture more details and be better aware of the action taking place (this is particularly true with sports). Conversely, those same traits are what makes 48fps undesirable in film at this time.

      Having a slightly otherworldly appearance created through the use of 24fps enhances the feeling of realism by aiding in the suspension of disbelief. There are many reports from previous The Hobbit sneak peeks that the higher frame rates made the falseness of the CGI, props, and other elements stand out much more than is typical, thus detracting from the film. If something looks more realistic, our brains notice things that are out of place more easily and are less willing to tolerate them (see: Uncanny Valley), thus resulting in it feeling less realistic. The otherworldly air provided by 24fps makes our brain more willing to tolerate unrealistic visual elements, thus aiding in immersion. Films are based on this sort of mental misdirection, and this is one of the most potent weapons in their arsenal against having people question every little detail.

      Even though 48fps is undeniably more realistic and technologically superior, I have yet to hear a good argument for why it actually provides a benefit in the context of films. By all accounts, more visual realism actually makes it feel less like a window to another world and more like a window to a studio set in Hollywood. That's not something I want. That said, aside from the mental baggage associated with 24fps (which is, admittedly, quite significant), this issue is really not very different than what the studios faced a few years ago with 1080p, so I do see it as something that can be overcome with time, advances in prop and CGI development, and other similar trends.

    8. Re:More like Peter was angry by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      I was there, and the technology didn't bother me, but the story changes - Smeagol/Gollum is now Bilbo's father??!?! WTF?!?!?

      I smell Star Wars. :D

      Bilbo: I'll never join you!
      Bilbo: If you only knew the power of Sauron. Gandalf never told you what happened to your father.
      Bilbo: He told me enough! He told me *you* killed him!
      Gollum: No. *I* am your father.
      Bilbo: No. No. That's not true. That's impossible!
      Gollum: Search your feelings, you *know* it to be true!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:More like Peter was angry by dwywit · · Score: 2

      Mod this up - there is a line between the audience and the show - whether film, TV, or theatre. That line partly defines the relationship between entertainer and audience. The line can change and blur (e.g. "break the fourth wall"), and there's nothing wrong with highly-realistic footage, I think it just means that our methods of storytelling will have to adapt.
       
      Theatre isn't dead by a long shot, and it's one of the least realistic ways to tell a story. We just have different expectations when we sit down to watch a play, compared to watching TV, compared to watching a film in cinema.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  2. Enough with the gimmicks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just give me a great story with great acting in the old school format and I'm fine with that. No 3D, no 48 fps.

    People will go back to theaters when the social experience is positive again. No cell phones, more comfy seats, etc. Maybe I'm getting old but the experience these days seems to have been taken over by thugs.

    1. Re:Enough with the gimmicks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      48 fps isn't the gimmick, 24 fps is. Reasonable framerate should be standard, not exceptional. And yes, you're already old.

    2. Re:Enough with the gimmicks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cinema gets an extremely high quality temporal anti-aliasing effect (i.e. motion blur) 'for free'; video games don't.

    3. Re:Enough with the gimmicks. by jafiwam · · Score: 2

      Blocking cellphone signals (in the US, anyway) is illegal everywhere except hospitals (who block them to keep them from interfering with medical equipment). The reason is because if an emergency happens, people need to be able to dial 911. At the hospital, dialing 911 is moot since you're you're already there.

      No it isn't illegal. Blocking with passive construction means is fine. Hell, half the big-box stores do it accidentally by building steel supported steel trussed steel walled buildings.

      Blocking using ACTIVE equipment that broadcasts something is illegal.

      For a theater, it's a simple matter of decorative wall coverings made from proper metals and grounded. Of course, they'll have to do a good job of it or it'll be "Hello? Hello! HEELLLOOO I AM IN THE THEATER ENJOYING A MOVIE! HOW ABOUT YOU? YOUR SISTER POP THE BABY YET? WHO'DA DADDY?"

      Get your fat ass up and go to the front desk if you need to make an emergency call.

    4. Re:Enough with the gimmicks. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your post advocates a

      (X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (X) vigilante

      approach to fighting cell phones. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

      (X) Emergency calls and other legitimate cell uses would be affected
      ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
      ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
      ( ) It will stop callers for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
      (X) Users of cell phones will not put up with it
      (X) Motorola will not put up with it
      (X) The police will not put up with it
      (X) Requires too much cooperation from cell phone users
      ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
      ( ) Many cell users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
      ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

      Specifically, your plan fails to account for

      (X) Laws expressly prohibiting it
      (X) Profit-minded mentality of wireless carriers
      (X) RF uses beyond cell phones
      (X) Asshats
      (X) Jurisdictional problems
      ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
      ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
      ( ) Huge existing infrastucture investment in cell technology
      ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than TDFM to attack
      ( ) Willingness of users to install Flash games on their phones
      ( ) Armies of worm riddled SMS-hacked cell phones
      ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
      ( ) Extreme profitability of cell phones
      ( ) Technically illiterate politicians
      ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who use cell phones
      ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
      ( ) Facebook

      and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

      (X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
      been shown practical
      (X) Any scheme based on forced failures is unacceptable
      ( ) Blacklists suck
      ( ) Whitelists suck
      ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
      ( ) Countermeasures should not involve phone fraud or credit card fraud
      (X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
      ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
      ( ) Sending text messages should be free
      ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your phone company?
      ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
      ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
      ( ) Temporary/one-time phone numbers are cumbersome
      ( ) I don't want the government listening to my calls
      ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

      Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

      (X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
      ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
      ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
      house down!

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    5. Re:Enough with the gimmicks. by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 2

      The Alamo Drafthouse came up with a cheaper solution - zero tolerance. If you can't go a couple hours without using your phone, the theater is not for you.

    6. Re:Enough with the gimmicks. by amRadioHed · · Score: 2

      That law doesn't say anything about active jamming, it says "willful interference" which a Faraday cage or any other attempt to passively block cell reception would certainly count as.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    7. Re:Enough with the gimmicks. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      But that only applies when actual physical film is used

      How so? Motion blur is going to result from exposure of any optical sensor to a real life moving object, regardless of what media the image is then stored - it's just a part of the captured frame.

    8. Re:Enough with the gimmicks. by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

      But that only applies when actual physical film is used, which is becoming increasingly less common in the era of digital projectors

      That's not how that works. Motion blur is a function of shutter speed and subject motion. Digital cameras have shutters like any other camera. Cameras sample finite spans of time, not instants of time.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    9. Re:Enough with the gimmicks. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (X) Emergency calls and other legitimate cell uses would be affected

      Yes this is a serious problem. Before the advent of cellphones, people were dying in droves in the cinema. Back in the 80's life expectancy was in the 30s, sometimes lower if you wnet to the cinema really often.

      Also, I've been in cinemas (especially in London, where there is lots of concrete and high rise buildings) which are mobile phone blackspots. The carnage is terrible, I would never go back. People were dying in the aisles and noone lifetd a finger to help.

      (X) Users of cell phones will not put up with it

      That's rather the point. If they want to us their phone, don't go to the cinema.


      (X) Motorola will not put up with it
      (X) The police will not put up with it

      There's lots of crap reception everywhere in a city. One building more or less won't bother the police.

      (X) Requires too much cooperation from cell phone users

      Um, how does poor reception require the cooperation of phone users?


      (X) Laws expressly prohibiting it
      (X) Profit-minded mentality of wireless carriers
      (X) RF uses beyond cell phones
      (X) Asshats
      (X) Jurisdictional problems

      Again, "Farady Cage" pretty much covers any building with significant amounts of rebar. There are no laws prohibiting it, and wireless carriers have no say. RF beyond cell-phone usage won't necessarily be affected, especially at longer wavelengths. The farady cage prevents asshats because they have no choice and again, there are no laws prohibiting bad reception.

      (X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
      been shown practical

      Really, because bad reception is often a fact of life without specifically trying to engineer it.

      etc.

      The thing with the old spam form was that it was accurate. Your post isn't.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  3. 3d by Antipater · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it was not even in 3-D

    GOOD!

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
  4. Re:Why 2 Hobbit movies? by khr · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's so that after you go there once, you go back again...

  5. Re:Why 2 Hobbit movies? by bigdavex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's two movies in the same way the last Harry Potter book was two movies. Quite literally, more bang for buck.

    Or perhaps more buck for bang.

    --
    -Dave
  6. The Toklien family hates Hollywood by peter303 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thought Hollywood had butchered the books aiming at teenage action movies and introducing new characters and subplots. Also a terrible fight over royalties.

    I admire the one son who spent decades publishing his father's voluminous papers. This may be the son's only major press interview in his life. The rest of family has gotten a free ride on royalties. Especially through the efforts of Jackson.

  7. It's not a theater by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a convention hall, not a theater. Bad acoustics, no projection room, no good audio system, folding chairs. Here's what the screens look like. Look at the screen size and quality. They have to have auxiliary screens around the room so people in the back can see. Some of the auxiliary screens are dim around the edges. That's a setup for a marketing presentation. Of course you don't introduce a new movie technology there.

    Movies with new technologies are typically previewed for critics in venues with ideal conditions, like the Technicolor Theater in Hollywood or the screening room at Dolby headquarters in San Francisco.

  8. Non-Login link to NYTimes article by milbournosphere · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/business/media/hollywood-acts-warily-at-comic-con-fearing-bad-publicity.html And I was at this panel. The highlight by far was hearing from Andy Serkis, and listening to him act out a dialogue between Gollum and Smeagol. I'm not sure about the rest of the movie, but they showed footage that proved they hit the riddle game scene out of the park.

  9. Edison recommended 46 fps by peter303 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Edison was one of the inventors of motion pictures. The cynic might say that would double his company's film stock sales. But Edison said the film viewing experience improved to that point. Hollywood decided on the less costly half-rate standard.

    1. Re:Edison recommended 46 fps by medv4380 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You should actually follow the link to the Source of that quote because you quoted it wrong. The 46 fps was dealing with eye strain, and not with Image Quality. The Eye Strain issue was resolved with a Higher Refresh Rate. That's why the frame rate settled on 24fps with a refresh of 48 or 72 hertz.

  10. Uncanny valley by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I couldn't make any sense of the comments on /. about how 48fps looks "too real". Isn't that kinda the point?

    Perhaps 48 fps pushes the animation into an uncanny valley.

    It's supposed to look real.

    I thought it was supposed to look just real enough (and conversely, just unreal enough) for your brain to suspend disbelief.

    1. Re:Uncanny valley by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's supposed to look real.

      I thought it was supposed to look just real enough (and conversely, just unreal enough) for your brain to suspend disbelief.

      from what I've read about 48fps, that's exactly the problem people ran into. people said things like "my brain was not processing what I was seeing as 'two hobbits walking up a hill' but rather 'two actors in hobbit costumes walking up a hill'". They were having difficulty suspending disbelief.

      I'll have to wait until I see it in person, but native 48fps will have to be a whole other world better than what the 120hz tv's software intrapolation does to 24fps film, cause that's distracting as all hell.

    2. Re:Uncanny valley by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      I'll have to wait until I see it in person, but native 48fps will have to be a whole other world better than what the 120hz tv's software intrapolation does to 24fps film, cause that's distracting as all hell.

      The main difference will be that they can pan sideways smoothly. Apart from that I bet you'll have to look very closely to see a difference.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Uncanny valley by djdanlib · · Score: 4, Insightful

      from what I've read about 48fps, that's exactly the problem people ran into. people said things like "my brain was not processing what I was seeing as 'two hobbits walking up a hill' but rather 'two actors in hobbit costumes walking up a hill'". They were having difficulty suspending disbelief.

      They must have a REALLY hard time with live theatre.

    4. Re:Uncanny valley by SomePoorSchmuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      from what I've read about 48fps, that's exactly the problem people ran into. people said things like "my brain was not processing what I was seeing as 'two hobbits walking up a hill' but rather 'two actors in hobbit costumes walking up a hill'". They were having difficulty suspending disbelief.

      They must have a REALLY hard time with live theatre.

      Actually yes!

      I love human storytelling; I love reading plays; love the art of Theatre; love the techniques and methods of Theatre; love acting and creating and characterization and directing. But I. Hate. Live. Theatre.

      Why? Because "it's one actor dressed up like Macbeth pretending to see another actor dressed up like Banquo's ghost, amidst a bunch of other actors dressed up like courtiers who cannot see the actor dressed up like Banquo's ghost".

      But I love to watch movies. Can get caught up in movies and so carried away that it's jarring to walk out of the theatre and find myself in a cookie-cutter suburban strip mall.

      I am one example of a person who needs the implied cinematic distance to immerse myself in the story. Because that's what it's about for me -- the story. Doesn't matter how crisp the textures or tangible the spray of alien blood looks. It's about that weird mental space when you can be temporarily deceived that what is being shown on the screen in front of you is what's being shown on the screen of your retina. It is the very realism and true 3-D of live theatre which pushes it inevitably out of this space. The stage is only so big, the proscenium and the band and the luxury boxes, or in small venues the proximity to the actors and the rest of the audience..... these are the very things which do not allow me to see a play as anything other than a play. It cannot ever be pure Story for me. And I have been to performances where I was assured by folks who would know, that these were top-notch productions that critics and theatre-lovers rave about.

      When it comes to hyperrealism in theatre, I live in the uncanny valley.

      --

      Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
    5. Re:Uncanny valley by djdanlib · · Score: 2

      That is a fantastic reply. If I wasn't the person you were replying to, you would get a mod point.

      People have differing tastes in entertainment. Yours is quite valid and would be quite difficult or in some cases impossible to replicate onstage.

      I enjoy both worlds, the two being live plays and filmed productions. They are two very different forms of the art of storytelling as other posters have noted. Recently, I enjoyed a production of Shakespeare's Richard III. (And then wound up watching the related movie Anonymous a few weeks later.) Everything was quite well directed and the acting was great. However the play was slower paced and at a much lower overall sound level than a movie would be, so I had to stay focused on the play to avoid being pulled out of it by various environmental disturbances. You have to suspend not only disbelief (perhaps a better term could be found for this) but also your comprehension of the space around you. You have to deal with imperfect audio and other production glitches, reuse a very few sparse set pieces to spark your imagination, sit in uncomfortable seating, and probably wind up being aware of the acoustically "live" space around you that allows you to perceive your fellow patrons and vice-versa much more so than in a movie theater. For some people, that is very much unenjoyable. It really boils down to the fact that I like to see actors working live sometimes.

      Do you find that the temporal resolution of the video really makes much of a difference in your enjoyment, as a large proportion of commenters seem to indicate?

    6. Re:Uncanny valley by CFTM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are correct that many present day movie actors make terrible stage actors, but not all. Also, it's not that stage actors "overact" it's that the stage requires one to be "bigger". There is a huge difference between overacting (bad) and being "bigger" (good). Overacting, regardless of medium is bad. Modulating your tone for the medium is good.

      Camera captures everything so all you really need to do is capture the emotional tone for a given moment and the eyes take care of everything for you (assuming you're one of them expressive types). Stage requires you to bring more of yourself to the character in order to reach the entire audience thus the requirement to be bigger.

      TLDR: bigger...not overacting

    7. Re:Uncanny valley by djdanlib · · Score: 3, Funny

      I hear they're taking them all to Isengard. Hope this helps.

    8. Re:Uncanny valley by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Spot on. I find it very amusing, all the people bitching about "supsension of disbelief". As if frame-rate/clarity was the hardest obstacle to overcome. Gimme a break. If you can get past the following, you can deal with a different filming technique, CGI, or frame-rate:

      A) They're fucking HOBBITS.
      B) That big giant screen/TV you're watching? It is definitely not a window into the Shire, I promise. Do NOT attempt to go through it; you will quickly be disappointed.
      C) You know that sound you hear, coming from the speakers? Try REAL hard and you can train your ears to see the millisecond discrepancy. It's always there, I promise.
      D) Remember buying the ticket? Popcorn? That drink you're holding? Remember choosing a seat without the sticky floor? Now, realize you've set all those annoyances aside after the movie started.
      E) They're still HOBBITS. These do not exist. This story is not a documentary; it is fiction. I know, I know, it's fun to pretend it really happened, or even that we are a part of it, but it did not.

      Part of the fun of the experience is guiding your thinking, accepting the fantasy as a whole new world that is real for you. It's really not that difficult to do this, regardless of the visual or audio quality. It's even possible to ignore super shitty acting (though this is probably the toughest thing to ignore). This is why people can go to see a live performance and not lose their shit about how ZOMG FAAAAKE it looks.

      I liken it to the printing industry, for I am a printer. I could whip out my trusty loupe when I'm looking at a fine-art print, examining the ink droplets to tell which pass count was used, on which printer, using dye or pigment inks, on which general substrate, and whether proper color management was used. I have the expertise and experience to determine all that very easily, but it's a shit-ton more satisfying to step back and enjoy the fuckin painting.

    9. Re:Uncanny valley by chrismcb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am one example of a person who needs the implied cinematic distance to immerse myself in the story. Because that's what it's about for me -- the story.

      Actually it sounds like the story is NOT what it is about for you. If it was about the story, you wouldn't have a problem with live theatre.

  11. Re:Why 2 Hobbit movies? by Goaway · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember: If Hollywood makes one movie out of a book, they suck because they cut out all those important scenes. If they make two movies, they suck because they are just trying to cash in.

  12. Re:Why 2 Hobbit movies? explains 48fps by microcars · · Score: 4, Funny

    That is why Jackson is shooting at 48 fps
    He is shooting 2 movies at the EXACT SAME TIME.
    Once the first film is "finished" they extract every other frame so they get TWO movies @ 24 fps!
    Brilliant!

    --
    I like microcars
  13. Re:Or... by Enderandrew · · Score: 2

    He did a previous demonstration of some footage at the 48fps rate at a convention, and it did in fact result in backlash.

    http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/04/the-hobbit-the-soap-opera-effect-and-the-48fps-and-faster-future-of-movies/

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  14. Film should NOT look 'real' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    48fps is awful because the objective of film is NOT to look 'real'. The objective is to create a dream-state.

    The dream metaphor for film viewing is one of the most persistent in both classical and modern film theory.

    Think about it: Nothing about film is particularly 'real': Sudden cuts, temporal jumps, non-linear sequences. Film doesn't simulate reality, it simulates the dream state. Everything that technology is now doing to 'improve' the cinema experience and make it more 'realistic' is destroying the dream-state of the medium. Movies are getting less absorbing the more 'realistic' they become.

    Regular, traditional 24fps gives everything a subconscious dream-like quality. But 48fps makes everything look like television - or worse. It breaks us out of the dream-state.

    The same goes for high-def and 3D. These so-called 'improvements' to film actually wreck the medium because they present a reality that has no analogue. What other reality that you know of looks anything like HD film – where in reality can you see people's pores without a magnifying glass? Where in reality do you see the equivalent of the kind of 3D shown in modern movies?

    Shooting a 'movie' in 48fps is like shaking a dreamer awake and shouting in their face, "The dream is over!!"

    1. Re:Film should NOT look 'real' by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me. Cinema has been evolving towards more and more realism from the start. Sound, color, higher resolution, higher frame rates, larger screens, better speakers.... None of the limitations of the cinema experience were there for artistic reasons, they are purely technical and when the technical limitation was removed the cinema experience changed. There are always people who complain about new technologies but the reality is that no one is forcing these changes on directors. If they have an artistic reason for using b/w, or no sound, or lower frame rate they can still do that.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  15. Re:LOTR dense by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Funny

    That density is what gives it its gravity.

    --
    Good-bye
  16. High Framerate + CGI = extra fake by Requiem18th · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember when I first saw a Blueray Disc movie, it was that godawful G.I. Joe movie, I dunno what the frame rate was on that but the image looked absurdly crisp and sharp. It was the clearest cleanest image I had seen on a movie, and it looked disgustingly fake.

    For a moment I thought it was because the lack of camera artifacts made it look unauthentic, kinda like how lens flare is now added to movies because people expect it. However after a while I realized that I only had problems when there was CGI on the screen. So in fact it wasn't the sharp image what was bothering me, is the that, the sharper the image, the more obvious CGI imperfections are.

    Image quality reveals fake scenes for what they are.

    For a movie with a shitload of fake imagery like the Hobbit, I can already see why people would complain. I'm pretty sure those 60fps instructional videos you shot didn't have any CGI in them did they?

    --
    But... the future refused to change.
    1. Re:High Framerate + CGI = extra fake by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

      Image quality reveals fake scenes for what they are.

      I'm not a Trekkie, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that this was a real problem with the original Star Trek series. It was shot on good film (35mm?) but all the imperfections in the props and sets were covered up when it was originally telecined to NTSC for airing. When they remastered a HD version of the series from the original film, a lot of the seams started showing. (I don't know what the resolution was – did they touch it up manually in Cinepaint or something?) It was an interesting story.

    2. Re:High Framerate + CGI = extra fake by tbird81 · · Score: 2

      The trick is to record everything in 1080p, apply a 4 pixel Gaussian blur, then add some noise and JPEG artefacts. Then no-one can see your actors have makeup on and the set is made of painted fibreglass.

    3. Re:High Framerate + CGI = extra fake by LordKronos · · Score: 3, Informative

      I remember when I first saw a Blueray Disc movie, it was that godawful G.I. Joe movie, I dunno what the frame rate was on that but the image looked absurdly crisp and sharp. It was the clearest cleanest image I had seen on a movie, and it looked disgustingly fake.

      For a moment I thought it was because the lack of camera artifacts made it look unauthentic, kinda like how lens flare is now added to movies because people expect it. However after a while I realized that I only had problems when there was CGI on the screen. So in fact it wasn't the sharp image what was bothering me, is the that, the sharper the image, the more obvious CGI imperfections are.

      Image quality reveals fake scenes for what they are.

      For a movie with a shitload of fake imagery like the Hobbit, I can already see why people would complain. I'm pretty sure those 60fps instructional videos you shot didn't have any CGI in them did they?

      I don't think that makes sense. The reason that CGI looks fake at higher res is because there is a limitation to the amount of accurate fine detail that can be added without drastically increasing the artists effort, and when you see a higher resolution, those limits become a lot more visible. For faster frame rates, however, I can't think of any particular way that the extra frame rates increase the requirements of the CGI other than the 2.5 times increase in rendering time to go from 24 to 60 fps.

      If anything I'd guess the issue would be the opposite, and the real stuff would "suffer" more than the CGI, and the reason I'm thinking is to do with motion blur. When you are only capturing 24 frames, you capture a certain amount of blur in each frame. When you then play it back, your eye sees that amount of blur over a constant 1/24 second. However, when you record at 48 fps, each frame only has half as much blur, and your eye only sees half the blur for 1/48 second and then the other half of the blur for the next 1/48 second. So effectively your eye sees half as much blur. It's this difference in blur that your brain has become accustomed to and leads some people to perceive 48fps as being poorer quality. With CGI, they can render whatever amount of blur they want into it each frame, so it's entirely up to them whether to go with more blur or less.

  17. Re:High frame rate by HarrySquatter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or most people over 35 can spot when they are being sold gimmicks at ridiculous markup?

  18. Better isn't always perceived as better by hawguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was involved in a phone system rollout where we rolled out high definition voice that gives noticeably better quality on calls within the office.

    Many people hated it - said the voice quality of the new phone system was terrible and wondered how could we possibly put in a new system that sounded noticably worse than the old.

    But a year later, we did a test with a few of the more vocal complainers and had them do side-by-side comparisions with the high def codec and the lower bandwidth codec used by the old system and now even they admit that the new system sounds better.

    So even if 48fps is technically better than 24fps, many people will think it's worse because it's "different" but if it becomes a standard, at some point kids will wonder how their parents could ever stand watching 24fps movies.

  19. Re:Why 2 Hobbit movies? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    . If the Lord of the Rings books each got a single film, I don't see how the Hobbit needs to be stretched into two.

    They did cut a lot of what was in LotR books for the film, though.

  20. Uncanny valley-too much detail but not quite right by dbIII · · Score: 2

    I realized that I only had problems when there was CGI on the screen

    If we go all the way back to Labyrinth the few well lit puppet scenes looked like crap and ruined the suspension of disbeleif. Dark Crystal solved that by being dark. Toy Story got around that by using CGI for simple plastic objects that are supposed to look fake. Recent anime with shitloads of CGI gets around the "uncanny valley" that plagues things like Tintin by still having people drawn in a 2D cell animation style even if the backgrounds are photorealistic.