48fps 3D preview of 'The Hobbit' gets mixed reaction at CinemaCon - Page 7

I wouldn't have expected there to be. You're already getting uncharged for the 3D.

But they stack 3D and Imax

I'm thinking it's in response to the negativity. I would have thought they would try to charge because some believe that a high framerate is a better immerser than stereo 3D. Now there's evidence that 2 hours may not even be enough time to get used to it.

True. I dunno if it's a response to negativity though. There's no shortage of negativity towards 3D, but they upcharge for that.

I think its a hard sell because it's so new. You say 3D, everyone knows what it means. You say high frame rate, and you'll get a blank stare from people. Once people understand what it means, I can see them attempting it.

Sweet! Alamo Drafthouse just announced it will be showing THE HOBBIT in 2D, 3D and 48 frames per second 3D. can't wait.

So who will have the 48fps 3D and Dolby atoms?

It would be interesting to see The Hobbit at both 48 fps 2D and 48 fps 3D to make comparisons. Any word as to whether they'll show it in 2D at the higher frame rate?

only the 3d version will be in 48fps.
http://gizmodo.com/5958487/the-hobbit-comes-with-an-faq-explaining-why-itll-look-so-weird

Edited by gagit811 - 11/8/12 at 4:59pm

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/11/07/64780-complete-listing-of-theaters-showing-hobbit-hfr-3d-imax-3d-imax-dolby-atmos/

PDF of all listings for hfr/3d/imax including atmos.

Sweet! My local theater's on that list.

I'm pretty surprised at some of the comments on this thread. Pretty much the same thing was about color - that it would ruin the cinematic effect. It's also similar to what was said about CDs when they first came out - people complained about how digital would ruin music, yet all of these years later, does anyone really miss the hiss?

Movies are supposed to immerse you in an alternate reality. Why shouldn't we demand that that alternate reality be as close to physical reality as possible instead of relying on the brain to add the missing data. That's why sound has gone from mono to stereo to 5.1 to 7.1 to 128 channels. If the result of higher frame rates isn't as good as the old technology, then the directors need to adapt and not just set the bar at matching the old experience, but in exceeding it. Better tools should allow for a better end result.

Yet here on the theater enthusiasts message board, people are writing off the new technology without even seeing it in person. The 48 fps 3D makes me more likely to see The Hobbit in theaters vs waiting to see it in my home theater.
Edited by Alan Dail - 11/26/12 at 11:21am

The fact of the matter is that, for as long as better quality this or that has been available, it's not necessarily what people want. People have DSLRs capable of 60p and sharp clear resolution and colors, yet they opt for 24p, color grading, vignetting, grain, etc to reconstruct their world.

they keep those as options, but they also prefer sound over silent, prefer color over black and white, prefer HD over SD, prefer digital over tape or film.

In this case, people are prejudging a new technology before the first film to use that technology was even finished. It only got finished this week, just in time for the world premier tomorrow.

24 fps second wasn't chosen because it is ideal for movies, it was chosen in the 1920s because it was the minimum possible frame rate needed to avoid flickering images. I can only imagine then there were purists then who complained losing that flicker was going to ruin the look of movies.

So far not a single theater in the state of Alabama on that list.

The difference with high frame rate is that its not a new tech at all. People have seen tons of high frame rate video, and fair or not, it's associated with low quality. Broadcast TV has never been limited to 24fps, but high quality programs still fall back on 24fps film....

Its unfortunate, but tying its introduction to a blockbuster like this is probably the best way to introduce it into cinema.

It's Peter Jacksons choice to use 48F and its being done for very sensible reasons. It may be the first chance people who otherwise cannot stand the flicker of 24Frame 3D to actually enjoy a 3D movie.

Secondly, I have no heard one sensible objective criticism for high frame rates so far, not one! Just a lot of the usual nonsense about it looking "too real", precisely the reason PJ chose to use it by the way, or too much like video or not "cinematic enough. It's a lot of nonsense in my opinion and if people just watched the bl888y movie in 3D at 48 frame they may actually enjoy it!

I have even seen people who clearly don't bother thinking before opening their mouths stating that motion blur is a normal human visual characteristic but then saying that we need 24FPS to get the effect we see in every day life with no FR of any kind if its projected on a screen! What a nonsense argument that is! Motion blur has nothing to do with frame rate, its to do with speed of a moving object and it will still be there at 48FPS!

In all the hobbies I have had over the years I have never come across a more stifling attitude to improvement and change than exists in this one! Its a miracle we ever got colour and surround sound!

Another problem that people seem to have is that all of the "motion smoothed" video they've seen is done artificially, on in-store displays, and is done on 2D content. PJ shot the film with HFR specifically to work alongside the 3D effect.. that's why there are no 2D showings in HFR. And I think watching 3D content in HFR (which no one has ever done before) is very different from watching 2D motion-smoothed content at Best Buy.

That said, I'm also curious as to how they're going to handle the home video release. From what I've read, the Blu-ray specification doesn't actually support 48p in any way. So we may end up with just a standard 24p 3D presentation for the BD release.

Clearly there's a long history of what high frame rate video looks like, so a little doubt is understandable. If you've seen the handful of Twilight Zone episodes that were video taped, you know what I mean. It starts to look like what it really is - actors on a set.

I think potentially the difference with a real movie is that there's a lot more post production, like making the colors and contrast more cinematic and whatnot. Something like live news/sports or soap operas don't have a lot of post production like that to give the content a specific look. So I'm hopeful! I'm sure it'll be fun to check out.

Is there a 48fps trailer out there?

Sound and color added two very important things that helped with perception very much. HD was accepted because it's closer to what people are used to in theaters. Same with VHS to digital- it was a progression towards film quality.

The guy whose impressions fit your description actually was heaping praise on 48fps and cautioning certain audiences that it may not be their cup of tea:

Relax. It's just an attitude. Everyone will give HFR a chance. 3 hours should be long enough to get used to it if others are reporting it grew on them in just 10 minutes.

P.S. I don't hate 48fps for film necessarily, I just don't think you guys are making very convincing arguments in its favor. I think that it might only be as common as 3D (iow it will only be for certain films from certain filmmakers)
Edited by cakefoo - 11/28/12 at 2:32am

This needs to be reiterated, again and again. 48FPS is designed for 3D. To improve the 3D immersive experience. Peter Jackson did not decide to use 48FPS, for 2D viewing. He used 48FPS to create a hyper 3D experience.

Once I put on 3D glasses, it can be 100 FPS for all I care.

Or maybe they just want plenty of plain 2D screenings. A huge number of people will want to see this film, and some of them will prefer not to try any of the HFR or 3D technology. Basically, you'll get the works, 3D and HFR, or just plain 2D.

I think this will be the standard for 3D+HFR films, while 2D HFR films will have two simple versions, neither of which will cost more than the other.

I think it would behoove them to allow people to see if 48 fps or higher cinematography would be viable for regular, dramatic 2D movies as well. I'd pay to see The Hobbit in 2D at 48 fps. The claimed image improvements are supposed to be for ANY kind of movie... at least that's what industry proponents of HFR cinematography would tell you. High frame rate Todd-AO wasn't made for just 3D movies at the time.

Is this costly for theaters to show this movie in the HBR format? My local theater will have the IMAX version but the closest theater with HBR is an hour away.

They didn't make it cheap, that's for sure. It probably takes some sort of firmware update of all the equipment... the digital projectors included... to accept and display the 48 fps rate of the digital files correctly. You'd think it wouldn't cost much, but I heard it was something like $10,000 per screen. That's just crazy. Someone's laughing all the way to the Cayman Islands on that deal.

I thought of this again just a moment ago, in one of the other threads where a new 3D user was talking about what he described as "excessive" motion blur on 24p movies (even though it's the same motion blur used in 2D prints). And I thought to myself "HFR would help with that..."

Actually they wont Cakefoo because they wont get the chance. A great many cinemas in the uk have not bothered to upgrade the equipment and I suspect that may well have a lot to do with the negativity that was shown by some people who saw a few minutes of very rough looking unprocessed footage during the summer. Its hard to justify spending money if you think its a big gamble and sadly that is precisely what the negativity has generated in the mindset of some theatre owners.

I tell you, the media have a lot to answer for and do a lot of damage. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword!

and so will HFR 3D.

Color was criticized for the very same things that HFR 3D is being criticized for, that it was a gimmick that ruined the cinematic quality of movies.

HD was criticized by people at first for looking too real.

And similar complaints were made when Lucas launched digital filming with phantom menace, that it ruined the cinematic quality of films.

Yet today people expect movies to be filmed digitally, and movies filmed before the transition now look dated.

Modern 3D is still fairly young. Having a breakthrough just 3 years ago with Avatar (which really should never even be watched in 2D because so much of the experience is lost). When done right, the screen should completely disappear, immersing you in the experience. HRF 3D only promises to improve that experience.

I could take or leave HFR, at least that's how I feel right now. I think a problem with this initial release will be all of the potentially different flavours... regular frame rate 2D, regular frame rate 3D, HFR 3D, HFR 3D Dolby Atmos... personally I'd prefer a 2D Atmos version, because I don't like 3D but I don't think that will exist. So many people won't even know what they're seeing. I bet many will see a presentation in, let's say, Ultra AVX (that hasn't been equipped with either new technology) and say it made no difference. Or that is was SOOOO much better. Or that it was awful and it ruined movie. We're in for a bumpy ride of reviews with this one, I suspect.

Well Said! You have defined in one sentence precisely what 3D is all about in my opinion.