• 90 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by familyphotoshoot (651 posts) -
#2 Posted by MildMolasses (3194 posts) -

It's weird how that works. It's sort of the same with how I feel about 60 fps in games. Everything looks too clean and crisp. I need some animation smudge

#3 Posted by FengShuiGod (1470 posts) -

The Master in 70mm was glorious. This is just kinda weird.

#4 Edited by Jack268 (3387 posts) -

This has got to be the slowest a website has ever loaded a 42 mb file. 
 
woop, never mind it unfucked itself. 
 
actually never mind it's still slow as fuck 
 
Either way, I think the more movies adapt this standard the more people will stop complaining about it. I know high frame rates have irked me in Swedish movies but I think Jackson is a more experienced film maker than the people who make those movies so it should turn out just fine.

#5 Posted by Bollard (5025 posts) -

That site must be getting demolished because download speeds are atrocious. I like my games as high framerate as possible. TV gets by with blurring the frames together but I'd much rather have it so when I pause something it's still in focus. Will be interested to see this.

#6 Posted by FengShuiGod (1470 posts) -

@Jack268 said:

This has got to be the slowest a website has ever loaded a 42 mb file.

iknowrite

#7 Posted by CaLe (3678 posts) -

50Mb connection and getting a 5 hour download time on that link. Wonderful.

#8 Edited by benpicko (1923 posts) -

Are there any mirrors because it's just not playing

Edit: http://www.lukeletellier.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/The%20Hobbit%20Trailer%20@%2048fps%20-%20High%20Quality.flv Is this the same?

#9 Posted by JasonR86 (9374 posts) -

Here's another site for it in case you don't want to download the .mp4 file.

http://www.fxphd.com/blog/what-might-the-hobbit-look-like-at-48-fps/

The site above took the 24 fps trailer and tweaked it essentially doubling the speed of the video. So it doesn't look exactly how it would look in the theaters but it's a close approximation. I'm sure I'll get used to it but it will make the film look cheaper. It will look closer to regular television shows but even weirder (as I think most TV shows are run at 30 fps). There's a certain quality that I can't quite put my finger on when you see a film in 24 fps that increase the frame-rate cheapens to me. I wish I could find the words to describe what I mean but I can't.

I guess what makes me feel more irritated by this whole thing is how Peter Jackson handled the backlash. He states that this new change is the wave of the future. Well his film has also been shot in 3D which I assume is how he wishes everyone would see the film. If I'm correct, based off of what we know about running games in 3D, if he wants the resolution of his film to stay as high as it is in 2D he needs increase the frame-rate. Doubling the frame-rate has been what I've heard when it comes to games. If this is true then the film is not 'supposed' to be seen at 48 fps in 2D. Rather, it is 'supposed' to be seen at 24 fps in 3D.

#10 Posted by FengShuiGod (1470 posts) -

try this: http://www.fxphd.com/blog/what-might-the-hobbit-look-like-at-48-fps/

#11 Posted by N7 (3570 posts) -

That is really weird. It does look like a Soap Opera. It makes everything look really fake somehow.

#12 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

No wonder it looks terrible when it's just some website who decided to mess around with the settings for a video file to make it look like it was running at 48 fps. 

#13 Posted by CaLe (3678 posts) -

Looks like any quick movements are a little too fast or something. I don't think real life looks like that.

#14 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -
@CaLe said:

Looks like any quick movements are a little too fast or something. I don't think real life looks like that.

Maybe it's because we're not wearing HD Glasses. 
I knew I shouldn't have trusted Tested when they tested those things, damn it all! 
#15 Posted by Village_Guy (2405 posts) -

Yeah, I've heard the whole film is in 48 fps, which might be why people who have been to screenings have said some negative things 'bout it.

#16 Edited by FengShuiGod (1470 posts) -

@ZeForgotten said:

No wonder it looks terrible when it's just some website who decided to mess around with the settings for a video file to make it look like it was running at 48 fps.

No, this is actually pretty accurate. Ever seen video at 48+ frames a second? This is a good representation of what it looks like. Just go find other hfps videos out there and watch them.

Although a higher frame rate is supposedly more realistic, it looks weird. I don't think it's a matter of being used to it, I think that even though our eyes may technically see at a rate higher than 24 frames, the motion blur and other ancillary factors of our vision make 24 frames a second closer to how we actually perceive the world. When you are looking at a stationary, flat screen that is displaying video at a high frame rate things just look really strange, at least imho.

#17 Posted by Demoskinos (13853 posts) -

Im on board for 48fps movies. We need progress! The more frames the better. Everyone will get used to it eventually. You get the same sort of eyeshock when you see a game you only played at 30fps at 60fps on a PC. Its jarring but ultimately I think its for the best.

#18 Edited by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -
@FengShuiGod said:

@ZeForgotten said:

No wonder it looks terrible when it's just some website who decided to mess around with the settings for a video file to make it look like it was running at 48 fps.

No, this is actually pretty accurate. Ever seen video at 48+ frames a second? This is a good representation of what it looks like. Just go find other hfps videos out there and watch them.

Although a higher frame rate is supposedly more realistic, it looks weird. I don't think it's a matter of being used to it, I think that even though our eyes may technically see at a rate higher than 24 frames, the motion blur and other ancillary factors of our vision make 24 frames a second closer to how we actually perceive the world. When you are looking at a stationary, flat screen that is displaying video at a high frame rate things just look really strange, at least imho.

But those are usually filmed specifically for 48+ fps and not just "tweaked" / have been sped up. 
And I bet you could see the difference too if you posted a video that was actually filmed with 48fps in mind and the sped up-to-fake-48fps version right next to each other.
#19 Posted by NTM (7033 posts) -

James Cameron's going to make, or at least try to make all the rest of the Avatar films run at 60.

#20 Posted by Alexandru (301 posts) -

@ZeForgotten said:

No wonder it looks terrible when it's just some website who decided to mess around with the settings for a video file to make it look like it was running at 48 fps.

This. That doesn't look right. I bet the actual movie will be alot smoother. The motion in the trailer is stuttery, and everything seems to move faster rather than smoother.

#21 Edited by FengShuiGod (1470 posts) -

@ZeForgotten said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@ZeForgotten said:

No wonder it looks terrible when it's just some website who decided to mess around with the settings for a video file to make it look like it was running at 48 fps.

No, this is actually pretty accurate. Ever seen video at 48+ frames a second? This is a good representation of what it looks like. Just go find other hfps videos out there and watch them.

Although a higher frame rate is supposedly more realistic, it looks weird. I don't think it's a matter of being used to it, I think that even though our eyes may technically see at a rate higher than 24 frames, the motion blur and other ancillary factors of our vision make 24 frames a second closer to how we actually perceive the world. When you are looking at a stationary, flat screen that is displaying video at a high frame rate things just look really strange, at least imho.

But those are usually filmed specifically for 48+ fps and not just "tweaked" / have been sped up. And I bet you could see the difference too if you posted a video that was actually filmed with 48fps in mind and the sped up-to-fake-488fps version right next to each other.

Yes they are filmed at a high rate and haven't been tweaked, but they still look weird just like the Hobbit trailer does. Which is my point. If I magically make some fake eggs, and they taste exactly like eggs, but aren't actually eggs, that doesn't obviate the fact that they taste the same. Yes, this video is not actually dedicated 48 fps, but it looks very similar to the end result, whether you find that result pleasurable or not.

And you wouldn't really notice the difference with a version sped up much more because the human eyes wouldn't be able to perceive that increase. Here is an example of video shot a 50fps and then converted to 25fps. Although the camera is obviously not the quality of the RED that the Hobbit was shot with, the 50fps video possesses many of the trademarks of high frame rate video and looks like 50fps does, while the 25fps video does not, for good or bad.

In 3d 48fps might look a lot better, I dunno.

#22 Posted by Cheesebob (1211 posts) -

It looks like it was fast forwarded...and yet perfectly understandable. What the fuck did I just watch?

#23 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -
@FengShuiGod said:

@ZeForgotten said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@ZeForgotten said:

No wonder it looks terrible when it's just some website who decided to mess around with the settings for a video file to make it look like it was running at 48 fps.

No, this is actually pretty accurate. Ever seen video at 48+ frames a second? This is a good representation of what it looks like. Just go find other hfps videos out there and watch them.

Although a higher frame rate is supposedly more realistic, it looks weird. I don't think it's a matter of being used to it, I think that even though our eyes may technically see at a rate higher than 24 frames, the motion blur and other ancillary factors of our vision make 24 frames a second closer to how we actually perceive the world. When you are looking at a stationary, flat screen that is displaying video at a high frame rate things just look really strange, at least imho.

But those are usually filmed specifically for 48+ fps and not just "tweaked" / have been sped up. And I bet you could see the difference too if you posted a video that was actually filmed with 48fps in mind and the sped up-to-fake-488fps version right next to each other.

Yes they are filmed at a high rate and haven't been tweaked, but they still look weird just like the Hobbit trailer does. Which is my point. If I magically make some fake eggs, and they taste exactly like eggs, but aren't actually eggs, that doesn't obviate the fact that they taste the same. Yes, this video is not actually dedicated 48 fps, but it looks very similar to the end result, whether you find that result pleasurable or not.

And you wouldn't really notice the difference with a version sped up much more because the human eyes wouldn't be able to perceive that increase. Here is an example of video shot a 50fps and then converted to 25fps. Although the camera is obviously not the quality of the RED that the Hobbit was shot with, the 50fps video possesses many of the trademarks of high frame rate video and looks like 50fps does, while the 25fps video does not, for good or bad.

In 3d 48fps might look a lot better, I dunno.

Oh no doubt that it will have that weird "Soap Opera"-effect going on, I meant more the stuff more noticeable even just with the naked eye.(Even an eye busted by a needle could see it) like when a video is sped up a walk suddenly turns into a full on sprint for the gold medal and cuts are weird and make no sense why they're so fast and stuff. 
 
As for the 3D part, nobody really knows so that's still a big unknown. 
#24 Edited by glyn (382 posts) -

It looks too realistic!

Like it is shot with a hand held camera or something and you are watching a home video.

I don't think a fantasy hobbit world is the place to bring hyper realism to the big screens. But i could see this working in a non-cg real life city / story enivornment.

#25 Posted by Tebbit (4435 posts) -

The reason eveything looks "fake" is because at 24fps (the standard frame rate of most movies) motion gains a certain amount of weight that it doesn't actually exhibit in real life. At 48 frames, it loses that weight, and looks cheaper.

I really hope directors can make it work, because it looks crisp as hell. It's kinda the same leap makeup artists had to take when everything became high definition - suddenly everyone could see the flaws that much more, and more work and post-production had to be done to achieve the a result that was still visually impressive.

#26 Posted by believer258 (11040 posts) -

I had the same experience when I jumped to PC gaming, everything looked really weird at 60FPS. Then I got used to it and now I don't like going back.

Anyway, it looks fine to me. Of course I see the difference, and I see the potential problems people could have, but I don't have any issues with it.

#27 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

This is someone tweaking 24fps to 48fps, it's the same as turning on that motion plus in new tvs it just looks wrong. Any first review is out and saiid "The movie offers technological wizardry, thanks to a 48 frames-per-second format, twice the industry standard. Critics who saw a trailer earlier this year were unimpressed, but after a minute or two of adjusting, the higher resolution is eye-popping, similar to discovering HD television for the first time."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/new-hobbit-film-eye-popping-article-1.1209539#ixzz2DkoZN8BB

#28 Posted by Bones8677 (3170 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

Im on board for 48fps movies. We need progress! The more frames the better.

Why? You can't just change things for the sake of changing them. There has to be an actual benefit, and I don't see any real benefit to having higher framed movies. High framed games is different because it improves gameplay. Where as in a film it detracts from the aesthetic.

And if you want progress then that means you should be on board for all movies being 3D. And I'm safe in saying that 3D detracts from the film rather than improving it.

#29 Edited by FengShuiGod (1470 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

This is someone tweaking 24fps to 48fps, it's the same as turning on that motion plus in new tvs it just looks wrong. Any first review is out and saiid "The movie offers technological wizardry, thanks to a 48 frames-per-second format, twice the industry standard. Critics who saw a trailer earlier this year were unimpressed, but after a minute or two of adjusting, the higher resolution is eye-popping, similar to discovering HD television for the first time."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/new-hobbit-film-eye-popping-article-1.1209539#ixzz2DkoZN8BB

I don't know what the reviewer means, unless he saw it in 3d and 48fps, because resolution =/= framerate, and if he did see it in 3d with 48fps, then that is kinda beside the point because 48fps in 3d =/= 48fps in 2d.

#30 Posted by Demoskinos (13853 posts) -

@Bones8677 said:

@Demoskinos said:

Im on board for 48fps movies. We need progress! The more frames the better.

Why? You can't just change things for the sake of changing them. There has to be an actual benefit, and I don't see any real benefit to having higher framed movies. High framed games is different because it improves gameplay. Where as in a film it detracts from the aesthetic.

And if you want progress then that means you should be on board for all movies being 3D. And I'm safe in saying that 3D detracts from the film rather than improving it.

Because more frames means that fast action shots are going to be a lot smoother.

#31 Edited by FengShuiGod (1470 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

@Bones8677 said:

@Demoskinos said:

Im on board for 48fps movies. We need progress! The more frames the better.

Why? You can't just change things for the sake of changing them. There has to be an actual benefit, and I don't see any real benefit to having higher framed movies. High framed games is different because it improves gameplay. Where as in a film it detracts from the aesthetic.

And if you want progress then that means you should be on board for all movies being 3D. And I'm safe in saying that 3D detracts from the film rather than improving it.

Because more frames means that fast action shots are going to be a lot smoother.

This is arguably a plus for higher frames, but I kinda think it just makes lazy film making ok. Is a fight scene edited down into a bunch of half seconds shots really that great, even if what is going on is a little clearer? And how long until, with the oppresive chains of 24fps shed, does the action becomes so frenetic that even the boundaries of 48 frames start to become tested. Or, to put it another way, sometimes I can't tell what the fuck is going on in a Transformers movie, but I never had that problem with Kill Bill.

#32 Posted by buft (3298 posts) -

@Alexandru said:

@ZeForgotten said:

No wonder it looks terrible when it's just some website who decided to mess around with the settings for a video file to make it look like it was running at 48 fps.

This. That doesn't look right. I bet the actual movie will be alot smoother. The motion in the trailer is stuttery, and everything seems to move faster rather than smoother.

it seems to jump around in speed like movies from the twenties.

#33 Posted by Dark (356 posts) -

http://www.svp-team.com/

There now you can all watch 24fps video with interpolated frames, whilst its no way NEAR as clear as actually filming in 48fps you can at least be all like 'lawl my pirated movies are all smooth and such'

#34 Posted by RandomInternetUser (6788 posts) -

I fucking looooove high FPS video. I think Survivorman used it a few times and I found myself wishing the whole thing was high FPS.

Maybe in the next week or so I'll get to watch this trailer in 48 FPS when it finally downloads.

Thanks for the link, though.

#35 Posted by Casey25 (133 posts) -

I really hope this catches on. Since i've had to live with crappy low end computers for my gaming, nowadays i really appreciate higher frames per second in my games.

On a somewhat related note, a buddy of mine bought a 120 Hz HDTV and that higher refresh rate just makes everything look sexy as FUUUUUUUUUUUCK. It has to be seen to be believed.

Higher frames per second (to an extent, obviously) is always good imo, unless you're going for a retro appeal. Technology needs to advance. BRING ON THE FUTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#36 Posted by Superfriend (1457 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

Im on board for 48fps movies. We need progress! The more frames the better. Everyone will get used to it eventually. You get the same sort of eyeshock when you see a game you only played at 30fps at 60fps on a PC. Its jarring but ultimately I think its for the best.

Yes! You actually adjust to higher framerates in movies. I bought a new TV a while ago and regular TV shows get interpolated to a higher framerate. At first it was really bothersome, then I didn´t notice it anymore. Funny thing is, that TV really let me notice higher framerates in games too. Then I went to see Cabin in the Woods in a movie theater. I couldn´t believe how bad some of the camera movements looked. It was literally headache inducing. So, yeah I think you´ll get used to higher framerates in movies. To the point where you need all your entertainment to come in higher framerates. Gimme them frames!

#37 Posted by Bones8677 (3170 posts) -

@FengShuiGod said:

@Demoskinos said:

@Bones8677 said:

@Demoskinos said:

Im on board for 48fps movies. We need progress! The more frames the better.

Why? You can't just change things for the sake of changing them. There has to be an actual benefit, and I don't see any real benefit to having higher framed movies. High framed games is different because it improves gameplay. Where as in a film it detracts from the aesthetic.

And if you want progress then that means you should be on board for all movies being 3D. And I'm safe in saying that 3D detracts from the film rather than improving it.

Because more frames means that fast action shots are going to be a lot smoother.

This is arguably a plus for higher frames, but I kinda think it just makes lazy film making ok. Is a fight scene edited down into a bunch of half seconds shots really that great, even if what is going on is a little clearer? And how long until, with the oppresive chains of 24fps shed, does the action becomes so frenetic that even the boundaries of 48 frames start to become tested. Or, to put it another way, sometimes I can't tell what the fuck is going on in a Transformers movie, but I never had that problem with Kill Bill.

I completely agreed, a good film maker doesn't need higher frames to make their action scene work, they just need a steady camera and good editing. I've never looked at an action scene for a movie, good or bad and thought, 'This needs a higher frame rate.'

#38 Posted by TooWalrus (12973 posts) -

I'm honestly more concerned about how they're going to make three movies out of one book that's only half the length of one of the three LotR books.

#39 Edited by MonetaryDread (1955 posts) -

Thankfully that isn't how the movie looks. This is just an 24fps video that has been interpolated to simulate the 48fps effect.

The real benefeit to 48fps is not the smoothness of the picture in 2d, it is how it works in tandem with 3d. The 48fps allows for a more accurate representation of 3D because 24fps films have to rely on motion blur to convince you that you are watching smooth motion and motion blur completely fucks up the brains ability to process the 3D effect. Moving up to 48fps, though it looks silly in 2D, allows the 3D effect to be more easily interpreted by the human brain and central nervous system.

Edit: Another example of how 48fps is going to be better in the long-run is when a director decides to do fast motion. For example, look at the Bourne movies, the fast-cuts that are a trademark of the series are, in my opinion, stupid. They aren't stupid in concept, but I hate watching a minute long action scene where you can not actually see anything because it is too blurry. Filming at 48fps removes that blurriness, allowing you to have the quick-cuts while allowing you to see what is happening on screen. This is a win-win in my book. It allows the director to have more tools in his toolbox, and if a director like Scorsese can use 3D in an artistic way that enhances the film (despite a large portion of the populations hatred for 3D), then a skilled director can take 48fps and use it in a way that does not seem forced and gimmicky.

#40 Posted by MonetaryDread (1955 posts) -

@Bones8677 said:

And if you want progress then that means you should be on board for all movies being 3D. And I'm safe in saying that 3D detracts from the film rather than improving it.

Yet that all comes down to personal opinion. If I am going to the theater that is because I am going to watch a big-budget film with no merritt other than its visual eye-fuckery. (Not that I don't support other films, for example one of my favorite films is Hunger, but I would buy that on Blu-Ray, not watch it in the theater) So if I am going to watch a movie like Transformers 4 or Avengers 2 in the theaters I want to have gimmicks like 4 or 8K resolution, 48fps , 3D that doesn't suck, and D-Box seats. It makes going to the movies an event because it offers an experience that I can not get at home (I have a 1080p projector at home so just having a large screen does not mean much).

#41 Posted by Bones8677 (3170 posts) -

@MonetaryDread said:

@Bones8677 said:

And if you want progress then that means you should be on board for all movies being 3D. And I'm safe in saying that 3D detracts from the film rather than improving it.

Yet that all comes down to personal opinion. If I am going to the theater that is because I am going to watch a big-budget film with no merritt other than its visual eye-fuckery. (Not that I don't support other films, for example one of my favorite films is Hunger, but I would buy that on Blu-Ray, not watch it in the theater) So if I am going to watch a movie like Transformers 4 or Avengers 2 in the theaters I want to have gimmicks like 4 or 8K resolution, 48fps , 3D that doesn't suck, and D-Box seats. It makes going to the movies an event because it offers an experience that I can not get at home (I have a 1080p projector at home so just having a large screen does not mean much).

Except people who want this to be the future means Hunger 2 on Blu Ray means it'll be "4 or 8K resolution, 48fps , 3D." It infects all movies, not just some.

#42 Posted by TheHT (10274 posts) -

Looks like they sped up and slowed down the video, all jittery and whatnot.

#43 Posted by thedj93 (1237 posts) -

i think it looks good enough that when its in a full movie it'll be awesome

#44 Posted by Barrock (3525 posts) -

Don't like it. Girlfriend's step-dad got a gigantic TV that had some sort of setting that made everything look like this. Iron Man 2 looked like shit.

#45 Posted by Apparatus_Unearth (3031 posts) -

High refresh rate TVs mess with my eyes just like this does.

#46 Posted by Video_Game_King (34601 posts) -

Can I just say that after seeing the trailer for it at Wreck-it Ralph, the movie itself looks like it's gonna be fucking awesome? It's certainly enough to make me want to watch the original LOTR trilogy. (Then again, this piece of ass immediately preceded The Hobbit, so my expectations may have been colored.)

#47 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@MonetaryDread said:

@Bones8677 said:

And if you want progress then that means you should be on board for all movies being 3D. And I'm safe in saying that 3D detracts from the film rather than improving it.

Yet that all comes down to personal opinion. If I am going to the theater that is because I am going to watch a big-budget film with no merritt other than its visual eye-fuckery. (Not that I don't support other films, for example one of my favorite films is Hunger, but I would buy that on Blu-Ray, not watch it in the theater) So if I am going to watch a movie like Transformers 4 or Avengers 2 in the theaters I want to have gimmicks like 4 or 8K resolution, 48fps , 3D that doesn't suck, and D-Box seats. It makes going to the movies an event because it offers an experience that I can not get at home (I have a 1080p projector at home so just having a large screen does not mean much).

I went to Avatar on opening day hoping to get 3D, ended up seeing 2D because 3D was sold out liked the movie so went back the 2nd day to watch it on 3D and I thought the 3D looked amazing and fully enjoyed the whole movie and it really did add to the movie. I will probably see Hobbit in 3D, hoping it's the next step from Avatar's 3D as it made by the same FX teams, really interested how good the shot on location stuff looks though.

#48 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@Barrock said:

Don't like it. Girlfriend's step-dad got a gigantic TV that had some sort of setting that made everything look like this. Iron Man 2 looked like shit.

Turn that shit off, it will be in the advanced settings called Frame Creation or smoother image of something like that, that's why you don't like this trailer because who ever made it took a 24fps video and pretty much used this technology on it thats why it looks so fake, I reserve judgement to I watch this 3 hour movie in a movie theatre with the original film.

#49 Posted by rachelepithet (1253 posts) -

The real reason this movie is gonna flop is no Gareth Keenan,

#50 Posted by Terramagi (1159 posts) -

It's just 50 fucking years of 24 FPS weighing down on your mind.

I bet people bitched about COLOUR when it was introduced.