Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: magikusar on December 14, 2012, 01:01:26 AM
-
holy shit aw3s0m3
-
Yes, i feel that Hobbit has potential
-
I wil reveal no details.
Suffice to say I got the moneys worth for once.
-
I wil reveal no details.
Suffice to say I got the moneys worth for once.
Were there any midgets, dwarves or trolls in the movie?
-
Insane, incredible, so far the best of the saga,
And the 3d wasnt even that outstanding but the image purity and the story...insane
-
Were there any midgets, dwarves or trolls in the movie?
Branch Warren, leading roll
-
Insane, incredible, so far the best of the saga,
And the 3d wasnt even that outstanding but the image purity and the story...insane
It was shot at 48 FPS versus the usual 24
-
My thing is that they are making 3 movies out of a very very short book.
Also, the dwarfs look too human, they should more resemble Gimli
(http://www.filmjunk.com/images/weblog/2009/11/gimli-lord-of-the-rings.png)
-
crap. pure crap .. unwatchable
-
I read that the 48 FPS made the film 'too' lifelike - like the sets were obviously sets kind of thing/ Did you find this to be the case or was it not that noticeable?
-
I read that the 48 FPS made the film 'too' lifelike - like the sets were obviously sets kind of thing/ Did you find this to be the case or was it not that noticeable?
The digitalization can be catched and can be awkward, the fake sets I didnt notice.
-
My biggest fear going to this movie is that as a tall guy i am going to feel out of place with all the midgets in the cinema.
-
thats odd... all the critics are panning it over here.. havnt seen it me self
-
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRnvR9r2TnFFg9A6sibeboSxQK7pZc3GrF3S-ryzt4fT1DiurncMD7rCuXkUQ)
-
The digitalization can be catched and can be awkward, the fake sets I didnt notice.
Did you watch it in a 48fps theater or a 24fps? It's being shown in both and I'd recommend seeing it in 24fps, but that's just me.
-
http://www.hypable.com/2012/12/11/hobbit-24-fps-vs-48-fps/ (http://www.hypable.com/2012/12/11/hobbit-24-fps-vs-48-fps/)
‘Should I see ‘The Hobbit’ in 24 fps or 48 fps?’
(http://static.hypable.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/hobbit-24-fps-vs-48-fps.jpg?f0f9df)
That’s the question you may be asking yourself this weekend: Should I see Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 24 fps or 48 fps?
Wait, what the heck do those numbers even mean?
Frames per second, or “fps,” refers to the number of pictures seen in one second of film. In other words, when you watch a second of film or television, you are watching a specific number of frames. The current standard number of frames per second in the film industry is 24. On television in the United States, the standard is 30.
The Hobbit 24 fps VS 48 fps
Peter Jackson decided at the start of filming The Hobbit that the film industry should begin advancing to 48 frames per second to get a crystal-clear picture with moving images that look like they are happening live in front of you.
The reason this wasn’t attempted in the past 90 years is because film stock was quite expensive, and more frames per second meant more money that the studios would have to shell out.
The film industry found that 24 fps (with a little motion blur sprinkled in) was the sweet spot for moviegoers. The fact is, the human eye can theoretically see 100+ fps, but at a certain point it may simply be unnoticeable. Now that film is shot digitally, the cost of an increase in frame rates is negligible.
Any common filmgoer that heads into a 48 fps screening of The Hobbit will absolutely notice the difference in picture quality. Jackson has taken a lot of criticism over his 48 fps decision over the past few months because some scenes look too real.
How can a scene look too real? The answer is simple: We’ve become so accustomed to seeing a movie in 24 frames per second that this suddenly extra clear, extra animated, and extra vivid picture literally looks weird. At first.
Myself and one other Hypable writer attended 48 fps screenings of An Unexpected Journey in recent days. Our main issue with this format came in the first 15 – 30 minutes of the movie. There were moments where gestures and movements would actually look too sped up. In other words, the characters looked like they were moving inhumanly. We almost wanted to leave the theater to ask if there was something wrong with the projector.
While the visuals of Middle Earth are consistently spectacular in the format, CGI-heavy shots suffer as even the most immaculately detailed scenes have their issues. There’s no room for error in the format.
There is good news, however. You begin to grow used to the increase in frame rate and through the final 90 minutes or so, nearly all scenes look “normal.”
So, should you see The Hobbit in 24 fps or 48 fps? Despite its issues, we side with seeing 48 fps because it is what Jackson intended for the audience. It was his original vision. In addition, you get the unique opportunity to look into the future of filmmaking while traveling back to Middle Earth. It’s a very special combination.
With that said, the next time we see The Hobbit we do want to catch it in 24 fps to make sure that Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, actually move like normal human beings and aren’t some sort of super movers.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey opens Friday, December 14. Read our Hobbit review.
-
Is it an American movie with a lot of CGI? (computer animated imagery) I think I've yet to see 1 good American CGI Blockbuster. They are all terrible.
-
Saw it today in iMAX 3D and was totally bored until the eagles showed up to win the day.
And five minutes .... later it ended.
-
I hope Jackson has set a standard now.
In 2014 every blockbuster-movie will be made in 48 fps.
-
I never liked LOTR, even though I usually like fantasy movies... tried really really really really hard to watch it... doesn't attract me.. so I have little care for the hobbit. Matter of fact, used to play RPGs/MMORPGs which were fantasy too... yet somehow LOTR is unappealing. I rather see Conan :)
-
I never liked LOTR, even though I usually like fantasy movies... tried really really really really hard to watch it... doesn't attract me.. so I have little care for the hobbit. Matter of fact, used to play RPGs/MMORPGs which were fantasy too... yet somehow LOTR is unappealing. I rather see Conan :)
not surprised "achmed" that you didnt like or understand LOTR as its original creator jrr tolkien actually depicted white people -hobbits and humans = lower and middle/higher classes of white society- and japanese -elves- beating the shit out of muslims, arabs and black people -orcs etc- corrupted by white elites -saruman- in order to save the earth (middle earth).
-
not surprised "achmed" that you didnt like or understand LOTR as it's original creator jrr tolkien actually depicted white people -hobbits and humans = lower and middle/higher classes of white society- and japanese -elves- beating the shit out of muslims, arabs and black people -orcs etc- corrupted by white elites -saruman- in order to save the earth (middle earth).
The problem with "a_ahmed" is that he is born a human (white) but wanting to be an Orc (arab / moslem).
He even married an Orc to try and make it more feasable.
-
Saw it today in iMAX 3D and was totally bored until the eagles showed up to win the day.
And five minutes .... later it ended.
If that's the case then the next 2 movies will end up being a bunch of stuff that Tolkien never wrote because you just described one of the last chapters of The Hobbit.
-
http://www.hypable.com/2012/12/11/hobbit-24-fps-vs-48-fps/ (http://www.hypable.com/2012/12/11/hobbit-24-fps-vs-48-fps/)
‘Should I see ‘The Hobbit’ in 24 fps or 48 fps?’
(http://static.hypable.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/hobbit-24-fps-vs-48-fps.jpg?f0f9df)
That’s the question you may be asking yourself this weekend: Should I see Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 24 fps or 48 fps?
Wait, what the heck do those numbers even mean?
Frames per second, or “fps,” refers to the number of pictures seen in one second of film. In other words, when you watch a second of film or television, you are watching a specific number of frames. The current standard number of frames per second in the film industry is 24. On television in the United States, the standard is 30.
The Hobbit 24 fps VS 48 fps
Peter Jackson decided at the start of filming The Hobbit that the film industry should begin advancing to 48 frames per second to get a crystal-clear picture with moving images that look like they are happening live in front of you.
The reason this wasn’t attempted in the past 90 years is because film stock was quite expensive, and more frames per second meant more money that the studios would have to shell out.
The film industry found that 24 fps (with a little motion blur sprinkled in) was the sweet spot for moviegoers. The fact is, the human eye can theoretically see 100+ fps, but at a certain point it may simply be unnoticeable. Now that film is shot digitally, the cost of an increase in frame rates is negligible.
Any common filmgoer that heads into a 48 fps screening of The Hobbit will absolutely notice the difference in picture quality. Jackson has taken a lot of criticism over his 48 fps decision over the past few months because some scenes look too real.
How can a scene look too real? The answer is simple: We’ve become so accustomed to seeing a movie in 24 frames per second that this suddenly extra clear, extra animated, and extra vivid picture literally looks weird. At first.
Myself and one other Hypable writer attended 48 fps screenings of An Unexpected Journey in recent days. Our main issue with this format came in the first 15 – 30 minutes of the movie. There were moments where gestures and movements would actually look too sped up. In other words, the characters looked like they were moving inhumanly. We almost wanted to leave the theater to ask if there was something wrong with the projector.
While the visuals of Middle Earth are consistently spectacular in the format, CGI-heavy shots suffer as even the most immaculately detailed scenes have their issues. There’s no room for error in the format.
There is good news, however. You begin to grow used to the increase in frame rate and through the final 90 minutes or so, nearly all scenes look “normal.”
So, should you see The Hobbit in 24 fps or 48 fps? Despite its issues, we side with seeing 48 fps because it is what Jackson intended for the audience. It was his original vision. In addition, you get the unique opportunity to look into the future of filmmaking while traveling back to Middle Earth. It’s a very special combination.
With that said, the next time we see The Hobbit we do want to catch it in 24 fps to make sure that Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, actually move like normal human beings and aren’t some sort of super movers.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey opens Friday, December 14. Read our Hobbit review.
My wife and I call this the "Three's Company" effect. Most HD tvs have a setting to stop blurred motion and it makes the scenes much crisper and cleaner. In essence, like an increase in frames per second. It's akin to watching a sitcom on tv in hd. That said, watching LOTR looks like an episode of Three's Company.
-
The problem with "a_ahmed" is that he is born a human (white) but wanting to be an Orc (arab / moslem).
He even married an Orc to try and make it more feasable.
are you saying he s a converted european?
-
are you saying he s a converted european?
He's a white canadian who converted to islam thanks to his african wife.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/262673_404332882974536_1626151456_n.jpg)