'The Hobbit' will not be widely released in 48 FPS - Page 2

Lee, you realize we're not seeing the boxed sets of the extended versions for about five years, right? That was the point he was getting at. You did say it would be "years" before we saw a standard change, if ever.

Again - it depends on if the industry moves away from 24 fps and embraces HFR.

Ever heard of Deep Color?
Edited by Lee Stewart - 8/8/12 at 9:26pm

So you think that if your CEM announces at 2013 CES they are introducing a 3DTV that wll be 144hz (72hz per eye), you will be able to get this as a firmware upgrade? I strongly doubt that.

Native 3D versus conversion to 3D will always be a budget consideration. Conversion will improve over time. It has gotten much better than it was just 3 years ago. Most people don't even realize that almost all native 3D productions have some conversion shots. More than you know.

Auto 3D (no glasses) is YEARS away from being perfected. And if the very best Auto 3DTV came out tomorrow, your displays could not be upgraded. You would have to replace them.
Edited by Lee Stewart - 8/8/12 at 9:45pm

No frame interpolation - native 48 fps (AFAIK, they would use either Christie or Barco professional digital projectors.) Series 2 projectors can be upgraded to handle 48 FPS 3D. Series 1 projectors can't. But neither can handle 4K 48 fps 3D. That would require all new projectors and supporting hardware.
Edited by Lee Stewart - 8/8/12 at 9:44pm

Producer Jon Landau: Filmmakers, Not Studios, Should Decide the Fate of Higher Frame Rates

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/producer-jon-landau-frame-rates-siggraph-peter-jackson-trumbull-360089

If the director finance the movie in its own. He is free to release it any way he can. Otherwise the studio have an input on how the movie is supposed to make a profit.

I look at the end goal of Audio/Visual giving the perception of the user visually being in the movie and audibly hearing what they think is real sound produced by what is going on in the movie. Fighting against this evolution seems counterintuitive and will only hurt the progression of technology.

3D is a prime example. Poor implementation back in 19XX turned a lot of people off and portrayed it as simply a gimic. Since Avatar, 3D popularity has exploded and there is now enough consumer interest (demand) to drive production of said technology. Now, if 3D would have been implemented better way back in the day and enough interest would have been generated for companies to realize profit potential, maybe at this point in time today we would have 3D displays without the need of glasses… Individuals with an audience, such as Devin Faraci, who interpret the technology based on their own shallow interpretation, obviously have some industry influence. It’s game changers and pioneers (think Steve Jobs) who have a vision on the end game in mind that end up changing the industry. Peter Jackson needs put less stock in what a few “industry professionals” or focus groups have to say and press forward if he wants to truly make his mark.

Guess our feeble minds aren’t ready for that yet.

Excellent post! As with any new technology it may take a few attempts to perfect a certain technique. Take the iPhone and compare the original iPhone to the 4S. 5 Years separate the iPhone from the 4S but they literally seem worlds apart from tech advancement standpoint. The key is to implement the 48fps techinique now, go through a few lessons learned and improve the implementation for future releases. Everything has a learning curve and there is constant room for improvement.

Sorry for my rant… I just hate to see technology/techniques meant to advance a field get shut down because people are scared of it… Look back in history, I bet cavemen freaked when that one guy showed them how to make fire.

OOOoooo it's Magic…

As long as we're dealing with projection on a screen (and not some type of virtual reality where the viewer is actually in the film), there will always be times when LESS LITERAL = MORE CONVINCING.

My point was that we need directors to decide whether the higher frame rate actually advances what they are trying to accomplish with a particular film, or merely distracts from it. In my opinion, a film like Black Hawk Down would benefit from the added realism (just to give one example), while a film like the Hobbit would require a thicker layer of abstraction between itself and the audience during most scenes. This has nothing to do with audiences being "ready" for it, and everything to do with the way the human visual system sends information to the brain and the way that information is interpreted in various formats. Obviously, this is Jackson's decision (given whatever latitude the studio has given him) and not mine, but audiences will determine the success of whatever decision he makes. Lots of directors make bad decisions... that's why the good ones are few and far between.
Edited by gremmy - 8/9/12 at 6:57am

So far, HFR has only been used for 3D, where it is most needed. Many think that HFR will be used for 2D. There are no productions scheduled that are contemplating using HFR.

I believe your argument of "LESS LITERAL = MORE CONVINCING" does not apply simply because 3D to begin with looks totally different than 2D does.

I would have been inclined to agree with you if that article hadn't specifically mentioned that the sets looked like sets...

I have never seen a 3D presentation in 48fps, so obviously I cannot judge this for myself and like the rest of us am merely trying to piece things together given what I know of those formats I have seen and what others have reported of this particular presentation.

Anybody who is or has been waiting for the hobbit movie will se it in whatever frame rate it is released in.
Frame rate is not a big deal to the average movie goer.

I suspect is is a transition that people would get used to in one sitting.
For me, I would want to see it the way it was meant to be seen if I am watching it in the theater.

So I for one, will not go to see it if they change the frame rate. I will just wait until it hits BD.

Yes, we have. I bet most of us have many devices that are Deep Color ready, so it was already adopted (HDMI 1.3) prior to any material.

You are forgetting that the footage shown at Comic Con had no post production work done on it. Not a good reference to judge.

I have seen HFR 2D (Showscan) but never HFR 3D. I don't believe they will be the same. Maybe someone who has seen the film ride; T2: Battle Across Time can chime in. AFAIK, that is one of the few higher than 24 fps 3D presentations; 70mm @ 30 fps.

Tons of devices that are Deep Color ready - but no content right? Deep Color is not in the current specs for BD. Increase the color depth - storage requirements go up - just like increasing the frame rate. H.265 could be used to encode DC and still work within the current 50GB DL BD limit. But is Hollywood going to sign off on that - giving consumers professional level quality? IMO - no.

I will either see it in 48fps or not at all. To strip it down is no different than to release a film in "Pan and scan" rather than the original aspect ratio. It was shot in 48fps, therefore many scenes will lose their intended emotion and feel when shown otherwise, just as cutting the sides of the image does in many shots that were composed with widescreen in mind. Jackson planned every moving, swooping camera shot with 48fps in mind. Do not see it unless you can see it in 48fps!

Completely rubbish. Nolan intended his latest Dark Knight's to be viewed in 15/70 IMAX but we don't even have a fake IMAX where I live.
I saw the movies at my regular theater and enjoyed them. Who the **** are you to say that I should be staying home instead?

The secret to a really good Photoshop fake is to put imperfection back into the photo. Blur. Noise. Raster. When you see a Photoshop fake that's too perfect, it sticks out like a goiter on a swimsuit model.

Same thing with working on a soundstage. Once you work on a commercial or film interior set, you can't help but "see" the limitations of the set build in every movie you watch. When Dorothy et al start dancing their way down the yellow brick road, you can't help but notice that that the edit cuts right before they bonk their collective noses on the painted cyclorama wall.

My point: A little illusion is a good thing. Film works as a medium because of a defect/limitations on the processing handshake between the eye and the brain. Apparently there is a point of diminishing return -- a Laffer Curve -- on resolution; another Uncanny Valley.

Can we agree that maybe -- in this case -- more is not necessary better? Do we really need 2160p resolution on our projectors and TVs? Granted, 30 fps might have been a better film standard than 24 fps, but 48fps? Really?

I guess I'm turning into Dana Carvey's Grumpy Old Man. "When we was kiddies we put a candle behind some hand puppets and acted out shadowplays of Jane Austin novels... and we LIKED IT!"

I'm not forgetting it. Also, I'm not the one judging it. The implication that I got from the article was that the people who actually saw it thought the sets looked like sets specifcially because of the 48 fps. This fits with what I know of higher frame rates on 2D material. There was also the suggestion that post production work might help... but if that's the case, I'm curious what type of production work that would be. Would it be work specifically aimed at toning down the visual impact of the higher frame rate?Certainly if post production work always helped in this regard, regardless of the framerate, these people would be used to seeing "sets that look like sets" and would not have attributed it to the framerate -- either that or the people actually collecting the data would have known.

But either way, until one of us actually sees a 3D film at 48 fps, this is all speculation. Perhaps we can both agree to reserve judgment for the time being.
Edited by gremmy - 8/9/12 at 10:43am

I'm not familiar with all 3D techniques so my question is: will it be 24 fps per eye for 48 fps movie?

You're starting from a couple of false assumptions. What makes you think that higher frame rates will "advance" the field of filmmaking? Why does not liking the HFR look mean that people are "scared of it"?

Excellent point, Lee.

Counterpoint: When filmmakers have to perform special effects on the practical effects and stagecraft to make them look real... That's quite a rabbit hole we've tumbled down.

I'm no friend of the Studio Suits, but when the budget gets a line item to CGI the practical effects, I can't blame them for calling Bee Ess on a director.

Either 48 fps per eye or 96 fps per eye.

I think the Omega 3D static dual passive projection system would work for the new release at any frame rate

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1407101/official-omega-3d-passive-projection-system-thread

Post Production is done on ALL movies. A large part of it is Color Grading (Correction)

This was stated earlier in the thread, but I will repeat for emphasis: Blu-ray does not support 48 fps.

If you refuse to watch this movie in any format other than 48 fps, and you don't live near one of the two theaters that will play it in that format, then I guess you will never see this movie.

96 fps per eye for 48 fps movie!?
Let's hope you'll be able to buy it online and download it.

Nothing more than a double flash. You do you they triple flash 24 fps 3D now right? 144Hz - 72Hz per eye (RealD 3D)

Native 48 fps 3D? I doubt it.

A fw update would be possible would it not? Never is a pretty definite word. Im sure there will at least be a 48fps digital release.

Could you use a FW update to make your BD SAL player a 3D BD SAL player? No you couldn't.

And which 3DTV display can handle 48 fps?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/siggraph-2012-warners-bros-the-hobbit-48fps-360464