Bad review.
That "video look" he's mentioning is the absence of 24fps artifacts I'm very glad we get rid of.
He could as well just have written "meh, reality has a video look".
That "video look" he's mentioning is the absence of 24fps artifacts I'm very glad we get rid of.
He could as well just have written "meh, reality has a video look".
Moreover, anyone who knows anything about film would have seen these problems a mile away upon hearing that The Hobbit is shooting at 48fps. I honestly can't believe these directors were (initially) behind this, but then again they were apparently backers of 3D as well which also has a reputation for cheapening the look, although that is more debatable. I think moviegoers will outright hate 48fps though, rather than just gradually shy away from it as in the case of 3D tech.
Getting closer to reality is a common thread in the arts. As soon as man had a way to move from one-color cave paintings to using colors, he started to use them.
This is the artistic expression that Peter Jackson is going for.
In one of the video blogs he said: "The result looks like where the screen was, there is now a hole in the wall, and beyond that is reality".
Imagine, instead of looking a film of Bilbo, you're transported right there into Middle-earth and it looks absolutely real. Wouldn't that be great? I'm very much looking forward to that experience.
I have not seen footage from The Hobbit but I have worked with other dramatic content at high frame rates and I know exactly what the author is describing. It's really gonna bug people if they really do release at 48fps.
I think the biggest problem is acting. 24fps lays a veneer of "movie look" over all performances. With higher framerates, actors can no longer count on that.
They have to sell it much more, like in a theatre, but with large screen closeups projected on a 20 meter screen.
In a way, it's a new challenge actors never had before. It will be interesting to see whether there are indeed performance differences among the Hobbit actors.