The Hobbit will be shown in 2D, 3D and high-rate-frame 3D

[KevinNYC]

As you may know Peter Jackson shot The Hobbit at a frame rate of 48 frames per second. Traditionally film was shot at 24 FPS and video is under 30 FPS. I'm curious as to how this looks. A lot of folks didn't like the look where they first showed some preview material, but I don't know if it that was using the same setup they are going to be using in theaters. They are not going to show a 2D version at 48 FPS. So you have to see it in 3D if you want to see how the high frame rate version looks. I'm also wondering if they are going to charge three different prices as the 48 FPS version is going to require that the theaters get new projectors. The new projection system uses two projectors and creates 3-D that is much brighter than current 3D. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hobbit-will-premiere-high-frame-393533). They say it's 90% as bright as 2D, regular 3D can be as low as 1/3 as bright.



[QUOTE]PETER JACKSON: I think HFR is terrific. (http://www.48fpsmovies.com/2012/11/21/peter-jackson-qa-about-hfr-3d/) As a filmmaker, I try to make my movies immersive. I want to draw the audience out of their seats, and pull them into the adventure. That is the experience I hope to offer moviegoers no matter which format they choose at the theater. While I personally prefer watching The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in HFR 3D, I can assure you that every format will provide you with an incredible and immersive experience.

HFR 3D is

[KevinNYC]

This could be PR spin, but Warner Brothers is saying the film (http://www.deadline.com/2012/11/warner-brothers-the-hobbit-high-frame-rate/) will look much, much better than the earlier previews. Also it tickets will be the same price as 3D.


He adds that the images that struck some viewers at the time as being too cold, similar to videotape, look a lot different now. Jackson “hadn’t had time to do color correction” or add graininess and filtering, Fellman says. “The reels I’ve seen knocked my socks off.” AMC Theaters says it will have 98 venues offering The Hobbit in HFR-3D and Regal Entertainment has 91. Tickets for the HFR screenings likely will cost no more than the theaters already charge for conventional 3D films.

[KevinNYC]

Some folks are loving 48 fps and some are hating it.

Loving it
http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/peter-jacksons-the-hobbit-debuts-in-48fps/

The experience I had watching The Hobbit the first time was on of utter fascination: was I seeing a glimpse at the future of cinema? A glorious, grand, epic, fun adventure about a small little Hobbit and thirteen of his Dwarf friends running across the hills and valleys of Middle Earth to reclaim some mountain taken over by a dragon. Was the HFR distraction just a temporary interference or greater hindrance? The one thing I can say:...I've never experienced visuals like this.

Mixed Feelings
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-48-fps_b_2233959.html

my feelings about the format are very mixed. With all that in mind, I'm just going to go ahead and answer every question I had about the format before seeing it for myself.

Q: How does the 48-FPS format differ from most other films?

A: It has twice as many frames per second. This gives it an incredibly clear picture. Which is part of the problem.

Q: Why would a clearer image be a problem?

A: Because, as it turns out, it's possible for an image to look so clear that it no longer looks real. Or so real that it takes you out of the film. As in: that film set looks like ... a film set. Put it this way: the picture is so clear that in one scene I could see Ian McKellen's contact lenses. I won't claim to be a Tolkien expert, but I am pretty sure Acuvue does not exist in Middle Earth.

Q: Did you enjoy watching The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 48 FPS?

A: Yes and no, for completely different reasons. I'll admit, it was fascinating to watch a movie in 48 FPS because, honestly, I've never seen anything like it. Ever. So, from a technology standpoint, I enjoyed it quite a bit. But! To the extent that I simply wanted to watch a movie and be immersed in another world, it was distracting.

Q: How was it distracting?
.......Click link for much more

Hating it

Some viewers told the Sunday Times that the filming technique made them nauseous and dizzy, with some even complaining of migraines.

[Loneshot]

I don'teven know how to imagine this

[Money 23]

Totally not interested in another film about little midget fakkits walking around, with talking trees and magicians.

Not to mention Peter Jackson, and his overly self indulgent 3 hour caliber films, with material that doesn't deserve it.

[macmac]

Totally not interested in another film about little midget fakkits walking around, with talking trees and magicians.

Not to mention Peter Jackson, and his overly self indulgent 3 hour caliber films, with material that doesn't deserve it.

I'm glad you made it clear you're an imbecile so I can dismiss any other drivel you will undoubtedly conjure in the near future

[kentatm]

i personally hate 48 FPS

the claims that it makes shit look fake are true.

you can blatantly tell its a movie set.

you can friggin see the damn make up caked on actors faces its so bad.

its basically the same as how some of the newer TVs are so good you have to go into their settings and downgrade the ****ers b/c they make it easy to see how the lighting and sets are obviously fake.

48 FPS essentially makes a movie look like an expensive stage play.


i get that it will eventually be the standard but until people relearn how to do lighting, sets, makeup, etc, its going to look like ass.

[LJJ]

Well that sucks, why only offer the higher framerate in 3d?

[rufuspaul]

I'm glad you made it clear you're an imbecile so I can dismiss any other drivel you will undoubtedly conjure in the near future


:roll:

[KevinNYC]

i personally hate 48 FPS

What have you seen projected at 48fps?

[shlver]

What have you seen projected at 48fps?
Being projected at 48 fps and being shot at 48 fps are two different things. I think films are shot at 24 fps, and each frame repeated twice, projecting it at 48 fps. The difference is we have each slide capturing a different image at 48 fps. Less motion blur means less imperfections making people see it as "too real that it's fake."

[LJJ]

Being projected at 48 fps and being shot at 48 fps are two different things. I think films are shot at 24 fps, and each frame repeated twice, making it 48 fps. The difference is we have each slide capturing a different image running at 48 fps. Less motion blur means less imperfections making people see it as "too fake."

Lmao what. That doesn't happen, all that would do is make the whole thing look janky.

When people talk about 48fps they obviously mean the entire thing, so shot in 48fps and projected in 48fps. Not one or the other.

[shlver]

Lmao what. That doesn't happen, all that would do is make the whole thing look janky.

When people talk about 48fps they obviously mean the entire thing, so shot in 48fps and projected in 48fps. Not one or the other.
Yes it does. Couldn't find a reliable source but this an excerpt from a professional cinema equipment seller

With 24 fps, movie projectors typically show each frame 2-3 times for an overall refresh rate of 48-72 Hz.
http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/high-frame-rate-video
It was poorly worded anyways. I fixed it.

[HylianNightmare]

Not to mention Peter Jackson, and his overly self indulgent 3 hour caliber films, with material that doesn't deserve it.



:wtf:
i don't even know where to begin

[hookul]

:wtf:
i don't even know where to begin

Yes, that put's his comments about breaking bad into a new light.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

My parents bought a 62 inch LED HD tv recently and I was watching it one day and I kept noticing no matter what I put on, I could see the lighting and the set in every movie/tv show. I thought i was just really high, but this explains it.

[TheeBeast]

The 40fps kinda makes it look like I'm watching a video game and damn that movie looks good

[TheeBeast]

i personally hate 48 FPS

the claims that it makes shit look fake are true.

you can blatantly tell its a movie set.

you can friggin see the damn make up caked on actors faces its so bad.

its basically the same as how some of the newer TVs are so good you have to go into their settings and downgrade the ****ers b/c they make it easy to see how the lighting and sets are obviously fake.

48 FPS essentially makes a movie look like an expensive stage play.


i get that it will eventually be the standard but until people relearn how to do lighting, sets, makeup, etc, its going to look like ass.

This movie is perfect for 48 fps, and don't get me wrong most movies would be shit like this. But we're talking about a slow paced fantasy movie with alot of scenery and cgi.

[NoGunzJustSkillz]

I'm glad you made it clear you're an imbecile so I can dismiss any other drivel you will undoubtedly conjure in the near future
:oldlol:

[shaq2000]

Q: Why would a clearer image be a problem?

A: Because, as it turns out, it's possible for an image to look so clear that it no longer looks real. Or so real that it takes you out of the film. As in: that film set looks like ... a film set. Put it this way: the picture is so clear that in one scene I could see Ian McKellen's contact lenses. I won't claim to be a Tolkien expert, but I am pretty sure Acuvue does not exist in Middle Earth.

That's a good point, imo.

[FillJackson]

but I am pretty sure Acuvue does not exist in Middle Earth.

In the blu-ray of the Godfather, in the wedding scene you can see the old singer's dentures slip. You can't see that on the DVD.

[KevinNYC]

Being projected at 48 fps and being shot at 48 fps are two different things. I think films are shot at 24 fps, and each frame repeated twice, projecting it at 48 fps. The difference is we have each slide capturing a different image at 48 fps. Less motion blur means less imperfections making people see it as "too real that it's fake."

Yes, that's why I asked the question as this is be projected at 48 FPS and its indeed a first.

When they shoot films at 24 frames per second as they currently do, they still project at 24 frames per second, but they there is a shutter in the project that spins in front of the Projector light blocking the light for a portion of each frame's duration on screen. (It also blocks the light when each film frame is moved, otherwise, we would just see blurry images.) So for each frame of the film, there is a time when the frame is not being projected. Literally the screen is dark for tiny bit of time, but our eyes don't see it due do a optical phenomenon known as persistence of vision. The shutter reduces preceived screen "flicker" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_projector#Shutter)

However, this is never referred to projecting at 48 frames per second.

The Red camera website that you quote is a video camera and that page is not written well, refresh rate is is a video term referring to a video or TV monitor literally redrawing the image, for traditional movie projectors they would call this a flicker rate.

Yes it does. Couldn't find a reliable source but this an excerpt from a professional cinema equipment seller

With 24 fps, movie projectors typically show each frame 2-3 times for an overall refresh rate of 48-72 Hz.

[KevinNYC]

Here's a good source for how film projectors work
http://www.movingimage.us/sprockets/filmproj.swf

[KevinNYC]

Saw The Hobbit in 48fps 3D tonight.

Parts of it look amazing and parts look cheap. I was with a friend who already saw it in 2D and 24 fps and even geekier than I am. (He was upset we weren't watching it in 48 fps 3D IMAX.) He said the difference in look of the movie jumped out at him and it felt more video-like.

As it was I think it was the most I ever paid for a movie ticket.

The vistas and landscape shots look great, however, some close up and interiors including a lot scenes shot in caves look a little fake. However other close up shots looked fine. I couldn't put my finger on exactly what was causing it. I wonder if 48 fps is something that cinematographers are going to have learn what works best. I wouldn't go so far as saying it ruined the experience for me, and I liked the movie just fine, but it's a fantasy movie, so you know the whole thing is fake anyway. For a serious drama it probably wouldn't be the right choice.

I think I got used it pretty quick. I think I liked the Gollum scene best.

[KevinNYC]

My parents bought a 62 inch LED HD tv recently and I was watching it one day and I kept noticing no matter what I put on, I could see the lighting and the set in every movie/tv show. I thought i was just really high, but this explains it.


They probably have the sharpness turned up too high.

Here's a quick guide to calibrate a TV
http://www.avforums.com/home/pictureperfect.html

[Patrick Chewing]

Just saw it and enjoyed it, and did notice some parts where you can tell they're on a movie set. No complaints though.

[Stuckey]

I watched Casino Royale on a high rate frame and I felt nauseas

[KevinNYC]

Just saw it and enjoyed it, and did notice some parts where you can tell they're on a movie set. No complaints though.
Did you see the high frame rate version?

[dunksby]

I'm not an expert in cinematography but our eyes can't see past 20fps, so how exactly does this 48fps enhance my experience? Seems like lots of more frames I'm gonna miss.

[iamgine]

Seen it in 3D HFR today. I thought it looked abit cartoon-ish and felt fast forwarded on some scenes. Overall not bad, would watch again but it's nothing groundbreaking in terms of movie going experience.

[iamgine]

I'm not an expert in cinematography but our eyes can't see past 20fps, so how exactly does this 48fps enhance my experience? Seems like lots of more frames I'm gonna miss.
Definitely made a difference. I think that theory is false. People say the same thing about first person shooter games, that it's no use to increase fps from 60 to 100 but it definitely does make a difference.

[dunksby]

Definitely made a difference. I think that theory is false. People say the same thing about first person shooter games, that it's no use to increase fps from 60 to 100 but it definitely does make a difference.
For FPS games it enhances your actual shooting accuracy and since it's a video game it simulates that environment live for you based on your behavior/settings etc. A movie is a recorded piece that is played out for you. What I'm asking here if there is something I dunno that 48fps specially provides?
PS: we can see up to 60fps in high panic mode.

[iamgine]

For FPS games it enhances your actual shooting accuracy and since it's a video game it simulates that environment live for you based on your behavior/settings etc. A movie is a recorded piece that is played out for you. What I'm asking here if there is something I dunno that 48fps specially provides?
PS: we can see up to 60fps in high panic mode.
i dunno when i played it definitely made a difference. And not only shooting accuracy either, the movement too.

In terms of 3D HFR movie, I would say it provides a different experience. Better or worse is subjective.

[KevinNYC]

48FPS affects the smoothness of the motion.

Lets' say a character walks across the frame. In 24 FPS, each frame would a certain distance apart. In 48 FPS that distance would be smaller, that is each frame is closer to what the previous frame showed than normal film speed. there's less blur for the eye I think.

It ends up looking different. It seemed a little crisper than most movies at times and I think that is what make it look kind of fake....it looks like a movie set. This is in the close ups. In looks great in wide angles and the 3d was really bright and good looking, but you notice the motion

[dunksby]

I figured it would be smoother cause of the 48fps but does it look like a movie (cinematic look) or is it on the real life side(home video look)?

[Derka]

Saw it Friday night for the second time in the HFR format after skipping it the first time around.

Definitely hoping that they use this format more in fast-paced action/adventure/fantasy/sci-fi type flicks. Just a for instance, the scene where the Dwarves sing and throw Bilbo's plates and bowls around the room...the 48 frames made a huuuuuge difference. Won't say more but must be seen to really be understood how this impacts the appreciation of the scene.

[embersyc]

I saw the movie both in 2D 24 frames per second and 3D HFR.

I preferred the movie in 3D HFR and I think in the future I suspect the majority of movies will be shot at even higher framerates.

The scenes that were bad in 3D HFR were just as bad in 2D and the movie has a couple scenes that flat out just don't work regardless of the technology. That is mainly due to too much CG and unrealistic physics.

In 2D 24FPS the film looked grainy, this helped some of the CG from a traditional movie standpoint, but when the action sped up I could tell it had been shot in a higher frame rate, because the action seemed jerky, almost like frames were missing.

In 3D HFR the film was very smooth and everything looked extraordinarily crisp, however I felt the CG did not blend in as well, and certain things looked faker (maybe it was because I'd already seen the movie and was paying more attention to little details).

[KevinNYC]

I figured it would be smoother cause of the 48fps but does it look like a movie (cinematic look) or is it on the real life side(home video look)?

Parts looked video, but more like a high end soap opera than home video. My film geek friend kept using the phrase "it had the immediacy of video."


Since I had heard about this debate I was kind of looking for this, but I think I would have noticed it any way. A lot of people would not.

[Derka]

In 3D HFR the film was very smooth and everything looked extraordinarily crisp, however I felt the CG did not blend in as well, and certain things looked faker (maybe it was because I'd already seen the movie and was paying more attention to little details).

You think? One of the first things I commented on upon exiting the theater was that Gollum looked more real and more natural than he did in the LotR trilogy and 24fps Hobbit.

Some of the parts where Jackson used slow motion for CGI shots did look a bit off in the HFR version, though.

[embersyc]

You think? One of the first things I commented on upon exiting the theater was that Gollum looked more real and more natural than he did in the LotR trilogy and 24fps Hobbit.

Some of the parts where Jackson used slow motion for CGI shots did look a bit off in the HFR version, though.

Undoubtedly Gollum looks 1000% times better than in the LotR in both versions of the Hobbit, and Gollum looked fine in HFR. The scenes I had trouble with with the Goblin King and his minions, they did not look good in HFR imo, especially in the action scenes, although I thought those scenes were weak in both versions.

[dunksby]

Parts looked video, but more like a high end soap opera than home video. My film geek friend kept using the phrase "it had the immediacy of video."


Since I had heard about this debate I was kind of looking for this, but I think I would have noticed it any way. A lot of people would not.
I see, thanks, would you have liked if LOTR was done this way? Or do you think it would not work for an epic?

[Nevaeh]

i personally hate 48 FPS

the claims that it makes shit look fake are true.

you can blatantly tell its a movie set.

you can friggin see the damn make up caked on actors faces its so bad.

its basically the same as how some of the newer TVs are so good you have to go into their settings and downgrade the ****ers b/c they make it easy to see how the lighting and sets are obviously fake.

48 FPS essentially makes a movie look like an expensive stage play.


i get that it will eventually be the standard but until people relearn how to do lighting, sets, makeup, etc, its going to look like ass.


I remember a few months back a poster created a thread titled "Marvel Avengers is the greatest movie ever" or something like that. Anyway, a few weeks after the Blue Ray/ DVD was released, Walmart had the BR version running on multiple hdtvs, one of which had a feature called "motion plus", which basically doubles the frame rate of a movie's animation, and adds vivid clarity to film.

The problem I saw with this feature is that it allows you to instantly see a clear divide with whatever was done using computers, versus whatever was shot on a film set. While the CG stuff looked great, any "on-set" part of the film, would show with a clarity that would instantly take you out of the film, looking somewhat like a "behind the scenes" segment on Entertainment Tonight or something, where you can hear the director yell "Action" b4 an action scene starts.

The film viewed this way destroys the uniform "look" of a film viewed with fewer frames and that "gritty" somewhat grainy look that we're all used to when we normally watch movies.

I would warn anyone to NEVER watch this movie with Motion Plus turned on. It cheapens the hell out of the film when watched this way. I'm just glad I only caught like 3-5 minutes of the film like this (still gotta watch the whole thing).

[KevinNYC]

Undoubtedly Gollum looks 1000% times better than in the LotR in both versions of the Hobbit, and Gollum looked fine in HFR. The scenes I had trouble with with the Goblin King and his minions, they did not look good in HFR imo, especially in the action scenes, although I thought those scenes were weak in both versions.

Peter Jackson did an interview with Stephen Colbert and he said the effects they had for Gollum were more advanced this time around. They had more muscles active in his face for better reactions.

I think if LOTR were done this way, I would say the same things.

48fps might just be something we will get used to.

[Patrick Chewing]

Did you see the high frame rate version?


Yes. The CGI portions were excellent. When they were inside the mountain with all those orcs....wow simply amazing. And that one orc that's on the zip line :lol

The scene where they are stuck on the mountain looks kinda hokey due to the increased frame rate.

[embersyc]

When they were inside the mountain with all those orcs....wow simply amazing.

I thought those scenes were terrible. It looked like a video game.