Jump to content


Photo

The Hobbit


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Lorenzo Ganugi Spagli

Lorenzo Ganugi Spagli

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Student
  • NYC

Posted 15 December 2012 - 05:22 PM

hey guys i just want to open this discussion to see what you think.

I went yesterday to watch the hobbit in IMAX 3D and was very disappointed.

First because of the director's choice of depicting certain characters the way they did ( example: Radagast)

Second because the film looked horrible to me. It looked WAY too real ! with all the 3D and digital stuff i thought that that was a joke ! come on ! it didn't have an "EPIC" look at all. I don't know too much abut the process they used to film it, but i don't really like the output.


what do you guys think ?
  • 0

#2 Darrell Ayer

Darrell Ayer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:11 PM

Lorenzo,
I have to disagree with "It looked WAY too real". There is nothing any more real with how 48fps renders motion. I found that most of the motion was actually less realistic with a lot of jitter between frames, it almost exaserbated it. It looks sharper, which when things are moving isn't really the case in real life.

It took about half the movie to put a finger on what it was I didn't like about it and it hit me. Everything looked like it was moving to fast. As though it was being fast forwarded and the audio was ADRed on top of it, it made me physically uncomfortable. The up side is there was no "3D headache" to speak of...

The problems with the movie where their own after that. Though what happend to the miniature unit?
  • 1

#3 Francisco Martins

Francisco Martins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:45 PM

Also the fact that the framerate brings the film closer to television quality (as Tv has a similar framerate, thus feel). So in the end, its a 150$ million tv movie.
  • 0

#4 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:05 PM

Considering the scope of the films, I was surprised Jackson didn't choose the Alexa over the Red.
  • 0

#5 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7115 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:59 PM

Size considerations for the 3D I'd bet. Nothing super small on the Arri front till the Alexa M came out.
  • 0

#6 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:11 AM

Considering the scope of the films, I was surprised Jackson didn't choose the Alexa over the Red.


Peter Jackson has been pretty close to RED over the years, he made what I believe was their first short film when testing the RED One.
  • 0

#7 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2420 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:58 AM

In the interviews it sounds a bit like he's making excuses for a bad choice.
Not to mention turning a 300-page book into ten hours.
  • 0

#8 Lorenzo Ganugi Spagli

Lorenzo Ganugi Spagli

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Student
  • NYC

Posted 19 December 2012 - 12:14 AM

Lorenzo,
I have to disagree with "It looked WAY too real". There is nothing any more real with how 48fps renders motion. I found that most of the motion was actually less realistic with a lot of jitter between frames, it almost exaserbated it. It looks sharper, which when things are moving isn't really the case in real life.

It took about half the movie to put a finger on what it was I didn't like about it and it hit me. Everything looked like it was moving to fast. As though it was being fast forwarded and the audio was ADRed on top of it, it made me physically uncomfortable. The up side is there was no "3D headache" to speak of...

The problems with the movie where their own after that. Though what happend to the miniature unit?



really ? because i thought the opposite ! I mean there are a couple of scenes where I don't know what it was but it was like watching a telenovela ( hope you understand). As francisco said a $150000000 movie for TV !
  • 0

#9 Darrell Ayer

Darrell Ayer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 19 December 2012 - 05:06 PM

http://gizmodo.com/5...hy-48-fps-fails

Here's a great (long) article on a bit of how we all are feeling.
  • 0

#10 Alexander P

Alexander P

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 December 2012 - 12:50 AM

Just saw Hobbit in IMAX 3d and left with a huge headache and eyestrain! FIrst time this has ever happened to me. All the fast cutting and videogame-like tracking shots taxed my brain and left me numb. Another disappointment was the fact I could see all the makeup during the closeups! Shooting on RED epics seems like a big step backwards when you have a budget of this size.

The 2k finish did not hold up well on the large IMAX screen.
  • 0

#11 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 21 December 2012 - 08:57 PM

Though what happend to the miniature unit?


There were models used for art dept. planning, but the early tests with miniatures seemed problematic. That's according to stuff I heard for an article I did on the film's cinematography & vfx (skip to the last page for the miniatures reference)
http://www.hdvideopr...back-again.html
  • 0

#12 Frank Glencairn

Frank Glencairn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Germany

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:42 PM

Besides all technical stuff, I was also disappointed from it as a movie.
Maybe because the Hobbit is a childrens book, but I found it too slapstickish (regarding directing and acting) to grab me.
LOTR was deep, dark, mystic epic, but those 3 camping trolls where just like the Three Stooges and the dwarfs and goblins like from the Muppet show (I was just waiting for a tap dance number), let alone that guy with the bunny sled.

Jackson lost me for the next two. And it's not because of 24/48 3D or not.
So for the moment, my preferred Hobbit frame rate is zero fps.
  • 1

#13 Vadim Bobkovsky

Vadim Bobkovsky
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:42 AM

It might be for the better, leave this fun fantasy film to the kids, because sad aging guys inevitably will be disappointed by such explosion of colors, especially in that strange weird-looking HFR 3D. Put that digital nonsense away and get off my lawn!
  • 1

#14 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:56 AM

It might be for the better, leave this fun fantasy film to the kids, because sad aging guys inevitably will be disappointed by such explosion of colors, especially in that strange weird-looking HFR 3D. Put that digital nonsense away and get off my lawn!


I dont think this post, nor your attitude are going to get you far here. But I will be entertained by the responses you garner.

LOL What a first post...do you come from REDuser?
  • 0

#15 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1880 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:10 PM

In the interviews it sounds a bit like he's making excuses for a bad choice.......


I was looking at the early part of this interview.

Peter Jackson discusses 'The Hobbit' .
Director Peter Jackson spoke with Hero Complex contributor John Horn at Comic-Con International in July, just before announcing that the two-film adaptation of "The Hobbit" would become a trilogy.


He's definately the lead lemming for the new. Paraphrasing him........There is no eye strain with 48fps apparently, you just have to get used to it. And if the industry is going in this direction then he / we just need(s) to go with it. (paraphrasing him....these are not my thoughts).

At arounf 5-00 minutes is he equating the Epic at 4k pixels to 65mm film or is he just talking about the size of the camera rigs (3D vs 65mm)?

In the year 2525.........
  • 0

#16 Seba Vuye

Seba Vuye
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 04 January 2013 - 07:21 AM

thanks for this interview
  • 0

#17 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 06 January 2013 - 09:33 PM

I gave the 3D HFR version a chance. Sat through the first 5 minutes of the film, in anguish. And it wasn't because I'm "not used to it", I AM used to it, I'm used to seeing it on TV soap operas and daytime talk shows, which I hate. The VFX also seemed a lot worse as well, like watching a video game. Everything seemed like it was in focus, negating the 3D realism effect (something Claudio Miranda does really well). On top of that, HFR is still digital projection, and I just felt like I was watching television with a room full of strangers.

Luckily, the auditorium next door was playing the 3D 24fps version, starting 10 minutes afterwards. Genius planning by AMC Theatres for those who couldn't stand HFR. So, I saw the movie. It was OK, more of the same from PJ really. Made me really wish Guillermo Del Toro had done it in the end.

I was surprised at how bad HFR was though, but it made me curious about refresh rates of digital projection vs. film projection. If there were a film out of The Hobbit, printed and projected at 48fps, would it have the same "TV look"?
  • 0

#18 Darrell Ayer

Darrell Ayer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 07 January 2013 - 10:22 AM

I was surprised at how bad HFR was though, but it made me curious about refresh rates of digital projection vs. film projection. If there were a film out of The Hobbit, printed and projected at 48fps, would it have the same "TV look"?


I'm going to have to say yes, if only because if you "true motion" (god why whould you?) a movie it turns into the same fast forward looking trash. I was stuck at a house watching the origional evil dead on a tv I couldn't turn that off. It takes you out of the story and really makes you only look at the camera work. Distracting is an understatement.

I think it has to do with persistance of vision and our mind not being given any time to really interpolate the motion on it's own.
  • 0

#19 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 09 January 2013 - 05:50 AM

I've just gotten back from seeing it tonight in 24fps 3D (don't think you can get anything else here at the moment).

I didn't think it looked all that bad, but I didn't think it looked all that good either. Despite all the Red Bull we've been subjected to, the Epic still doesn't the highlight handling capacity of film. The killer was the candles they had everywhere. When you shoot a burning candle with film, it still looks pretty much like a candle. The candle flames in The Hobbit all looked like wan white oblongs.
I don't know what it is; but on film, the yellowish glare of the candle flame tends to look real.

The outdoor sequences had a weird look that looks exactly like the result of IR pollution from using too many NDs. But surely PJ would be wise to that by now. (Yeah, yeah; I know; that poxy look was the effect he was striving for. When all else fails, it was an artistic choice...)

It's the same old same ol' same ol'; the CGI sequences looked more natural than the live footage.

As for the film itself, it really drags for the first hour, but the action picks up towards the end.

"The Hobbit" was only a very short book; nowhere is there enough story in there for THREE movies, particularly the length of the one I've just seen.

I really don't understand why the Red cameras seem to get used on so many expensive why-did-they-bother movies. I literally had trouble staying awake during Prometheus and The Amazing Spider-Man, as well as the first halt of The Hobbit
  • 0


Paralinx LLC

CineTape

The Slider

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

The Slider

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Glidecam

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies