NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9219533" data-attributes="member: 18">I get it re: judging decisions, but what made it a bit weird re: the Hobbit movies is that there was a lot of active messing around with fancy technology going on with them, like the 48 FPS thing, and then they cheap out on the cameras for that bit? Weird man. Especially as Jackson apparently was pretty micromanage-y about that sort of thing. And that is one of the worst-looking scenes in fantasy history, which is saying something! Even my wife, who is incredibly tolerant and kind to bad FX and the like was like "Why did that look like a Road Runner cartoon?".As an aside, talking of unpopular opinions, I really like 48 FPS stuff, and I wish it and/or higher rates like 60 FPS were used more, so that we could get used to them, and film-makers could learn how to use them better. Particularly how to light and shoot things so they looked good in those, rather than looking strangely video-esque. I think there are a lot of reasons they don't, not least the fact that it would significantly increase the amount of bandwidth needed for when the movies went to streaming - something that's already shockingly compromised with godawful compression algorithms and the like, but I do like it.I will say The Hobbit was a terrible candidate for early 48 FPS though, particularly because of the heavy use of practical prosthetics and props, a lot of which looked like absolute crap in 48 FPS, because you see detail and appreciate texture much better at true 48 FPS (not like, frame-doubling or the like). They just didn't up the production quality to match the frame rate, and you kind of have to.I note Avatar 2 did use 48 FPS for all the action and underwater scenes, and that looked great, especially in combination with the use of true 3D (rather than the ghastly "stuck on" 3D most "3D" movies use), and whilst you could sense something had changed, it doesn't at all have that "video" or "soap opera" look that higher-than-30 framerates often do (especially with frame multiplying). So it can be done, at least if you're as profoundly competent as Cameron and his crew are.</blockquote>

Verification