On Saturday, November 17, 2012 11:07:07 PM UTC-5, Don Stockbauer doesn't travel to Linus and Lucy Jazz Waltz No.Vince Guaraldi performance :
> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:09:32 PM UTC-6, Don Stockbauer communicates:
>
> > I'm waiting for the Collosus of the Grand Intercourse, of course.
>
>
>
> Pardon --- cs/Collosus/Colossus/
From John Anderson, Special to Newsday, 12-9-2012, "Much of what Jackson is up to in 'The Hobbit' may as well be Elvish to most viewers, but one of the more critical technical choices he made as to shoot the film in 48 frames per second - twice the 24 frames per second that has been the industry standard for about 90 years. It's the frame rate at which we comfortably reach what is commonly referred to as 'persistence of vision' - the illusion that what we're seeing is actually happening, rather than a series of still pictures.
"Unlike 'The Lord of the Rings,' 'The Hobbit' is in 3-D, an effect that goes hand in hand with the film's heightened frame rate. Many od the problems audiences have with 3_D - such as headaches - can be relieved by filming faster.
"'3-D perception of something is just a slightly different angle between two views of the same thing,' visual-effects wizard Douglas Trumbull said during an interview last year. The man behind the effects in '2001:A Space Odyssey' and 'Blade Runner' said that if something in amovie is moving across the screen, the frame-to-frame motion can be more than the left eye/right eye displacement.
"'So the 3-D effect goes away and your brain is trying to figure out how to put this image together, which is all blurred and strobed,' he said. 'So there's a lot of eye strain, especially in the action sequences directors want to have. Like in 'Transformers': It's fun to go home, look at your favorite Blu-ray action film and freeze-frame it on the highest action. You'll see that it's all blurred.'
"When you move into high frame rates, he said, you get rid of that problem. 'So Peter Jackson is shooting "The Hobbit" at 48; Jim Cameron is planning to shoot "Avatar 2" at 60.'
"'The image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness,' he said. 'Looking at 24 frames every second may seem OK - and we've all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years - but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can shudder or strobe. Shooting and projecting at 48 fps (frames per second) does a lot to get rid of these images. It looks much more lifelike and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D.'
But does being 'easier to watch' compensate for the visual grandeur lacking in a movie that cost an estimated $150 million? The potential problem with 'The Hobbit' isn't the action sequences or the acting or the spectacular story or any other aspect of what will certainly be a huge success at the box office. It's the look of the film. The scenes in which people interact - likewise, characters and their surroundings - is off-puttingly 'live' for those accustomed to traditional film, the way video is too live, or a TV soap opera, or maybe a baseball game. Backgrounds are too obviously the work of computer technicians; the actors seem to be performing against a projected backdrop - not always, but often enough to make everyday moviegoers into connoisseurs, as they try to figure out what's wrong with this picture. And whether they wanted to be part of an experiment in filmmaking theory that hasn't quite achieved what Tolkien would have called an apotheosis." - AN OLD "HOBBIT," A NEW FOCUS, John Anderson, page C8, Sunday NEWSDAY, December 9, 2012