48fps 3D preview of 'The Hobbit' gets mixed reaction at CinemaCon

I never understood film buffs preferring the 24fps wagon wheels turning backward and pan shots juddering across the screen. Anyone who thinks 48fps looks wrong is overly sentimental for a time best left behind. Roger Ebert would probably flame me.

Does it look like the soap-opera effect, is that what they mean?

The only thing that bothers me so far is that dwarves are supposed to be taller and very strong, able to dig all day long with no rest.

:nerd smilie:

The arguments seem to boil down to: it looks like something else which I don't like. Because cheap made for TV movies have a higher frame rate, the Hobbit looks like a cheap made for TV movie. Obviously, it's NOT a cheap movie, but some people are content to judge things based on what they arbitrarily associate it with rather than what it actually is. They're not interested in overcoming their own misconceptions. Ultimately it's a problem of people's personalities and attitudes toward change rather than a problem with the technology.

I guess you didn't hear that Ebert is actually in favor of 48 fps.

I have read several sites on this today and what I find odd is everyone is already taking sides and defending 48 fps without having experienced or seen the footage for themselves.

I really hope it doesn't have the "soap opera" look, but I'm going to wait to see for myself before taking sides.

This is just like how everyone screams up and down prior to seeing a converted 3D movie. Some people are soooo against 3D conversions that nothing will convince them otherwise. I feel this 48 fps "controversy" is setting up a similar path. Why align yourself until you can actually have an informed viewing?!?!

Really looking forward to this movie though

Alot of people prefer cheap made for TV movies that were still shot on film rather than cheap made for TV movies made on video. The Twilight Zone series is a good example of this(shot on film and video)

I realize not all cheap made for TV movies are produced the same, but I don't think the "it looks like a cheap TV movie" complaints mean to refer to any of them that were shot on 24fps film. Were you seriously suggesting there's some hypocrisy in my statement?

Isn't this unavoidable though? Does the "soap opera effect" come from anything other than the high frame rate?

That "look" can be toned down some in post production.

As one who saw Showscan (70mm @ 60 FPS) it it a radical change from 24 FPS. Personaly, I loved it. It opens up a whole new way to entertain audiences - the purpose of going to the movies.

I don't understand those who complain about soap opera effect of high FPS movies/shows . The more life-like it is the better if you ask me. I have been many times to theater (not movie theater but REAL THEATER) and no one seems to complain that artists are not flickering at 24 fps while on scene.

So it's not necessarily a high frame rate itself. What exactly defines the soap opera effect then? What exactly is there to tone down?

Maybe I need to watch some soap operas.

Life can look pretty ugly. That the footage looks like stage theater is exactly what some are complaining about.

I never see live plays, concerts or sporting events. They look too real.

All this controversy has to be good for The Hobbit. Hopefully it will generate a lot of free marketing and raising awareness of the film.

Most of the general commentary on the topic is pretty moot. Very few people have seen the actual footage. Those that did, saw a 10 minute show reel with lots of cuts, not the best basis on which to form an opinion.

The film will actually be released in traditional 24fps, 2D film print edition too. So those that have a real issue with the aesthetics can see it that way anyway.

Film is not just a visual medium, the visuals should be in service of the narrative. We like to experience good stories, with strong visuals. The actual look and feel of a film is less important than the quality of the story telling and how it is served by those visuals. People put up with watching movies transmitted in 4:3 pan and scan interlaced NTSC on 20 TVs for decades and still enjoyed them.

You might not like the aesthetics of the 48fps, 3D 4K digital projection of The Hobbit, but if it is a well executed story then to dismiss it only due to the 48fps aesthetic is foolish.

Ishtar* and Heaven's Gate* didn't suddenly become good films because they were shot on film, with good production design and projected at 24fps. The story telling still sucked. The Hobbit won't be a disaster in 48fps if the story telling is good. (*Please insert poor traditional movies of choice.)

You can even see it twice, once in 48fps 3D and then 24fps 2D and at least have a subjective opinion based on the full evidence before you pronounce the folly of 48fps digital cinema, if that is the way you see it.

Lol :-)

Is it possible download the 48fps trailer or are there any other 48fps or 60fps real time trailer/examples like this one that we can download from the internet? I sure would like to watch the difference from 24fps to 48fps...my only example is in gaming.

Cheers

Nick Laslett- great post!

Badelhas- I second your request. I haven't watched The Hobbit trailer yet because I haven't found an HD frame packed 48 fps version yet. I've searched a bit with no luck. Does such a thing exist?

I would also like to know. Can any hdtv's display it properly?

Current HDTVs are not designed to accept a 48 fps input signal, even if they display at a frame rate that's an even multiple of 48.

If you want to know what this looks like, put in Lord of the Rings and turn on frame interpolation (MotionFlow, SmoothMotion, Ultra Motion Plus, etc.) in your TV.

When you say the look should be in service of the narrative, this is exactly what gives the detractors a valid point. The film language that the general audience understands has been built for more than a 100 years, and certainly virtually everything they've seen in their entire lifetime....which has been in 24fps. They also have been exposed to video footage on a regular basis which has been shot in 60fps, through sports, news, soap operas, game shows, reality tv, and home video, which gives the viewers the idea that what is occurring is happening in the real world and that the camera is a part of it. However in traditional narrative film, this camera is not supposed to be thought of as part of the diegesis, and increasing the frame rate would trigger a response in most people to see it in that way, which would on a fundamental level would be contradictory to the illusory creation of the "fantasy world" the filmmakers intend. Viewers would immediately see the actors as people on a set, "pretending" in front of a camera, like a bunch of kids playing on home video. That is the actual argument against it, but I am actually think higher frame rates would be good for 3D because the more pronounced strobing in some cases at 24fps detract from the illusion more than a high frame rate would. I haven't seen the hobbit 48fps trailer though, and neither am I am sure that 48 would be the right number (or correct solution). But I have seen 60fps 3D sports and also video game footage and they appear like extensions of their 2D counterparts as opposed to something more "filmic".

Anyone know what the IMAX trailer is displayed at? I thought it looked great at the new digital 4k IMAX in Moore, OK. And I normally can't stand frame interpolation on live motion movies at home, so I figure I would've noticed a big change. Either way, as long as it looks like the trailer I saw, then I shouldn't be disappointed.

Not really what the poster was a asking but the JVC DLA-HD10 projector will accept and display a 48khz input.

Not sure what exactly you saw, but at the "digital IMAX" at my theater they showed the 24fps one, which is readily available on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQOLnp5ramY

Yep, that's the one I saw as well. Figured it wasn't 48fps, but just wanted to make sure. I wonder if the actual IMAX release of the movie will be 24 or 48fps, since somebody mentioned both versions will be available (if that's true).

This statement is a proof of another damage that reality TV has incurred on the minds of the younger generation, that I haven't previously thought of.

Even my oldish Samsung HLT accepts 1080p at 60hz, so it should do 48hz just fine. The challenge is going to be finding a source. As far as I know, it's not supported by Blu-ray, plus you're looking at around 200GB for your typical movie. We're going to need a whole new home delivery system, and streaming isn't going to cut it on your typical internet connection without extreme compression..

I strongly doubt it. Your set is designed to accept standard ATSC/HDTV formats and 1080x48P is not a standard ATSC/HDTV format. Nor is your TV a Multi-Sync TV.


A 3D Blu-ray which is 1080x24P per eye takes up less then 50GB. At worse case, a 3D Bluray at 1080x48P per eye would take up twice as much (less then 100GB), not 4X as much.

If H.265 was used as the video compression codec, chances are, no more storage would be needed then what is used today for 3D Blu-ray - less then 50GB.

At this time, there is no intent to use 48 FPS other then for 3D.

Quote from Jackson on reelz.com:


And also in that article:

i just did that, and i dont think i like it too much. don't get me wrong, i watch all my nature type material with Trumotion on, but i dont like the way it looks for movies.

it looks like a stage play, and sometimes the special effects look really cheesy.