Peter Jackson Uses 48 RED Epic Cameras for 3D Rigs on The Hobbit

"it's light, it's small..."

bullshit! that thing is huge for a shoulder rig! sure it's small for a 3d rig, but it is NOT light
 
"sitting on the right hand side of the picture its easier to get your head around the left side"...."wut"
 
you could say this movie is gonna be EPIC....sorry for the dub post but i had to
 
images
 
I don't think he is the only one with this mindset. I think james cameron wants to do an avatar sequel in 48 or 60p. They claim it gives smoother motion. Should be interesting to see how it actually looks
 
question,

when i watch a ski edit, and it looks a bit to sharp or a bit too... i dont know how to describe it, but it just looks odd. is that because i'm not used to seeing somthing with a smoother framerate?
 
High frame rates look "smoother" and almost more realistic. 60p (or 48p for that matter) motion makes me want to stab myself in the eyes with rusty forks. Even 30p/60i can be a little bit iffy for me, 24fps has the best look in my opinion. Some people like the 48/60p look, some dont. i would be disappoint if big film makers start using reds and shooting 48p.
 
Yes! I always thought that summer school edit looked odd, if that's what 48/60p motion looks like then that really is a poor move. There's something dramatic and cinematic about 24p, film shouldn't have to look that realistic...especially a film like the Hobbit.
 
I stopped dead in my tracks when I heard him say they're shooting 48... really not stoked about that. Soap operas all over the place... 30p is the way to go if you ask me
 
Who would know best....Peter Jackson and James Cameron, or people shooting ski edits?

I think the specific application if done right probably has something to do with the fact they're shooting in 3D. Or atleast I think I remember reading that somewhere.
 
Same...Honestly with the exception of a few...I bet most of us wouldn't even have noticed it when we saw the film if they didn't say anything.
 
Nothing, shooting at 48fps is what i dont like, because they're not gonna be conforming to 24p...
 
I'd argue that a hundred years of cinema has ingrained something into all of us that I'd rather not have fucked around but I guess in the interest of changing things for the heck of it...

They do have enough money to do whatever they want with film, but that doesn't mean for a second what James Cameron or Peter Jackson do when they make these silly changes is smart or beneficial to film.

What I'm interested in is why he made this decision, and the bigger question... will they market it? (as they did with 3D)

I doubt they'll bother trying to use it in marketing as a "new, smoother frame technology" or some other BS, but that leaves us guessing why Jackson made this decision...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top