|
|
This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10
|
|
Author
|
Topic: HFR in 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 12-02-2013 02:33 AM
quote: Justin Hamaker
I don't think we should be locked into the mentality that a movie in a theatre should look a certain way.
Perhaps not, but this has been the trend with movies pretty much every step of the way.
Long form replaces short
Sound replaces silent
Color replaces B&W
Widescreen replaces Academy ratio
AR's limited to 1.85 and 2.39
Digital replaces analog (first sound, then picture)
...even 70mm got kicked to the curb once digital sound eliminated the need for those mag tracks...
I'm not psychic, but I could safely guess that pretty much any first-run/mainstream cinema is showing movies that are all:
around 90-120 minutes in length
in color
in sound -- minimum 5.1
AR of 1.85 or 2.39
one main character, usually male, played by a "star"
at this point, higher probability of being a DCP presentation
if 35mm, digital soundtrack available, probably digital sound presentation
...and I don't even know (or care) what you're showing. If it's a mainstream Hollywood movie, then ^that about sums it up.*
So, my argument is that Hollywood seems inclined to get "locked into the mentality that a movie in a theatre should look a certain way" and so, therefore, it is reasonable to suspect that the dust will eventually settle and we will find ourselves in a world where HFR either emerges as the standard format, or else gets kicked to the curb.
Hopefully, the latter.
----
*I could also comment in depth regarding common story structure and elements, but we're talking about what movies "look like," not how they operate. Even so, suffice it to say that there's a sameness to stories of typical mainstream movies, which transcends even genre.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Justin Hamaker
Film God
Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 12-02-2013 05:12 AM
Manny, what I'm talking about has to do with the way the movie looks on the screen and the way it sounds, not with how the image or sound is delivered. When you compare a 2K DCP presentation with a clean 35mm presentation, they are more or less comparable. Setting aside those with a more refined preference, the two presentations are essentially the same for the average moviegoer.
What I'm talking about is the way the captured image looks different for modern movies than it did 40-50+ years ago. I don't know if the change is the result of technology advancements in film stock, development techniques, lighting, camera systems, or some combination of these and other factors. But there is an overall different look to movies made prior to about the mid 1970's.
And the same goes for sound. One of the things that bothers me about watching older movies is they way they often sound like they are in a tin can.
That being said, film makers are still free to make movies that are in black and white, or that have under or over-saturated colors. They can play with different aspect ratios. They can make use of surround sound or just use basic stereo. There is no rule that says a movie has to look a certain way.
The point I'm getting at is HFR has a different look. It's possible that 48fps or 60fps will always look different from 24fps. But it shouldn't mean it's off limits just because it doesn't have the same look as 24fps.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Roddy
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 114
From: Spring, TX, United States
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 12-02-2013 01:34 PM
It seems Jackson showed off an HFR version of the first trailer a few weeks ago, as well as some extended footage from the final cut, although in 2D, not 3D. In both instances, people were commenting that the strange "video" look from the first feature was gone. Maybe they were able to fix it in post after all? The first screening of the movie is later today, so more detailed reports should start popping up soon.
I saw lots of potential with the frame rate in the first Hobobot, even if the overall implementation was a bit flawed. Then again, I never did expect it to be absolutely perfect on the first attempt. If they really were able to improve it further for the second, it's something I want to see.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arnold Chase
Film Handler
Posts: 41
From: West Hartford, CT United States
Registered: Nov 2013
|
posted 12-02-2013 01:39 PM
Please take a step back for a moment...
Is this forum's sentiment an effort to stop HFR from spreading?
HFR, like every other new technology or enhancement has a learning curve that must be undertaken before it matures and delivers its full potential. To kill the 'infant' before it can mature seems to me to be just plain wrong. When stereo and quadraphonic recordings came out, the content was skewed to showcase the technology. For those of you old enough to remember, the first stereo recordings inevitably featured "Ping-Pong" side to side effects that got annoying and repetitious fast. Rather than killing stereo because of this, we learned from our mistakes, and stereo evolved into a more natural sound. Record stores used to have dual inventory, i.e. both mono and stereo versions of every album title. Are mono recordings still available? The same thing with quad. It seemed that every recording always had the sound constantly swirling around you.
When theaters introduced surround sound, the surround channels were silent until some discrete sound effect was called for, and then and only then did the surrounds boom forth. It was completely gimmicky and annoying after the first 20 times it was used in a film, but the content producers responded and today the surround channels are an integral part of the sound field with music, soft background noises, as well as the discrete effects. If we had protested and stopped the surround introduction, would we really have been better off? Instead of trying to kill surround sound, the industry promoted it and proffered the idea that surround sound was an improvement and an enhancement worth seeking out.
What is really needed is for all of us to embrace the new technology and expand the number of HFR venues as much as possible. The content will inevitably improve and result in a net gain for the industry. The 'kids' today have no memory of the past technology or 'look', they only know the high-definition and high frame rate look of their computer and video games. It is the look that they will increasingly expect on the theater screens.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008
|
posted 12-02-2013 01:42 PM
quote: Manny Knowles
I'm not psychic, but I could safely guess that pretty much any first-run/mainstream cinema is showing movies that are all:
around 90-120 minutes in length
in color
in sound -- minimum 5.1
AR of 1.85 or 2.39
one main character, usually male, played by a "star"
at this point, higher probability of being a DCP presentation
Depends on the week. This week, my sixteen screen mainstream cinema had three features over 120mins, and had five movies where the main character was a female, and two of them were definitely not "stars" (although one of them is an Oscar winner). And next week, we'll have a black and white movie, one that is already playing in a hundred theatres.
But the items about color, AR and sound are things that have been commonplace for most theatres for at least 15-20 years, if not a half century or more. Might as well add "playing on a screen that is either white or silver" to the list.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 12-02-2013 03:03 PM
quote: Justin Hamaker
Manny, what I'm talking about has to do with the way the movie looks on the screen and the way it sounds, not with how the image or sound is delivered.
Oh I know! And we're talking about the same thing. Many of us are saying that HFR looks horrible. And I'm saying that we DO need to be worried about getting "locked in" to being stuck with it -- if it gains traction -- because, historically, a new technology tends to replace an older one.
There can be only one. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote: Edward Havens
Depends on the week.
Ed, I know it's a huge waste of time trying to have a sensible conversation with you. But, for the benefit of others reading now or in the future: Ed's numbers would fall apart shamefully if we looked at what his theatre showed in a quarter or a year -- and he knows it.
Stop being silly, Ed!
It is better to remain quiet and have people think you're a fool, than to speak, and remove all doubt.
quote: Arnold Chase
What is really needed is for all of us to embrace the new technology and expand the number of HFR venues as much as possible.
This sounds a lot like the rapist who says "relax, and it'll be easier."
Eff. That.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-02-2013 03:23 PM
quote: Martin Brooks
The problem is that in order to hear the sequel in Dolby Atmos, you're probably forced to see it in 3D because generally only those screens are so equipped.
There are exceptions to that. For instance, the "Cine Capri" big screens at five Harkins Theaters locations are all equipped with Dolby Atmos. They're single projector installations and only show movies in 2D. The upside is you pay a standard ticket price for the show. No upcharge.
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
quote: Justin Hamaker
That being said, film makers are still free to make movies that are in black and white, or that have under or over-saturated colors. They can play with different aspect ratios. They can make use of surround sound or just use basic stereo. There is no rule that says a movie has to look a certain way.
The "film look" is something most (but not all) movies have to maintain, even though more and more of them are being videotaped. Some of the video camera systems being used to electronically record movies can show really wide color gamma, but movie makers these days are too afraid of the video look. So the footage is all processed in various pretentious ways.
I'm kind of sick of all the color drained/tinted movies. Some are yellow like someone held a bag of urine in front of the camera lens. Others are so blue you would swear someone forgot to white balance the camera. Lately some TV commercials and music videos have been processing video to look like really badly shot film (extremely muted colors, light fogging the film, blacks that are gray, etc.). It looks really terrible. I guess we can look forward to features looking like that. The "motion flow" effect from HFR is annoying, but I find some of these color processing effects even more distracting (and, yes, pretentious).
It isn't happening now, but once film-based production is gone I think the 'scope aspect ratio will become endangered.
Common width screens in regular theaters and premium priced big screen theaters are a problem and more of them are being installed. D-cinema doesn't have a true anamorphic 'scope system; all 'scope titles are cropped to that ratio. They're not 1080 or 2160 pixels tall with an anamorphic squeeze applied to the image. The flat and HD aspect ratios have significantly more pixels as a result. Customers want the screen filled. The problem is a bunch of these new theaters, including a lot of high priced big screen theaters have no curtains, no masking, nothing. Some of these theaters literally expose how the screen is stretched into place. It makes it look like you're watching a movie projected on a white trampoline. 'Scope movies are letterboxed on those things. Customers don't know any better or don't care, they just want the image to fill the entire screen.
Over the long term I think we'll see a lot more big event movies shown in 1.85:1 or 1.77:1 rather than 2.39:1. Features like The Avengers and Pacific Rim could be the start of a trend to ultimately kill 'scope.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[fu]](graemlins/fu.gif)
that! This industry is already in a self-destructing path. HFR will only speed it up.
Printer-friendly view of this topic