or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › From CinemaBlend: Should You See The Hobbit In 48 fps?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

From CinemaBlend: Should You See The Hobbit In 48 fps?

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Should-You-See-Hobbit-48-fps-34387.html


Should you see The Hobbit in 48 fps?

That's been a tough question to answer for months now, ever since the first footage from An Unexpected Journey premiered for journalists and movie theater owners at CinemaCon back in April. Reaction was mixed to say the least, even after Peter Jackson presented 10 full minutes of footage to allow the viewers to adjust to the change. It felt really similar to what happened three years ago, when James Cameron was trotting out long bits of footage from Avatar to prove just how much 3D was going to blow our minds… while everyone remained entirely skeptical it would look good at all.


This discussion is analogous to the discussion of the HDTV Soap Opera Effect (SOE) in the home when using motion smoothing effects! Do you like a picture that looks "real" vs. the traditional look of filmed TV.

Will B.
post #2 of 13
I suspect that if movies had originally been digitally shot at 48 fps, and then someone invented film and started using it, people would complain about the grain and how "flat" and unnatural the picture looks.

Grain is not natural, nor how the world appears to us through our eyes, nor does 24fps motion express what our eyes see and our brains process every day.

I wonder if it won't be long before a generation of people thinks that film-based movies look unnatural?
post #3 of 13
The film has to be seen before forming an opinion as to how well HFR is implemented. If in panning the movement is crystal clear, is that a bad thing? After all, when you turn your head quickly do you see blurriness and film grain? If one doesn't like it, that's fine. Am looking forward to it in 3D with Dolby Atmos.
post #4 of 13
Like anything else, not only will there be some getting used to the look of it but also the application. The first CGI effects compared to stop motion stood out as well but got better over time. I suspect this will be no different while at the same time, film keeping it's place in movie making for a long time to come. I for one am curious about it and will give it a shot. And I tip my cap to Peter Jackson for trying to differentiate himself and trying something new.
post #5 of 13
Peter Jackson has said that the image type he wanted for this film is aimed at the eyes of younger people, those that have 99% of their moving image experience from thousands of hour of high framerate gaming. Those are also the future eyes of movie audiences.

It is possible he doesn't succeed with everything in this "clarity" approach combined with HFR and 3D, it is a new style that a director also needs some experience in to master fully and I bet he wished he had some more time to tweak the details.

But it is a new approach to moving imagery, the imagery for the future.

I bet the next instalments will be tweaked slightly different when the people behind this get some more time to see the movie in more venues and 12 months more tweaking time.

LOTR was the same, the first movie had some serious mistakes in the imagery, but they learnt from their mistakes before the next two was done.
post #6 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by eweiss View Post

Grain is not natural, nor how the world appears to us through our eyes, nor does 24fps motion express what our eyes see and our brains process every day.

The last I checked, movies were not real life.
post #7 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Peter Jackson has said that the image type he wanted for this film is aimed at the eyes of younger people, those that have 99% of their moving image experience from thousands of hour of high framerate gaming. Those are also the future eyes of movie audiences.

rolleyes.gif well then mr. jackson just won today's C.L.O.C* award!!!

...tsssssss, so does The Hobbit have fast cuts and shaky cam too? I bet "the audience of the future" would dig that in HFR 3D!!!!

I can't believe he actually said that. I'm sure he knows the billion it will make wordwide will come from a much larger audience though.....








*Complete Load Of Crap.
post #8 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

rolleyes.gif well then mr. jackson just won today's C.L.O.C* award!!!
...tsssssss, so does The Hobbit have fast cuts and shaky cam too? I bet "the audience of the future" would dig that in HFR 3D!!!!
I can't believe he actually said that. I'm sure he knows the billion it will make wordwide will come from a much larger audience though.....
*Complete Load Of Crap.

Of course the audience will be wider, and you states the obvious there. But as you see of all the "old" reviewers that are looking everywhere for something negative to say about the HFR, they might have a much harder time to adjust than a younger "gaming experienced audience".

Much of the image style that is in this film that get negative review has in fact nothing to do with HFR at all. It is just that HFR is blamed for everything reviewers find negative.
The "Look" or image style of the movie is much more colourful, contrasty and often shot with much deeper DOF than most movies. That has nothing to do with HFR. The HFR part only adds more clarity, less judder and organic sharpness to the image.

Jackson wanted The Hobbit image style to act as "A window into Middle Earth". That is a very different image-style that "movie purists" are used to.
We have seen a little part of that in CGI heavy movies and animations. Expect to see more of this style in Live action in the future.

One reviewer posted his review and then went and saw the movie again. Then he had to post an addition to his original review;
Quote:
SECOND THOUGHTS: At the time this story was originally published on Monday night, I was seeing "The Hobbit" for the second time, again at 48fps. And I have to admit that not only did the movie strike me as better -- faster and more entertaining, though still padded and at times silly -- but the format wasn't as bothersome.

I still think the high frame rate takes you out of the movie at times, particularly in scenes that feature well-lit actors prominently in the frame. But about half the time, the format came closer to justifying Jackson's experiment than it had seemed on first viewing.

So maybe I'm just one of those viewers who needs more time to adjust.
post #9 of 13
Yes because the audience wasn't exposed to faster then 24fps content back in 2001. wink.gif

24,25,30,50,60 hz have co existed since before I was born. Different fps for different media worked back then and will work tomorrow also.
post #10 of 13
I would steal love to see the Abyss in Showscan I read that Spielberg did not like Showscan because it was to real..
post #11 of 13
Thread Starter 
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-movie-review-48-fps/

Wired Magazine Review: The Hobbit Is Insanely Gorgeous at 48 Frames per Second


Interesting thoughts on the subject in this article.
post #12 of 13
Thread Starter 
I saw The Hobbit at AMC Tyson's in the 3D IMAX theater. I saw it there because it is the nearest theater to me showing the film the in the 48fps high-frame-rate (HFR) form. HFR is a technology that allows movies in theaters to have the same brilliant HD you see at home. If you like the way that Avatar looks in Blu-Ray on your LCD TV at home, you will see almost the same thing at the theater.

As a movie, I think if you liked Lord of the Rings (LOTR), this tells the earlier story of Bilbo Baggins, you should enjoy this movie as well. Just Be warned there will be THREE Hobbit movies, so this ends looking forward to more.

So, was it worth it? $54 for three people? If you know me, you know the answer was YES!!

HFR?? Yeah, I like it, but I also like the soap opera effect you may see on LCD/LED TV.

Story?? What's not to like? M

So enjoy!!
post #13 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

rolleyes.gif well then mr. jackson just won today's C.L.O.C* award!!!
...tsssssss, so does The Hobbit have fast cuts and shaky cam too? I bet "the audience of the future" would dig that in HFR 3D!!!!
I can't believe he actually said that. I'm sure he knows the billion it will make wordwide will come from a much larger audience though.....
*Complete Load Of Crap.

I have played over a 1000 hours of games ranging From Doom, Half Life, Borderlands (752 hours lol), and etc. Still didn't like the HFR.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › From CinemaBlend: Should You See The Hobbit In 48 fps?