Personal View site logo
Peter Jackson Shares New Video From The Hobbit Set
  • gibgib
    http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=83957

    wow

  • 68 Replies sorted by
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

  • gibgib

    LOL at the beard section

    Looking forward to watching the first film in a few weeks

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

  • B3GuyB3Guy

    Well I saw Prometheus last week in "RealD" 3D, which was using a Sony 4K projector. Prometheus was shot on RED in 3D with the same lenses that The Hobbit is using, and I found the experience in theater to be great. The most important thing with 3D is strategic use of deep DOF. much of the film was deep, excepting some 2-shots and closeups. This was good. Constant use of shallow depth of field completely defeats the point of shooting 3D in the first place.

    I'm pretty sure I was watching in 4K, but I know for sure I've seen 4K 3D at a REDucation event, and it looked awesome. I'm also not sure if it was in 24 or 48fps, but it seemed smooth enough whatever it was . . . and yet a bit higher frame rate wouldn't have hurt anything either. I could sense the frames in fast movements on screen.

    I'm not worried. 3D is pretty good nowadays. Prometheus easily drew me into the world of the film. I was transported, invested in the story and characters. I know Peter Jackson is a perfectly capable storyteller, and I trust him to get me quickly from that "ooh, ah, 3D" mindset into the "what's gonna happen next" mindset, just as Ridley Scott did with Prometheus.

  • gibgib

    Hehe, good to see they are having some fun on the set

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

  • RobertoRoberto

    I had been wondering whether by some chance the "look" viewers disliked might not really have been produced by the 48fps after all - but maybe by a combination of factors...

    Jackson also explained the footage presented at Cinemacon would look different once it goes through the post-production process.

    Because production is not scheduled to wrap until July, the customary postproduction that affects the overall look of a film has not yet been done, so the clips were unfinished. They were not yet color corrected, nor had the visual effects been completed. (In various scenes the actors were shown performing in front of a greenscreen.)

    Jackson explained that his original The Lord of the Rings used various postproduction techniques to create a certain look for the movies, including “extensive” digital color grading, “added texture, and we took out highlights."

    Maybe everybody just got a bit carried away!

    From http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/peter-jackson-the-hobbit-cinemacon-317755

  • RobertoRoberto

    Maybe Jackson just messed up bad

    Yes, it poses questions as to whether the producers practised risk-management! Just how did they manage to get this feature so close to release date before finding out what viewers think of the look?

  • luxisluxis

    @Mimirsan you want to entertain yourself seeing hobbits jumping around, go a head......i am not some kind of fascist against entertainment and only for documentary style films and stories...just it could be done in a more intelligent way and not so technologically self idulgent... "If you can't go into a film and escape the crap in the world then there's no hope for you." wow, thank you for enlightening me and others here if there is hope or not for us...i don't believe entertainment equals sometime retarded fantasies,not talking only about this particular movie but the whole Hollywood system which almost always requires a huge leap of faith,with a few exceptions of course...as far as the crap around...when the house is burning you don't stare at the sunset do you? but to quote you again: "But hey each to their own! ;-)" ; ) oh, and can you elaborate on the subject: "how a cunt got into power"? nice wording mate!

  • GH2loverGH2lover

    @thepalalias You are completely right. The fact that this is making headlines AT ALL in any sort of context outside the film industry / camera nerdsphere is pretty jarring to observe. To watch random people who've never shot on anything better than their iphone, debate over it on forums like ign and actually have a real opinion about it is... very strange to say the least.

    It goes to show you, how much we potentially take for granted when we say "ah the audience doesn't care, it's just camera freaks like me who'll take notice of this minor detail here" (whatever it may be, frame rate, grading, camera work or any aspect of filmmaking). Reading about this seriously makes me reconsider what an average audience member will take into account when watching my own film when that day comes.

    Most of us forget that details can be noticed by everyone, but not all can articulate what it is that they notice to be different or "off" about a particular element of a production. For example, maybe 120hz smoothing is even more annoying than anyone even realizes, but it's just too silly for an average person to make a conscious acknowledgement that the movie didn't "look" the same way that it did at their friends house / theater. So they just suppress it and think "eh, it is what it is".

  • duartixduartix

    @brianluce : I'm pretty sure "The Hobbit" will feature a lot of bush filming. Well, you know, the same kind of bush we film here. This isn't French Cinema, just to be perfectly clear.

    P.S. BTW, I love French Cinema,

  • No_SuRReNDeRNo_SuRReNDeR

    @brianluce "We are the Men Who Film Bushes" having been here for a while...I ROFLD...good point

  • PechentePechente

    Why not call this topic "The Hobbit" every time I see new posts in here, I hope there's a new production blog out :/

  • thepalaliasthepalalias

    @brianluce Remember, the response to the framerate in The Hobbit is not from the cinematographer crowd: it is from the entertainment media and bloggers. The fact that such a high proportion is reacting so negatively to a technical aspect is catching a lot of people by surprise (and that surprise is catching me by surprise - the response to this is something that could easily be tested in a much lower risk environment).

    Whether the aesthetic catches on or not, this is an important moment to acknowledge. Everyone noticed - not just the techies - whether they liked it or not.

  • brianlucebrianluce

    I wonder if the average movie viewer will share the complaint about Jackson's choice for framerate and cams. Let's not forget that we are different. We are the Men Who Film Bushes.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Maybe Jackson just messed up bad

    LOL.

    1080p60 from Panasonic camcorders is much sharper :-)

  • liquidifyliquidify

    Why does 60 p from gh2 look so great and 48 p look like video? No problems with 60 at all. Looks great, not too sharp and not too real. Still has the art element. Maybe Jackson just messed up bad.

  • agoltzagoltz

    Well, I like 'The Hobbit' and loved the Peter Jackson LOTR saga.

    The Beeb review included both good and bad opinions of 48fps footage.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17836380#

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Guys, let's not to turn this all into 48p flame.

  • No_SuRReNDeRNo_SuRReNDeR

    @jrd You could argue old films hand cranked at 15/18fps are better because they have an artistic artisan feel or that 29.97 camcorder videos have a gritty realistic look so they are better....But that's all subjective....I'm not arguing that. I simply believe the "standard" for digital film making needs to evolve. I'm making films in 2012 and beyond not 1922....So personally...my view...(pun intended) is that 48fps IS better. The "proof" will be in the pudding when this eventually becomes a norm.

  • jrdjrd

    @No_SuRReNDeR

    "Simple-- the more images to hit your eyeballs in a second, the smoother the image will look. "

    Where's the proof that a smoother image is better, more effective, or more evocative, for a work of what's supposed to be imagination?

    This is like claiming that the best painting is photo-realistic. Most people don't go to the cinema to see something that looks like real life.

  • SageSage

    Spielberg never lost his edge. Lucas did. Modern obsession - Replacing depth in story with bigger numbers

  • oniononion

    Hated LOTR Love Game of Thrones Cinema evokes psychological reactions in the viewer. I think we'll learn something interesting about that from these experiments in frame rate and 3d.

  • No_SuRReNDeRNo_SuRReNDeR

    48FPS vs 24FPS ...as far as 48fps is concerned....48fps...should be the standard frame rate for modern digital cinema THEATRICAL productions---(In my professional opinion)
    Why you ask?
    Blasphemy you say!!!
    But No Surrender we all love choppy 24fps digital footage you say!!!
    Our footage will look like video at 48 you cry out in a fit of furious anger!!!!!!
    Simple-- the more images to hit your eyeballs in a second, the smoother the image will look. The film look comes from proper lighting technique, camera work, color work, editing technique ....BARELY is it from 24fps as you have been led to believe since the Dvx100 came out...I say "barely" because, yes our brains are slightly tuned into this frame rate since its been shoved down our film watching throats all of our lives...however 24fps is an ANTIQUATED standard based on old tech and cost efficency...
    I for one will be avoiding in the future if I can.

    Oh and I too I'm totally looking forward to Prometheus.... It just looks dope.

Add a Comment