or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › What Movies Are You Watching Lately
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What Movies Are You Watching Lately - Page 352

post #5266 of 9466
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

They have to be dark for 3D to work. Each one cuts out half of the light in the theater, your left eye gets half the frames and your right eye gets the other half. The projectors are polarized opposite to each other and the glasses make it so each eye can only see light polarized in one direction.
That's why the glasses don't actually work as sunglasses--they only block one precise kind of light.

Ah, that makes sense, thanks. Now just get rid of it. Theaters now show the same movie in both formats, keeps lower $ films out of theaters which are often the kinds of films I want to see.
post #5267 of 9466
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

I really hope the hobbit comes out in 2D. I'd prefer to wait for vid to see it if it doesnt.

 

It will. 

 

Variety:

Warner Bros. is convinced that high-frame-rate movies are the next big thing -- but they're keeping the first HFR release fairly small.

 

According to source familiar with Warner's release plans for Peter Jackson's first "Hobbit," the HFR version will go out to only select locations, perhaps not even into all major cities.

People who have seen much of the film in 48 frames-per-second 3D tell Variety the picture now looks vastly better than the test footage shown this April at CinemaCon, which had not yet undergone post-production polishing and got a mixed reception from exhibitors.

But the studio still wants to protect the format by going into a limited release for the HFR version, hoping to test the marketplace and expand the HFR release for the second and third installments -- provided auds are enthusiastic. As of now, there are still no theaters ready for HFR projection, though some require only a software upgrade that will be ready in September. Warners is satisfied with the pace of efforts to ready theaters for HFR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

To be fair, that's actually a problem with the framerates used in traditional movies. We are trained to think wide horizontal pans should stutter slightly and that action should look the way it does on film. Using a higher framerate is a good thing--it works better with our eyes and makes things look smoother and closer to they actually are. Unfortunately, we have also been trained to associate that effect with video cameras and soap operas.
Until we get used to it, it is going to look off, but unlike 3D, I think this trend is definitely for the better.
 

 

To be honest, I never had an issue with strobing - or am so used to it that I don't care. I truly hate watching a great old movie on Blue Ray and a 1080p LED which makes the whole thing look like it was shot by the BBC in 1974. There's a lot of dead DPs rolling in their graves.

 

lefty

post #5268 of 9466
I hate 3D. I didn't realize the Hobbit was going to be 3D. Will have to wait for the dvd release.
post #5269 of 9466
Quote:
Originally Posted by lefty View Post

To be honest I never had an issue with strobing - or am so used to it that I don't care. I truly hate watching a great old movie on Blue Ray and a 1080p LED which makes the whole thing look like it was shot by the BBC in 1974. There's a lot of dead DPs rolling in their graves.

lefty

I don't either (or at least very rarely notice it) but you can definitely tell when its not there and it feels wrong.

Totally agree on the bluray player plus fancy TV combo. If you don't go into the settings of both and disable whatever they call that feature (motion correction? trumotion? depends on the brand), it will try to take your 24fps film and correct it to something faster and that looks AWFUL.

I turn that shit off on my friends' TVs when they aren't looking.

edit: in this person's story, I would be his wife
http://news.cnet.com/8301-33620_3-57410231-278/the-soap-opera-effect-when-your-tv-tries-to-be-smarter-than-you/
I usually notice it right away and am like WTF while sometimes other people question I am talking about until they eventually notice it too.
post #5270 of 9466
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoozah View Post

I hate 3D. I didn't realize the Hobbit was going to be 3D. Will have to wait for the dvd release.

Lefty above says it will
post #5271 of 9466
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

I don't either (or at least very rarely notice it) but you can definitely tell when its not there and it feels wrong.
Totally agree on the bluray player plus fancy TV combo. If you don't go into the settings of both and disable whatever they call that feature (motion correction? trumotion? depends on the brand), it will try to take your 24fps film and correct it to something faster and that looks AWFUL.
I turn that shit off on my friends' TVs when they aren't looking.
edit: in this person's story, I would be his wife
http://news.cnet.com/8301-33620_3-57410231-278/the-soap-opera-effect-when-your-tv-tries-to-be-smarter-than-you/
I usually notice it right away and am like WTF while sometimes other people question I am talking about until they eventually notice it too.
Quote:
If you're really interested in why the effect happens, it's because soap operas (and some other television shows) are shot on video, which is cheaper than film. But shooting on video increases the number of frames displayed per second, giving them that particular look.

Many modern televisions seem to automatically create additional frames, even for filmed content. This "motion interpolation" is meant to smooth motion, which might be useful if you're watching a fast-action sporting event. But it also effectively makes content that was shot on expensive film appear to have been recorded on cheap video.

Did this guy write this in 1991? Isn't everything shot digitally now? I didn't think movie studios used film anymore.
post #5272 of 9466

It gets a little muddled, but traditionally film was 24fps and video was 30 fps as that what was broadcast. These days you can shoot video in 24fps and more or less get a filmic look. Lensing and lighting make all the difference.

 

Lots of people still shoot film. Fewer each day though. And fewer film projectors.

 

What's interesting is the Warners has to down-convert the 48 to 24 and add blur - wonder what that will look like?

 

lefty


Edited by lefty - 12/6/12 at 1:20pm
post #5273 of 9466
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

Did this guy write this in 1991? Isn't everything shot digitally now? I didn't think movie studios used film anymore.

You can shoot digitally at whatever FPS you want.

Trying to have a TV interpolate (read "make up") frames in between the actual frames that were captured does not work well. About the only think it might help are sports where the ball or puck can be really hard to follow.
post #5274 of 9466
Quote:
Originally Posted by lefty View Post

It gets a little muddled, but traditionally film was 24fps and video was 30 fps as that what was broadcast. These days you can shoot video in 24fps and more or less get a filmic look. Lensing and lighting make all the difference.

Lots of people still shoot film. Fewer each day though. And fewer film projectors.

What's interesting is the Warners has to down-convert the 48 to 24 and add blur - wonder what that will look like?

lefty

Did Rodriguez finally convince Tarantino to give in to digital?

The down converting and blur sounds bad...sounds like I might have to make sure I see it in 48fps even if it means seeing it in 3D (does anyone know if this was actually filmed in 3D or was it added in post?)
post #5275 of 9466

The other challenge is finding a theatre that can handle the HFR. Not many can and they think it's going to take a year or so the convert.

 

Shot in 3D on the Red Epic. The hand-held rig is pretty cool.

 

 

lefty

post #5276 of 9466
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

Did Rodriguez finally convince Tarantino to give in to digital?
The down converting and blur sounds bad...sounds like I might have to make sure I see it in 48fps even if it means seeing it in 3D (does anyone know if this was actually filmed in 3D or was it added in post?)


Tarantino was on Stern the other day, he was excellent.
post #5277 of 9466
Quote:
Originally Posted by lefty View Post

The other challenge is finding a theatre that can handle the HFR. Not many can and they think it's going to take a year or so the convert.

Shot in 3D on the Red Epic. The hand-held rig is pretty cool.

lefty

That is a pretty cool set of rigs they have there. Although watching the process (and that overlay screen) shows why 3d will never be "fixed". In addition to having someone pull focus, they also have to go through a similar process and "pull" the 3d convergence around. There is no opportunity for your eyes to wander, you've got to accept the depth they give you. They are getting better at doing it without poking you in the eye or going too far and causing eyestrain, but it will never truly be a 3d experience.

Luckily every theater I would even consider going to in this area is listed as having HFR on their site so hopefully at least one of them does it without 3D...and if not...I might be willing to try 3D on this one.

edit: and if I wait until I go home for christmas to see it...the new theater by my parents is compatible!
post #5278 of 9466
^^ Ya, can you imagine what all of them cost?

Couple of the outtakes were borderline hokey. Are we really going to see a keystone cops scene where a door opens and people leaning on it fall thru in this movie? Comic relief is almost never well executed.
post #5279 of 9466
Yea i am apprehensive about seeing the hobbit in the new format...also loath 3d, but want to give this a shot. I am sure boston will have it.
post #5280 of 9466
Went and saw Killing Them Softly this afternoon. It was alright. Better than The King's Speech which I just watched for the first time tonight.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › What Movies Are You Watching Lately