Where can I see the 48 fps Hobbit trailer?

[Tamahome]

Is it so hard to view on the information superhighway?

[aldenoneil]

They don't want to scare us away.

[Warren]

The HD version of the trailers are available on youtube-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hya7L_...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNIKq8...

Or at the official webpage
http://www.thehobbit.com

For most movies you can just google:
"Movie name" HD trailer.
The limitation being your bandwidth
and your computers limitations.

[Tamahome]

Thanks, but I'm not talking about high def, it's twice the framerate as film usually is, 24 frames per second. It would look like when soap operas used to be video taped and shown on tv, although that was only 30 frames per second.

[Matthew]

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread....

EDIT: this doesn't appear to actually be a 48fps trailer. I cannot even find a torrent of the thing.

[Warren]

This one is labeled as 48 fps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hya7L_...
I'm not sure how to verify that.
Other then when you stop the video its freeze to a very clear picture.
Beyond that, I'll defer to others more knowledgable in such matters.

[aldenoneil]

Warren wrote: "I'm not sure how to verify that."

You'll know it's 48 if you find yourself expecting Bilbo to reveal an affair, be played by a different actor halfway through, or marry his rapist.

[Matthew]

Warren wrote: "This one is labeled as 48 fps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hya7L_...
I'm not sure how to verify that.
Other then when you stop the video its freeze to a very clear picture.
Beyond that, I'll..."

Unfortunately Youtube apparently does not support 48 fps. When you upload a video it converts it to 30 fps.

[Tamahome]

There's an example of 25 fps vs 50 fps video on this Engadget page: http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/28/ed...

[Micah]

yep. The action looks almost to smooth. The dirt cars moving around looked funny. Here's hoping that Jackson's vision works in the theater and doesn't totally ruin the experience for me. If it does I hope I will be able to also see it in the normal 24 fps.

[Warren]

OK here's a plan.
Project the 48fps digital video on a big screen screen.
Then film it with a 24 fps technicolor camera.
Charge people extra for the technicolor version.
---------------------------
(PS-Thanks for the tech info
seriously, its interesting)

[AndrewP]

If it's in the real 4k resolution then I don't have a monitor that can display that :(

[Tamahome]

I don't think it's 4k, but I think you'll be able to pick whether you want both 3D and 48 fps...

[Tamahome]

Somebody converted the regular trailer to 48 fps. Nice work.

http://www.fxphd.com/blog/what-might-...

[Warren]

Thanks for posting that.
This may sound odd but I'm not a big fan of ultra HD video.
But I really like the higher frame rate.

[[deleted user]]

Tamahome wrote: "Somebody converted the regular trailer to 48 fps. Nice work.

http://www.fxphd.com/blog/what-might-..."

That looks awful, kind of like what newer TVs do with motion smoothing. But since it was a 24 fps source that was upconverted I imagine something filmed in 48 fps to begin with will look different and hopefully better.

[Dara]

It looks too real. Not cinematic. I dunno, not sure how I feel about it.

[AndrewP]

That's pretty interesting. Doesn't look so bad but it's hard to imagine how the final product will look from this low res clip. Slight ghosting here might be eliminated in the final res, or vice versa. Hard to tell, but I know I can't wait to see the final product in 48fps and 4k res.

[Tamahome]

It will be in 4k??

[AndrewP]

It was all shot in 4K but that version will only be shown in a limited number of theaters. Most simply do not have the equipment to show it.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/the-ho...

[Warren]

Its personal preference but if half the people dislike it
then this is a dead end technology.
I can understand why you might want higher frame rate
action movies. Ultra high resolution less so.
It's more likely to detract then add to the story.

[Tamahome]

Malcolm wrote: "That looks awful, kind of like what newer TVs do with motion smoothing. But since it was a 24 fps source that was upconverted I imagine something filmed in 48 fps to begin with will look different and hopefully better..."

He actually slowed down the trailer 50% first to get more frames, but there was still distortion he had to clean up. It was a time consuming process to render.

[Warren]

Reading Jacksons explanation- it seems that the real reason they want the higher frame rate is for 3D.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/04/12...

They still think that the 3D along with smell-o-vision
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-O-...) will catch on.
I'm kidding about the smell-o-vision but not about 3D.
I think it'll go the way of betamax

[Rob, Roberator]

I hope 3D dies a horrible death until I can get the equivalent of a holodeck

[Warren]

Rob wrote: "I hope 3D dies a horrible death until I can get the equivalent of a holodeck"
I'd settle for jacking into the Metaverse
from my U-Store-It.

[David Sven]

Rob wrote: "I hope 3D dies a horrible death until I can get the equivalent of a holodeck"

Yeah. At least for films that haven't been filmed with proper 3d cameras and directed properly for 3D. I liked Avatar - but nothing else has quite matched up. Though I did like Dredd in 3d. But mostly I'm over it.

[Tamahome]

I heard Life of Pi used the Avatar 3D crew.

[Rob, Roberator]

David Sven wrote: "I liked Avatar - but nothing else has quite matched up. "

I saw that in 2D.

Disney is using 3D as an excuse to re-release a bunch of old movies in theaters for twice the ticket price. And their not the only ones.

[David Sven]

Yeah 3D done after the fact is just ridiculous. It's not just the filming. You have to direct for 3d as well. A good example of bad(non existent) 3d directing was the latest Alice movie. If you are in the middle of a chase scene, you don't want fluffy floating stuff in the foreground diverting your attention from the action.

[David Sven]

Tamahome wrote: "I heard Life of Pi used the Avatar 3D crew."

I saw the trailer for that. Looks interesting.

[Celine]

Rob wrote: "David Sven wrote: "I liked Avatar - but nothing else has quite matched up. "

I saw that in 2D.

Disney is using 3D as an excuse to re-release a bunch of old movies in theaters for twice the ticket..."

You realize that all the re-releases are also in theatres in 2D, right? For those of us who were born a bit later, it's fantastic. I never had the chance to see The Lion King in theatres at all, and it's one of my favourite movies ever. I saw it in 2D at first and later took the chance to see it in 3D, and the 3D was actually really well done.

Hugo also had really beautiful 3D. That entire movie, visually anyways, was beautiful (everything else was fantastic too but since we're talking effects).

[AndrewP]

Rob wrote: "
Disney is using 3D as an excuse to re-release a bunch of old movies in theaters for twice the ticket..."

I imagine that they are not just re-releases. They probably took the original source and re-rendered it with about a 4" offset to generate the second stereoscopic image. Anyone know if this is how they did it?