DX11 Unreal Engine Demo Reel Showcasing Next-Gen Visuals

[Bolteh]

@Kairouseki

Why doesn’t Abrams use a higher framerate if he wants that realism?

And it doesn’t change the fact that it obscures the screen in a medium where obscuring the screen makes it difficult to really play. Not to mention it’s annoying.

You’re mixing up “sense of realism” with “lifelike”.

48fps adds so much detail and crisp to the picture that it looks and feels as if you’re really there looking at the real people in the real environment. It makes movies look lifelike.

But you know what ticks me off about the 48fps in, for example, The Hobbit (other than making props look like props rather than real items)? Jackson (horrible director, by the way) still added (or didn’t remove) lens flares to some of the lighting. It’s one thing to use 48fps to make it as if you’re right in the middle of the action, but then don’t go and mimic effects unique to lenses.

Abrams wants to achieve a sense of realism by making it look like you’re watching a documentary or watching the events captured by a camera. 48fps would completely nullify that effect. Accentuating lens anomalies enhances it (or in the case of Abrams: often exaggerate).

I for one hope 48fps won’t become the new standard for movies. It should be an artistic choice to use it (much like lens- and/or film choice). And if a director chooses 48fps, he should stick with that choice and not have lens flares left and right whilst doing it on 48fps.

Final rant about Jackson: if it wasn’t for the popularity of Tolkien’s work, his movies (and career) would be a giant flop. He’s one of the worst blockbuster directors I’ve ever seen. His eye for composition is terrible, his use of cheesy shots (like Kung-Fu-movie-styled close-ups and frog-perspective shots) often kill the mood of any scene and it seems like he requires his actors to act badly.

[sixcentgeorge]

video is not that great : definitely too dark
but engine will be great and for sure better than the current that is above source or idt5
i posted in udk forum that they should do some teaser with more light : something like “one day with Paris Hilton” . the unreal 4 seems to be very good in “human rendering” that is why i think that something showing some sexy girls could be “the best choice” instead of these boring dark places only made for lara croft or some others terminators .

is she not very sexy under the light ? ;’]

[Diabolical]

@sixcentgeorge

video is not that great : definitely too dark
but engine will be great and for sure better than the current that is above source or idt5
i posted in udk forum that they should do some teaser with more light : something like “one day with Paris Hilton” . the unreal 4 seems to be very good in “human rendering” that is why i think that something showing some sexy girls could be “the best choice” instead of these boring dark places only made for lara croft or some others terminators .

is she not very sexy under the light ? ;’]

dude your are so far up your ass, you can’t even breathe any more.

[xalener]

@Bolteh

Final rant about Jackson: if it wasn’t for the popularity of Tolkien’s work, his movies (and career) would be a giant flop. He’s one of the worst blockbuster directors I’ve ever seen. His eye for composition is terrible, his use of cheesy shots (like Kung-Fu-movie-styled close-ups and frog-perspective shots) often kill the mood of any scene and it seems like he requires his actors to act badly.

That’s exactly why I love him. The Frighteners is one of my favorite movies ever.

[Kairouseki]

@Bolteh

You’re mixing up “sense of realism” with “lifelike”.

48fps adds so much detail and crisp to the picture that it looks and feels as if you’re really there looking at the real people in the real environment. It makes movies look lifelike.

But you know what ticks me off about the 48fps in, for example, The Hobbit (other than making props look like props rather than real items)? Jackson (horrible director, by the way) still added (or didn’t remove) lens flares to some of the lighting. It’s one thing to use 48fps to make it as if you’re right in the middle of the action, but then don’t go and mimic effects unique to lenses.

Abrams wants to achieve a sense of realism by making it look like you’re watching a documentary or watching the events captured by a camera. 48fps would completely nullify that effect. Accentuating lens anomalies enhances it (or in the case of Abrams: often exaggerate).

I for one hope 48fps won’t become the new standard for movies. It should be an artistic choice to use it (much like lens- and/or film choice). And if a director chooses 48fps, he should stick with that choice and not have lens flares left and right whilst doing it on 48fps.

Final rant about Jackson: if it wasn’t for the popularity of Tolkien’s work, his movies (and career) would be a giant flop. He’s one of the worst blockbuster directors I’ve ever seen. His eye for composition is terrible, his use of cheesy shots (like Kung-Fu-movie-styled close-ups and frog-perspective shots) often kill the mood of any scene and it seems like he requires his actors to act badly.

But lots of cheap (handheld cameras) film at 60 fps. And that’s why soap operas are higher framerate usually, because they have cheaper budgets. I kind of agree that it should be a choice to use (like sound and color were choices and still are in the film industry) but I do hope that it becomes much more common like the two I listed above. 24 fps was only adopted at the beginning because cost of film was still a thing, and while I suppose that space is still a thing (and there might be more math but a 48 fps (or higher) movie would take up twice as much space at least as a 24 fps movie) it’s still not as much as film cost. I never did watch the Hobbit so I’ll have to do that, just to see how a natively filmed 48 fps movie looks.

I like Peter Jackson because he gave some money to Blomkamp to make District 9 .