Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

THE HOBBIT is being shot at 48 fps 3D!

Hey folks, Harry here...

Golly geewhilikers!   Wow.   Can't believe THE HOBBIT is at 48 frames per second & 3D.   I mean, I can - cuz I know that James Cameron said it was happening - and James Cameron is always right & undebatable.   Because it is in JC that we trust.    But now that Peter Jackson has FaceBooked About it, with pictures and everything - we're at the beginning of the very real change in cinema.  

 

 

I find myself wildly curious to see what Roger Ebert is going to say about this - because Roger Ebert has been one of the most vocal proponents about upping the frame rate for cinema - for...  well, since he first saw ShowScan decades ago - I've seen the tests - they're astonishing.  The stuff of dreams.   It's still 35mm, but you're seeing twice as much with every second.  The blurring begins to evaporate entirely - and holy shit it is amazing.   Peter and Andrew Lesnie are really laying groundwork with THE HOBBIT - and I can't even imagine how amazing this is going to look.  

Gollum at 48 fps 3D - suddenly there'll be no more reasons for drugs ever - because this is gonna be real without the need for the poisons to ever touch a system.   So what does this mean for us?

Well - there's no telling whether or not 48 fps will become any kind of standard based upon this film...  but we all know that each of these HOBBIT features will gross over a Billion Dollars world wide...  If it happens to go AVATAR nuts - we'll see alot of the big event films headed in this direction.   Suddenly - I can imagine the need for something above Blu-Ray and the Television systems we currently have.  I mean - if we end up at 60 fps or higher - the Internet will have to get a lot faster for Netflix.   

We're in for something amazing in our theaters.   Yet another reason to dream of THE HOBBIT - oh - and in Peter's post he mentions the impending possibility of new Production Diaries!   CAN NOT WAIT!!!

 

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • April 11, 2011, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Awesome

    by atalcot

    Now I have to pay 20 bucks at the theater per Hobbit movie...

  • April 11, 2011, 9:23 p.m. CST

    The Masters in 3D was awesome

    by iwontwin

    Im so excited that 3D is becoming a reality, more depth is good....as long as the story keeps up in terms of depth. I can't wait to see this technology!

  • April 11, 2011, 9:24 p.m. CST

    shlooop

    by 2sdaychicken

    da moooop

  • April 11, 2011, 9:25 p.m. CST

    Everything about this post

    by blunted666

    is like a dream come true. HUZZAH

  • April 11, 2011, 9:25 p.m. CST

    Does it look like Video?

    by stillsberry

    Cause I hate that smooth look.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:25 p.m. CST

    Unreadable

    by Edward_nygma

  • April 11, 2011, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Only John Carpenter can be called JC in the filmmaking world.

    by JuanSanchez

  • April 11, 2011, 9:28 p.m. CST

    Not sure If I'd be happy with a total industry conversion to 48 fps

    by starmin76

    For me, the lower framerate is what really makes it look "cinematic". If the image and movement is too true to life, I feel like some of that movie magic will be lost. That's the same way I feel about Blu ray's that get rid of all remnants of film grain.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:29 p.m. CST

    Trying to wrap my head around this

    by psSalieri

  • I kid, I know they mean 48fps playback.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:30 p.m. CST

    Doesnt 3D have to be double the frames anyway?

    by Saen

    I have to wonder if they are shooting it in 48 fps because they need to have a left frame and a right frame and the end 3d product will end up with 24 left frames and 24 right frames each second.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:33 p.m. CST

    Great, but I hope it doesn't look like shitty 120hz LCD/LED

    by vini77

    I hate that effect, looks like soap opera. I hope that's not the case.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:33 p.m. CST

    i've seen it

    by SeattleBuff

    about 25 years ago i attended a demonstration of SHOWSCAN hosted by it's inventor Douglas Trumbull at the Showest convention in Las Vegas. it was very impressive. it looked almost like high definition video today. but the process was prohibitively expensive and it didn't go anywhere...but he reportedly used elements of it in his film BRAINSTORM. i'm curious to see how it works in terms of THE HOBBIT.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:36 p.m. CST

    I don't know what any of this means

    by Sardonic

    But I hope it's good.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:36 p.m. CST

    24fps has seemed inadequate for quite some time

    by Jaster

    Video is 30fps and even that small bump looks a lot better. For those that don't know what to look for, on long panning shots or fast action objects seem to "stutter" because the image simply isn't being refreshed fast enough. In today's hi-tech environment it only makes sense that we up the frame rate. Besides, it gives theaters one more way to lure audiences back. Frankly I didn't think we'd see it for quite awhile because the cost of doing this is fucking staggering. I'm not just talking about replacing the billions of dollars of equipment already in theaters. That stuff has to be periodically replaced anyway. I'm talkng about the cost of production. Harrymentioned Gollum at 48 frames. Well that's TWICE the cost for the special effects guys, let alone twice the film (which is extraordinarily expensive). Now if studios can get rid of film altogether they can dramatically lower costs but that's going to require the digital distribution Lucas has been talking about. But I'm absolutely excited to see this filmk in 48 frames. I have no idea what theaters will be ready to show it that way, but I'll definitely seek one out.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:37 p.m. CST

    24fps is movie magic. 48fps is more realistic motion.

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

    48fps in true Imax. People will lose their cookies. Does this mean cinematographers have to learn the art of frame rates? It could be a useful artistic tool where parts of a movie are faster than others. Impossible to do with real film, but digitally this could be very interesting. Haven't theme park rides been using higher frame rate for their front and rear projection for years? However, I will miss the flicker of old fashioned film.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:39 p.m. CST

    (48fps YES) - (3D NO)

    by D o o d

    I just HATE 3D!

  • April 11, 2011, 9:39 p.m. CST

    I personally don't understand how this will look better...

    by JuanSanchez

    when video has a higher frame rate and doesn't look as good - hence the invent of 24p digital cameras. BUT - we've been hearing forever that it rocks, so I want to see it.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:41 p.m. CST

    Much more excited about this...

    by jimmy_009

    ...than 3D. Actually improving the quality of film instead of just adding a gimmick. Yes.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:42 p.m. CST

    fuck Roger Ebert, he knows NOTHING

    by Browncoat_Jedi

    That old dinosaur posted the garbage pseudo-science of Walter Murch, another 3D hater, as if it were actual science. Murch is wrong, Ebert is wrong.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:42 p.m. CST

    MONEY GRAB! 48fps means the special effects companies can charge double.

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

    Economies of scale. And they will charge you more, despite the projection not really costing more.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:42 p.m. CST

    d o o d - there is great news. You don't need to see it 3D.

    by JuanSanchez

    If higher frame rates rock so hard - why bother with 3D?

  • April 11, 2011, 9:42 p.m. CST

    Video is only 30 fps...

    by jimmy_009

    ...hardly a noticeable difference.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:45 p.m. CST

    This will allow faster editing for 3D action. KEEP THIS AWAY FROM MICHAEL BAY!

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

  • April 11, 2011, 9:47 p.m. CST

    !!!!!! *DIES*

    by pills_26

    Sorry, film geek freak out here! History I tells ya! History!!!

  • April 11, 2011, 9:47 p.m. CST

    Great. Now I have to buy "Lord of the Rings" AGAIN.

    by tbrosz

    Not to mention an entirely new type of disc and television set. Heck, I'm not even sure eyeballs work at 48 fps.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:47 p.m. CST

    So this means less slow mo right?

    by Bass Ackwards

    Since slo mo is usually shot at 48 and is slowed down to 24, would that mean to do slo-mo the cameras would need to film it at 96fps, which I don't think the current crop of cameras are quite up to are they? I know very little about this, just curious.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:55 p.m. CST

    bass ackwards, you are correct sir. This tech will be a pain in ass for Snyder!

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

    Yep, you need to film double the frame rate you're going to project to achieve half speed. There are plenty of cameras (old, real film and digital) that can do super high frames per second. What matters is the back end in terms of physical or digital storage.

  • April 11, 2011, 9:58 p.m. CST

    Nice to update things every 100 years or so...

    by lettersoftransit

    wider frames, color, sound, better sound, stereo sound, dolby sound, thx, etc etc.... improvements in every other aspect of film and improvements on the improvements. And through it all the basic fps remained the same. Nice to see that after 112 years of improving every other meffing thing about movies, somebody finally got serious about improving the basic frikkin picture.

  • April 11, 2011, 10 p.m. CST

    If you Like Soap Operas You'll Love the Hobbit

    by stillsberry

    But nothing makes me more sick than to know George Lucas remastered the Original Trilogy in an HD form instead of Film. Plus Ep II and III were made digitally, so they'll never look cinematic, screwed from the beginning.

  • April 11, 2011, 10 p.m. CST

    Update from Blu

    by blunted666

    I don't doubt we could fit one of these 48fps flicks across one or two Blus, the file size would just be twice as large as normal so it would be executed something like Superbit DVD with no extras. The tech upgrade will be needed in the TV dept. I'm no techie but I imagine refresh-rate type stuff might come into play when you take 48fps from projector to home TV

  • April 11, 2011, 10:02 p.m. CST

    I demand a 4:1 aspect ratio for Peter Jackson's Silmarillion!

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

    2.4:1 ain't gonna cut it!

  • April 11, 2011, 10:03 p.m. CST

    IS THAT BILBO IN GOLLUMS CAVE????!

    by Damien Brown

    *Nerdgasm*

  • April 11, 2011, 10:05 p.m. CST

    I HAVE A HARD-ON THE SIZE OF BARAD-DUR IN MY KNICKERS!!!

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Bring it, PJ. Smite the unworthy with an all new cinematic offering of New Zealand-style awesomeness.

  • April 11, 2011, 10:05 p.m. CST

    3D Tears of joy at 48fps...

    by luke_lymon

    ...and total acceptance of finality means I can die happy AFTER I see the second installment

  • April 11, 2011, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Great now I need at least a 240hz...

    by midime

    ...for the best viewing experience because 48 goes into 240 5 times, and only goes into 120hz an uneven 2.5 times. Though, who knows. Maybe the difference on a television will not be noticeable.

  • April 11, 2011, 10:07 p.m. CST

    Akira script review

    by catlettuce4

    No kidding, even though it's at Cracked.com http://tinyurl.com/3u2ph9c And awesome... Hobbit in 3D! Will the LOTR be made 3D as well?

  • April 11, 2011, 10:07 p.m. CST

    television

    by midime

    damn it

  • Someone else will claim IP rights to the mash up of technology to bring this to the cinema, but I invented it first. It came to me in a dream. you need to use the 3m brand Vikuiti screen material. Front projection will not work for this trick. Look up "Vikuiti" on youtube, it will explain the tech visually. Front end projection screens require a certain distance from the projector. I cant see cinemas wasting that space behind the screen Instead of one using a single projector placed far behind the big Vikuiti screen. You will need an array/series of projectors placed closer to the screen. Each of these projectors will cover a specific area of the screen/image each of them will flash a left and right eye image at 120 frames per second. As a group they will fill the entire screen. This solves the distance issue. OK so how do you make it glasses free 3d. Same way the Nintendo 3DS works. There is a Switching LCD parallax overlay on the front of the screen. It flashes 120 times per second between the left and right eye images that are rear projected into the back of the screen. A front projection system wouldn't work. Since the LCD parallax barrier would be in the way of incoming image. I came up with this idea. Sent myself emails. I doubt I could protect it, but I know this is how glasses free 3d cinema will happen. When it does happen just like this I will tell others I came up with it. They will laugh at me and that's pretty much how it is. Suck and rules at the same time, because this is going to happen. Just like I have explained. :( But it will be cool because we will all get to enjoy 3d cinematic content without glasses.

  • April 11, 2011, 10:17 p.m. CST

    Hm.

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    Hmmmm. Hmph. Hm.

  • April 11, 2011, 10:21 p.m. CST

    Sadly this will mean compression artifacts, even on blu-ray!

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

    Digital compression will be very important to keep the product affordable for home use. True compression should never have artifacts, unfortunately this tech isn't developed; the studios just use broadly calculated logarithms, even on blu-ray! True compression can save space and perfectly match uncompressed raw footage.

  • April 11, 2011, 10:25 p.m. CST

    They can't pull more frames out of thin air for more LOTR DVDs.

    by JuanSanchez

  • April 11, 2011, 10:27 p.m. CST

    I was around when Trumbull tried to get Showscan off the ground, but...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...I never got to see it. People I met who did get to went berserk over the quality of the image, called it things like "realer than real". But as I understand it, you had to convert theaters for the format, and he couldn't make it happen. Brainstorm was supposed to be the showcase, but, in addition to the problems due to Natalie Wood's tragic death during production, the expense of theatrical conversion was prohibitive without more films being made in Showscan, which couldn't happen without more venues to show them in, and the film had to be released in a standard format. Then he cut a deal with Chuck E. Cheese (!) to make short films in the process for minitheaters in selected cities as a way of getting around the Catch-22 of both the film industry's & theater chain owner's lack of interest, but that didn't work either. I could never could get to one of the cities where the pizzerias showed it, and I'm thrilled to hear I may finally get to see it for myself. This is truly cool news, for once. So how is Jackson getting around the theater problem? Does his approach require wholesale conversion? And why haven't we heard more about this before now? And, as long as I'm asking questions, since Trumbull's still alive and did the SFX for Tree of Life, what does he think about all this? I'd love to hear from him on the subject...

  • April 11, 2011, 10:28 p.m. CST

    Anyone watch

    by ribbitking

  • Nothing wrong with BBC documentaries, though.

  • April 11, 2011, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Umm, what i meant to say was....

    by ribbitking

    Anyone watch 'cable' or 'direct tv' or stuff at a friends house and notice that the frame rate is noticeably 'changed'? Was at a friends and ever single thing on his DVR, or whatever the hell he had looked 'sped up'.. it looked like PAL conversions. Luckily i gave up on cable a while ago and only know what stuff looks like in it's real time.

  • April 11, 2011, 10:37 p.m. CST

    240 Hz TVs suck BTW

    by Fish Tank

    For certain movies. Watching a movie on a 240Hz TV vs 60 or even 120 - looks ridiculously bad when viewing CGI animated movies. They play out more like those hig-end video card demos NVidia or ATI used to make. 60Hz may ghost more, but it has a "look" that ironically keeps CGI looking "real".

  • April 11, 2011, 10:39 p.m. CST

    creepythinmanlives

    by Billy_D_Williams

    the cost of upping the frame rate is negligible...because by the time this becomes standard in the next few years, digital tech will have advanced enough for it not to be an issue...of course if you're shooting on film and you're still an indie (studio money takes care of it), you're fucked...either way, it's not a stupid idea, this is no different than mono becoming stereo and stereo becoming 7 channel digital surround...its merely enhancing the experience (and i dont see you bitching about digital surround)...every new piece of tech comes with bitching and whining from purists who are trying to stop a speeding train by standing in front of it.

  • April 11, 2011, 10:40 p.m. CST

    if you've been on the Star Tours ride at Disneyland...

    by Billy_D_Williams

    you've already seen what The Hobbit will look like...and it will look amazing, just like the ride does.

  • April 11, 2011, 10:42 p.m. CST

    seattlebuff, I was once told that the scenes in Brainstorm...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...depicting the experience of the playback of the brain recordings were the only ones shot in Showscan, to accentuate the difference between them and real life. So theaters would have had to convert when you weren't even getting the whole movie in Showscan, like a movie where only certain scenes were in 3D. (Wasn't there a film by William Castle like that? 13 Ghosts, perhaps, in Emergo? Sounds like something that gimmick- crazy dude would have done. "Put on your glasses when the buzzer goes off and see the ghosts!")

  • April 11, 2011, 10:42 p.m. CST

    I wonder if PJ will pull a Lucas and convert the LOTR films to 3D..

    by darthwaz1

    If 3D Phantom Menace rakes in the cash, LOTR movies will probably follow suit, especially since Hobbit is 3D..

  • April 11, 2011, 10:45 p.m. CST

    R.I.P. 'natural' motion blur

    by justmyluck

    24fps film @180 shutter angle has a pretty natural approximation of the motion blur we see with our eyes. 48-60fps capture/projection is more like everyone doing the electric boogaloo in front of a 60-foot CRT. The 24fps frame-blending downsample for 'normal' projection will still inherit that narrow-shutter-angle-like strobe (which some DP's love for battle scenes with particulate matter flying everywhere). I don't care if it's Jackson and Cameron, this 'advancement' is coming from idiot savants and, yes, their higher-fps CGI will look even more virtual. Bad move, IMO.

  • April 11, 2011, 10:46 p.m. CST

    Seems Cameron will be doing the same for

    by Teddy Artery

    the next Avatars.

  • Blurry shit only looks "cinematic" because cinema told us it does.

  • April 11, 2011, 10:47 p.m. CST

    Jackson is shooting with about thirty RED EPIC 3-D digital cameras...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...so, you know, think about that.

  • April 11, 2011, 10:48 p.m. CST

    creepythinmanlives

    by t-bags

    It's cute you think they'll be using "film" to shoot this.

  • April 11, 2011, 10:53 p.m. CST

    The tech sounds cool, but the 3D part, I couldn't give two shits about...

    by Dr. Egon Spengler

    Better image quality is never a bad thing, though. We've seen improvements in every other part of the movie experience, why is enhancing the quality of the actual moving picture a bad thing?

  • April 11, 2011, 10:55 p.m. CST

    kisskissbangbang re:Brainstorm

    by justmyluck

    BRAINSTORM's 'playback' scenes were never shot in SHOWSCAN, just 65mm. Likewise, the aspect ratio changed (wider) and the surround channels kicked-in for theatrical exhibition. High FPS for science/nature-like subjects is fine, IMO, but the the beauty of fictional/narrative film is that it is a staged facsimile of reality, not a microscope.

  • April 11, 2011, 10:58 p.m. CST

    justmyluck

    by Billy_D_Williams

    "24fps film @180 shutter angle has a pretty natural approximation of the motion blur we see with our eyes." ----- the problem with this statement is that cinema is not reality, it is enhanced or hyper reality...everything from the lighting, to the sets, to the acting, to the sound is enhanced to dramatize and enhance reality, not duplicate it...so this notion that film frame rate needs to approximate how we see reality in order to work is nonsense...24fps is archaic 20th century tech and needs to be adapted to today's world along with all the other enhancements like 7 channel digital surround...i dont see anyone bitching about DTS 7 channel master audio, but as soon as frame rate gets touched, its unacceptable? lmfao.

  • April 11, 2011, 11 p.m. CST

    robram89

    by justmyluck

    If there was no blur in real life, cinema would have never recorded it.

  • April 11, 2011, 11:01 p.m. CST

    anyone talking about new LOTR blue-rays with higher framerates

    by BadMrWonka

    you really should just give up on understanding any of this...seriously.

  • April 11, 2011, 11:02 p.m. CST

    I think that in solidarity

    by MoffatBabies

    all those that hate 3d should ceremonially pluck their left eyeballs out with a watermelon spoon. Be sure to post the video. You go first! Viva la flat revolucion!!! DEATH BEFORE DEPTH!!!!

  • April 11, 2011, 11:08 p.m. CST

    badmrwonka

    by Billy_D_Williams

    "anyone talking about new LOTR blue-rays with higher framerates...you really should just give up on understanding any of this...seriously." hahahahahahaha...the amount of ignorance in this thread is a sight to behold.

  • April 11, 2011, 11:08 p.m. CST

    48 fps sounds nice but why 3D?

    by Yelsaeb

    I mean besides the increased ticket prices. I can't think of a single time where 3D actually increased the pleasure of my viewing experience. Not even Avatar. 3D just gives me a major headache. And stop motion would be impossible on 48 fps. Nobody would have the patience for that, although it would probably look great.

  • April 11, 2011, 11:09 p.m. CST

    billy_d_williams

    by justmyluck

    Frame rate has been touched from the beginning of cinema, but a 24fps standard was universally adapted as acceptably 'lifelike'. If filmmakers/prducers were REALLY worried about film stock usage, the frame rate would have been lower. Filmed 'reality' is enhanced with with good filmmaking, not ramping up the photon delivery to an unnatural level. Wave your hand around under tungsten light and natural daylight - there's a blur there and, if film is supposed to be presenting 'natural' life, the blur should also be there, this is very very simple. Just because digital allows high-speed (slow motion) photography to be exhibited at high speed, does not mean that is natural AT ALL.

  • April 11, 2011, 11:09 p.m. CST

    yeah

    by Batmanster

    since they are shooting on red cam's film stock has nothing to do with this. And to people wondering if it will look like a bbc doc...the video look happens when things are shot in an interlaced codec where frames are blended together. This is being shot at 48p, which means 48 progressive frames per second, each frame progressively flashing past as a whole individual frame exactly like film. The frame rate being higher just means less strobing/stuttering when things are in motion.

  • April 11, 2011, 11:10 p.m. CST

    This will fix those horrible jumps/tearing you see in pans etc...

    by Ray_Tango

    Done right it won't look like home video. It will look like film, but without the annoying tearing problems you get during panning / tilting shots, and fast motion shots. This is fucking great news.

  • April 11, 2011, 11:17 p.m. CST

    Is it really that hard to understand why some hate 3D?

    by Dr. Egon Spengler

    Some call it a gimmick (like myself), but there are many others out there who suffer some pretty uncomfortable side effects from watching 3D (my wife being one of them). Headaches, nausea, dizziness... Going to the movies should be enjoyable. 3D will never be the standard. Ever.

  • April 11, 2011, 11:22 p.m. CST

    the frame rate isn't all of what makes video look video-ish

    by BadMrWonka

    the long depth of field from TV cameras and other things like camcorders means that more of the image in focus at any given time. that makes the image look flat, and less like what our eye sees. so a really fast frame rate won't necessarily look more like video, if they're shooting with the best lenses, it'll look fine. I shoot in 60fps sometimes for use with slow motion, and the panning shots really look so smooth, it's nice.

  • April 11, 2011, 11:26 p.m. CST

    badmrwonda...It can be done...

    by kidicarus

    If PJ inserts pictures of his flaccid penis every other frame to fill in the gaps.

  • April 11, 2011, 11:28 p.m. CST

    strobe

    by justmyluck

    Has anyone ever had an issue with persistent motion (pan/tilt) strobe in a professionally shot and projected film? It is a rare occurrence and good DP's know how to adjust shutter angle and pan/tilt speed to avoid it. Digital HD cameras, like the RED, are not immune: http://www.reduser.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-28219.html Again, 48-60fps ALONE will not guarantee an improved image, especially with digital.

  • April 11, 2011, 11:38 p.m. CST

    Yes it will look more like video.

    by ufoclub1977

    All you have to do to see what judder free 60p (what Cameron is apparantly going to shoot at now) looks like is check out a blu-ray at the store on an LCD tv with the 120 hz, and anti-judder on. It is like night and day. I've seen Avatar side by side with a tv set at normal display, and you wold think a different camera was filming the smoother footage. It looked like perfect clean VIDEO, and also made it seem much more like some sequence in game or tv show. It looked like behind the scenes footage you see which is often 60interlaced. It will take getting used to, because psychologically we associate smooth lifelike movement with cheap video or live tv. This will make the movie look like a live action theater play, but with incredible "live" special effects and sets. Could be good or bad. But there is a psychological consideration. More lifelike does not mean better in terms of cinematic fantasy. To make an exaggerated analogy: Much the same way a graphic novel can seem more compelling in it's concept than a live action version (or even the same graphic novel done with photos of real models and sets)

  • April 11, 2011, 11:39 p.m. CST

    I should just bow-out on this one B4 it gets ugly

    by justmyluck

    For me, reading about the 'big boys' switching to 48-60fps is like WATCHING A CAR CRASH IN SLOW MOTION. "Okay....good luck with your video game." - Erica Albright

  • April 11, 2011, 11:40 p.m. CST

    60 fps or GTFO

    by Proman1984

  • April 11, 2011, 11:44 p.m. CST

    justmyluck

    by Billy_D_Williams

    "Frame rate has been touched from the beginning of cinema, but a 24fps standard was universally adapted as acceptably 'lifelike'." it was adopted as lifelike back then because they were still making movies in black and white and audiences were not very sophisticated...as soon as gaudy color, visual FX and stereo surround came into the picture, (which they had no problem with, even though none of that is "lifelike"), the frame rate should have been enhanced along with it. there is a very practical reason it wasn't...COST. at that point the infrastructure for displaying 24fps was well in place and it would be too expensive to convert. now with digital, its not an issue. "Filmed 'reality' is enhanced with with good filmmaking, not ramping up the photon delivery to an unnatural level." again, you dont seem to have a problem with them ramping up the sound to digital surround, which is not lifelike (its in your face sound)...yet with frame rate you're some sort of anal retentive. sound being enhanced is just another trick they use to separate film from reality, not match the two...so why is upping the frame rate, and getting rid of motion blur (since film with all of its edits, line crossing, dissolves, fades, color enhancements, stock variations isn't even remotely "realistic" these days) some sort of sin? its merely finishing what they started with editing, sound and visual FX...all upped and enhanced to separate film from reality to transport the audience from their boring lives. what you're saying makes very little sense...i've seen 48fps shot film projected at the same rate and it looks amazing. revolutionary, easier on the eyes...yet you somehow think this is going to ruin the already accepted illusion of movies??? laughable. movies are fantasy by the very nature of the medium...upping the frame rate makes sense. "Wave your hand around under tungsten light and natural daylight - there's a blur there and, if film is supposed to be presenting 'natural' life, the blur should also be there" actually film is not presenting 'natural' life...tell me, what is natural about alien invasions? robots fighting each other? superhuman serial killers? time travel? acrobatic martial artists? those represent the majority of films hollywood makes and even something american beauty is nothing like reality. a man completely changes his life within a week? totally unrealistic, even though the mise en scene is presented realistically, plotwise and narratively there is nothing realistic about it...even basic staging of the actors and editing to compress time is totally unrealistic...everything about movies is faker than fake...but because its shot at 24fps, you THINK it is somehow approximate to reality. NOW, 48fps probably wouldn't be appropriate for something like american beauty or other dramas because of the mundane nature of the narrative...but for 80% of hollywood movies, 48fps makes total sense.

  • April 11, 2011, 11:44 p.m. CST

    60fps is like our natural vision.

    by ufoclub1977

    60fps is more like what our eyes see as far as motion. Not 24fps! With our eyes we get a shallow depth of field (exaggerated by psychological focus on images that have significance) with about a 60 fps processing of motion. that's what Showscan was all about. And that's what shooting with a professional HD camera in 60p mode is all about. More like real life vision. Even pro-sumer cameras can do it. 48fps is an unnatural rate. I think it will not look completely soap opera-ish (good!). But it definitely more smooths and clarifies camera/subject movements and motion blur.

  • April 11, 2011, 11:49 p.m. CST

    ufoclub1977

    by Billy_D_Williams

    you dont have a clue what you're talking about... see batmanster's post.

  • April 11, 2011, 11:52 p.m. CST

    ufoclub...

    by Billy_D_Williams

    if you bothered to read the article, Jackson said 48fps was virtually indistinguishable from 60fps, and ill trust him over some anonymous monkey spanker on the internet.

  • April 11, 2011, 11:53 p.m. CST

    justmyluck, looking back, I misspoke...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...I meant to say that Trumbull had _wanted_ to film the playback scenes in Brainstorm in Showscan, and settled for 65mm, changed aspect ratio, etc. Am I wrong in this? I got to see a sneak of Brainstorm at a Worldcon and discussed the film with a rep at the time, but it's been the better part of three decades now and I concede I may be misremembering. But wasn't it Trumbull's original intention? Thanks in advance for further clarification, and if you could point me toward interviews or other pieces about the matter, I'd appreciate it.

  • April 12, 2011, 12:16 a.m. CST

    okay, last one for billy_d...

    by justmyluck

    ...since he took the time to respond. Audiences were as sophisticated (probably MORE sophisticated) as they are today. What changes over time is FAMILIARITY. The more things become familiar, the more they must changed to appear as 'new' 'more lifelike' and 'more interesting' to audiences. Likewise, what Jackson and Cameron are aiming for with the high FPS is a 'new image' to get more people under the circus tents. Regarding surround sound, did you ever hear of FANTASOUND? People wanted to hear a 'orchestral sounding' music on cylinders/records/tapes from the beginning. There were never such public desires with the projected image, except the BASIC public interest in going from monochrome to color. -- "movies are fantasy by the very nature of the medium...upping the frame rate makes sense" -- Removing motion blur and the occasional smidgen of strobe has nothing to do with fantasy...again, that's covered in the domain of TECHNIQUE & ARTISTRY, not FPS. Debates over personal taste can go on forever. In my posts above I'm clear that human vision presents significant blur and slow motion photography exhibited at high speed does not. Again, it's just changing the goal posts on the FAMILIAR to the NEW. With regards to actual film or dramatic content, 48-60fps offers very little, unless you're heading in the realm of science/documentary/nature, where subjects are slowed and studied (as they always have been with high-speed photography, anyway). Just wait until you see all the CGI simulations and smoke and particles and 'fire' and 'water' all running at 48-60fps with no real blur to blend them together...you might as well put on some 3D goggles and play HALO.

  • April 12, 2011, 12:20 a.m. CST

    kisskissbangbang

    by justmyluck

    Yes, Trumbull wanted BRAINSTORM to be a 'SHOWSCAN showcase', but the studios wouldn't back it. http://www.douglastrumbull.com Outties!

  • April 12, 2011, 12:26 a.m. CST

    Why not make it 100fps or 120 or 200??

    by kingoflight

    why's 48 so special if the blurring starts to go at 48 make it higher and get rid of it all together. fucking blur who does he think he is messing with my contrasting lines.

  • April 12, 2011, 12:28 a.m. CST

    I don't get why people are arguing that

    by Batmanster

    film should be presented in a way that emulates our vision...ie motion blur when panning, etc. I'm watching the thing using my vision...why should what i am watching double up on the inherent flaws my vision already has? The world does not exist in a state of motion blur...so if you are really about wanting to present things in a realistic way you should want it to be lucid and flawless. Your eyes would then take care of the rest of the "realism".

  • April 12, 2011, 12:33 a.m. CST

    billy_d_williams...

    by ufoclub1977

    maybe you'd trust Douglas Trumbull or James Cameron? Or any article on the subject. Why not find out for yourself? Just look it up. See for yourself. Do a test. I'm sure there are many random tests uploaded all over the internet. Like here: http://vimeo.com/11022511 or here: http://vimeo.com/10584426 you have to download the file and check the framerate in whatever movie player you use. Make sure you are seeing what is advertised. Decide for yourself, but really don't trust the man trying to sell you his product. Or listen to some anonymous post proclaim that the motion characteristic of 60i or 60p is different. Judge for yourself. Shooting in 48p or 60p is not a new technology. It's just new for a professional entertainment (Hollywood) movie in the theaters that wants your money.

  • April 12, 2011, 12:40 a.m. CST

    I'm pretty sure I knew this two fucking days ago!!

    by pushthebuttonmax

  • April 12, 2011, 1:02 a.m. CST

    Consequences in Post Production

    by Alexndrph

    As someone who works in visual effects, my first reaction to this news was a long, sad, defeated sigh. Twice the frame rate means twice the work for an FX artist. That's twice as many frames that need careful consideration. Twice as much hand animation. Twice the time for simulations. Renders will take twice the time (most already take several hours per shot). Turnaround will be twice as long for any given shot. You can bet your ass that studios will not allow post production to add the extra time needed, and will not allow FX houses to charge twice as much. It will create a terrible burden on FX houses, most of whom are barely surviving paycheck to paycheck (at least those based in the US). Most FX houses already have a sweat-shop quality to them, due to lack of union protection. This will make it even worse. I'm also wondering where he plans to project this? Are there any digital projection systems in use that can display anything above 24fps? Film projection is out of the question.

  • April 12, 2011, 1:03 a.m. CST

    60fps is a slow-mo speed.

    by theBigWasted

  • April 12, 2011, 1:04 a.m. CST

    My mind is totally blown

    by MooseMalloy

    dude

  • April 12, 2011, 1:14 a.m. CST

    As anyone who works in the industry knows 24fps is a coveted look,

    by theBigWasted

    that blur is the 'film-look' and it's what gives film the warmer, more intimate feel than the faster, less-blurred look of 30fps or +. methinks the author knows not of which he speaks. as far as 60fps goes, it's easily done. all my cameras can shoot at 60fps. it's a slow-mo speed. unless you want your film to look like a bad British television show, keep it at 24fps.

  • April 12, 2011, 1:15 a.m. CST

    AICN COOL NEWS A WEEK LATE

    by theplant

    THIS HAVE BEEN NEWS LIKE LAST WEEK, WHAT GIVES ?

  • April 12, 2011, 1:18 a.m. CST

    Ive seen this in action though

    by MoffatBabies

    I think probably one of the better examples, and I'm not sure what frame rate Trumbull chose for it, perhaps higher than 48? It was this god-awful "ride" they had at the Luxor in Vegas. I'm almost certain it was Trumbull (2001). And although the "ride" itself was extremely goofy, the quality of the whole thing was astounding. When Ebert says that high frame rate is better than 3d, I think he's way.... way off the mark. BUT it is unquestionably a breathtaking difference. A difference that will honestly shock you the first time you see it. Almost as if you'd seen it before, it must activate some part of the brain associated with vivid, distant memory. I'm encouraged by the fact that they have chosen to mix the 2, high frame rate and 3d, because I don't think the general population realizes what it's doing when it po-poos all over 3d. We're really just slowing progress toward eventual 3d, immersive, true VR. I'd rather have that sooner than later, personally. I think the reaction to the 2 combined will be very positive. I just hope that if it's screened in 2d, they choose to do so at 24fps so as to not dilute the weight of the presentation. Don't even give people the option to say "yeah, but I think the 48fps 2d version was better". That way if they want to be bandwagoning, creepy little sheep, they can just forget it. And let's face it, most of the people that come to places like this and just keep repeating the same criticisms of 3d really are just bandwagoning. And it's very mainstreamed. Even Wired magazing, usually forward-thinking, took a few jabs at 3d last month, repeating the "stupid glasses" mantra. Boo. Shame on you all.

  • April 12, 2011, 1:18 a.m. CST

    Doubling film costs ?!

    by theplant

    shot on digital ? Someone is having a brain meltdown at some of the posts. 35mm film is what always put film out of reach for amateur filmmakers. Now with digital, everyone is equal, with amateurs still sucking vs great talent shooting films. On digital.

  • April 12, 2011, 1:20 a.m. CST

    Peter Jackson was also guilty of shaky-cam in the battles.

    by V'Shael

    Not Bourne bad, but pretty fucking shaky. Will 48fps make this better or worse?

  • April 12, 2011, 1:24 a.m. CST

    Sorry folks.

    by MoffatBabies

    These people who claim to know what they're talking about when it comes to frame rates and higher rates being perceived as "video"? No idea what they're talking about. If they were a little less arrogant about it maybe I'd be less harsh, but the fact is they have no clue. 48fps does NOT have a "video look". Period. And if it's film, it retains its "warmth" just fine. Until you've seen film that's been shot at high frame rates and projected properly at the same rate, you just don't know. I'd like to describe it as hyper-real, but that does it an injustice. Like VR, you cannot really describe the impact. It has to bee seen. I'd describe it more as "flat reality". It looks like a flat version of reality. Close one eye, and that's how it kind of looks.

  • April 12, 2011, 1:27 a.m. CST

    I'll Punch Ebert in the Jaw

    by Queefer Sutherland

    If he doesn't like this idea!

  • April 12, 2011, 1:27 a.m. CST

    people who "work in the industry"

    by MoffatBabies

    also make crap films that look like shit. Working in the industry doesn't make high frame rate presentation something it isn't. Fact is... it looks better and doesn't lose "the film look" unless it isn't film. And to the one above talking about blu-ray "getting rid of grain" needs glasses. Blu Ray reveals grain, not the other way around.

  • For those of us who produce and finance production independently it means LONG render times, and the need for more efficient render farms. More $$$ to spend on boxes. I sometimes make or convert stuff to 24p even if it's just video documentation just to reduce the file size and render time. Less frames to color style in post! But the strobing on lateral 24p movement has always been irritating. You know? This could be a revolution if the movie is popular. Cameron even pushing for 60p. I wonder if that will be posted as news here (from April 4, 2011): "CinemaCon: James Cameron Demos the Future of Cinema at 60 FPS" http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/cinemacon-james-cameron-demos-the-future-of-cinema-at-60-fps/

  • April 12, 2011, 1:35 a.m. CST

    Thanks, justmyluck...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...much appreciated. Always good to know your memories aren't totally misleading. Oh, and stay classy, queefer. If you ever get to classy.

  • April 12, 2011, 1:52 a.m. CST

    In his own words...

    by jazzdownunder

    "The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps" and then later on the same mouth utters ... "Take it from me--if we do release in 48 fps, those are the cinemas you should watch the movie in." On other words, if they do release in 48 fps and having shot in 48 fps, if you see it in a 24 fps theatre, not only will the 24 fps look not as good as the 48 fps, but it won't even look as good as it would have had it been shot in 24 fps!!! I am pretty sure you can't just chop out every other frame and hope the eye doesn't notice!! So, when people then decry the shit quality of the version shown in 24 fps theatres, this will be hailed as vindication of the fact that even Joe Blow can tell the difference and the industry will be strong armed into going 48 fps.... They tried to shoe-horn everyone on the 3D band wagon... the wheels came off. So here we go, here's the next driver for compelling change. Change = $$'s for those peddling the technology of course. Just when you thought cinema ticket prices might start to come back down to earth after the "investment" in 3D ......

  • April 12, 2011, 1:53 a.m. CST

    justmyluck

    by Billy_D_Williams

    we can argue this til we're blue in the face...the bottom line is your opinion is your opinion because you've not been presented with the option of an alternative...24fps is the standard bc there is no other alternative...so of course you dont want it to change, you've been conditioned to accept it... ive seen 48 fps shot and projected at the same rate and it retains the cinematic quality of film, but is vastly clearer, easier on the eyes and just mind blowing... the bottom line is, 48fps is a reality, its coming, you cant stop it, and your whining about it just looks silly. resistance is futile.

  • April 12, 2011, 1:54 a.m. CST

    ufoclub1977

    by Billy_D_Williams

    ive already seen 48 fps shot and projected at the same rate...

  • April 12, 2011, 2:01 a.m. CST

    justmyluck

    by Billy_D_Williams

    this is an excerpt from an article with a james cameron interview where he talks about WHY frame rate does not equal cinematic: "I would much rather have movies look like movies, with a stylistic edge, but as Cameron reiterated, that kind of style comes from the angle of the shutter and lighting in the scene, not necessarily the framerate." http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/cinemacon-james-cameron-demos-the-future-of-cinema-at-60-fps/

  • April 12, 2011, 2:03 a.m. CST

    If you want to know what Trumbull thinks about all this watch here for tech demo

    by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm

    this was reported last week but here they have a link to a video showing the tech. http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/04/06/andy-serkis-directing-second-unit-on-the-hobbit-film-being-shot-at-48-fps/

  • from all the tech talk. I do trust Jackson, but I hope this frame rate doesn't become the standard. I really like the look and feel of 24 fps. And I agree that we don't need 3-D.

  • April 12, 2011, 2:21 a.m. CST

    Juansanchez

    by D o o d

    You're quite right, however with such a big movie you're going to find it difficult to find any cinema playing it in 2D. I absolutely detest 3D!

  • April 12, 2011, 2:29 a.m. CST

    OK is it just me

    by Shubniggorath

    ...or is it a foregone conclusion that this format will be digital? People are ranting about how expensive it will be on film, and I do not think it will be on film at 48fps. Maybe I'm the retard but it sounds from the facebook post that copies sent out to theaters still using film in 2012 will be at 24fps. Read what Pete has to say, THEN bunch them panties up! I for one found it to be an educational read.

  • April 12, 2011, 2:31 a.m. CST

    Also about >60fps

    by Shubniggorath

    If I remember correctly the human eye detects images at 60fps, so higher frame rates are unnecessary. I really could be wrong on this, though, 5 glasses of ale fills my head with tall tales.

  • April 12, 2011, 2:32 a.m. CST

    Every Time FPS Comes Up In Video Game Discussion

    by Autodidact

    Some pedantic fuckhole will say "anything more than 60 fps is pointless because your eye can't detect it" at which point I go into fantasy mode about a world where people don't immediately volunteer the one bit of misinformation they possess at the mention of every new topic.

  • April 12, 2011, 2:47 a.m. CST

    @billyd - pointing out the flaws isn't whining, it's observing

    by jazzdownunder

    As the man himself said, if you shoot at 48fps you have to project at 48 fps. Given that the vast (and I mean overwhelmingly vast) majority of theatres currently cannot project at 48fps, and I doubt that ALL will be capable even by the time THE HOBBIT is released, this guarantees a sub-standard experience of this movie in those theatres. 3D vs 2D is a personal choice - you can watch a film in 2D or 3D versions without losing anything (except a bit of brightness and a few more headache pills if you are so afflicted when viewing 3D). But by shooting at 48 fps, even tho you have the illusion of "choosing" 24 fps projection, you really don't, because if you do, you will be certain to get something that is not as good as it could have been in that theatre. Unless they are actually shooting 72 fps - i.e. simultaneously 48 fps AND 24 fps - which I don't believe for one moment. Yes, 24fps was an arbitrary choice almost 100 years ago for technical reasons. BUT the technology HAS existed for a LONG time to "improve" on that IF we really wanted to and if the merits were so compelling, why wouldn't we want to? It's not as if someone only JUST thought of upping the framerate to see what it looked like and has been SURPRISED at what they found. So ask yourself... who makes money out of this? The answer to THAT will answer the question as to WHY it is being done.

  • April 12, 2011, 2:47 a.m. CST

    Are they filming Riddles in the Dark there?

    by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm

    I read that Andy Sirkis is all done motion capture wise hence him now on second unit duties. I guess that means they tackled this bit first.....

  • April 12, 2011, 2:48 a.m. CST

    LOL

    by Shubniggorath

    Like I said, I could be wrong about this... the supposed knowledge DID come from video game forums so there ya go!

  • April 12, 2011, 2:52 a.m. CST

    Persistence of vision is a wonderful thing

    by justmyluck

    Doing very bad here on staying out of this, but I've read ufoclub1977's link from the Cameron presentation and the TB slowed so... ufoclub1977 : that article confirms for me that the industry pitch for 48-60 FPS is motion smoothness over resolution, which I'm not in favor of, and I'll elaborate on that below. moffatbabies: I've seen the download-able frame rate examples, I've seen the 60Hz/f broadcast demos, and (like probably everyone here) I've even seen that horrible 'soap opera' motionflow (120+hz frame interpolation) for the HD sets presenting FILMS on video. I've never been 'immersed' by 48+fps FILM itself with the ride simulators moving you around and all the doo-dads. I'll take your word that it deceives the eye, but I'm guessing, like the recent Cameron demo, it's about 'vividly smooth' (great for sports & action, but not the best for that werewolf makeup job). batmanster : "The world does not exist in a state of motion blur." batmanster, probably the most valid point made re: higher FPS (and I've thought this myself) but the world is not OBSERVED at an atomic level of motion. We observe in a very analog way with a persistence of vision, which is supposedly 1/25 sec. Despite their old technology, Cinema's pioneers were not dummies, and they understood 24 was at the threshold of persistence of vision. This is why, IMO, 24fps is the GOLDEN RATIO of 'natural' motion picture speeds. Recording 'natural' motion blur on film does not double the perceived blur. What we see in theaters is STROBE MADE SMOOTH. What it provides is an analogous image of the action at the threshold of image persistence. It allows your mind to relax in its watching task, instead of being actively AWARE OF WATCHING. You know, like like watching a 60fps refresh rate demo and going WOW, WOW, WOW at some Medieval feast for 20 minutes with James Cameron! Get it? When you see an 'Avid fart' series of edits, even these edits have to be 'slowed' to 2-3 frames so your mind perceives the images. Likewise, they would have to be 'slowed' to 4-6 frames at 48-60fps. The 'natural' 24fps blur is the camera doing that same 'slowing' task for you. Like I said earlier; if the blur didn't exist in reality, the camera wouldn't have recorded it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm betting Cameron and Jackson's projects - with the sets, creatures and CGI everywhere - will look like CGI soap operas when projected native 48-60fps, and I'm sticking by 'idiot savants' until further notice. Maybe one solution would be variable FPS, like variable bitrate audio. Very easy for a projector to be triggered by a frame-rate data track. It ramps up for action scenes, slows down for still scenes - sell it as a VIMAX presentation. Someone go and patent it quickly, because I'm not in a financial position to secure the legal papers worldwide.

  • April 12, 2011, 2:54 a.m. CST

    Hang on...

    by batmans_pants

    does this mean that I'm going going to need a new Blu-ray player & TV thats is 48 fps compatible when this comes out on BD?

  • April 12, 2011, 2:55 a.m. CST

    The only idiotic thing here is you

    by Emilio Fumagalli

    I don't know about Eggbert, but when quoting Murch, you're quoting the first editor who won an oscar for a digitally edited film. So by calling him a dinasour, you're not just showing yourself as the ignoramus you are, you're also betraying your lack of knowledge. Personally, I think modern 3D (let alone double playback rate) is still quite new, and as in all cinematic technology, it will need time to fall in the hands of the right people to showcase its unique capabilities and form an integral part (as opposed to a gimmick) of the final work of art. It's wait and see for me. But sheer disrespect towards Murch, one of the great pillars of modern Cinema, is pure ignorance.

  • April 12, 2011, 2:58 a.m. CST

    Get ready for double blurays...

    by Mel

    of quadruple knowing how long The Hobbit will probably be

  • April 12, 2011, 3:02 a.m. CST

    billy_d_williams

    by justmyluck

    re: "I would much rather have movies look like movies, with a stylistic edge, but as Cameron reiterated, that kind of style comes from the angle of the shutter and lighting in the scene, not necessarily the framerate." Didn't I already post above to you (Apr 11, 2011 11:09:30 PM CDT), "Filmed 'reality' is enhanced with with good filmmaking, not ramping up the photon delivery to an unnatural level."?

  • April 12, 2011, 3:06 a.m. CST

    And where exactly am I supposed to watch a 48 fps movie?

    by Mel

    Bluray players and DVD players cant play back at 48 fps...nor could the disc size hold them. No theaters around me have the kind of projector you'd need, either... so this news means nothing to me.

  • April 12, 2011, 3:12 a.m. CST

    He should just shoot at 1fps and put out a photonovel.

    by Dennis_Moore

  • April 12, 2011, 3:14 a.m. CST

    Seriously, though, they'll use this to push HVD onto the market.

    by Dennis_Moore

  • April 12, 2011, 3:14 a.m. CST

    justmyluck

    by Billy_D_Williams

    "Maybe I'm wrong" ------------ Yup. if you really think these movies are going to look like big budget soap operas, you're not as smart as i thought.

  • April 12, 2011, 3:21 a.m. CST

    justmyluck

    by Billy_D_Williams

    "Didn't I already post above to you (Apr 11, 2011 11:09:30 PM CDT), "Filmed 'reality' is enhanced with with good filmmaking, not ramping up the photon delivery to an unnatural level."?" ---- yes but you're using that to justify sticking to 24fps, when you're not taking into account the reason for upping the frame rate for 3D, its because 3D brings out all the flaws of 24fps because of the stereoscopic view...that is the whole reason they're increasing the frame rate...it was one of the complaints i had about avatar....you're simply talking about taste...there is no defacto standard for cinematic images other than the forced 24fps, which is there simply by default and the expensive infrastructure in place. again, there is no stopping this, so you're just wasting your time whining.

  • April 12, 2011, 3:21 a.m. CST

    billy_d_williams

    by justmyluck

    A leg humping after my detailed responses? And, from the Cameron re-quote, you obviously weren't reading my posts. That's enough for you.

  • April 12, 2011, 3:24 a.m. CST

    dennis_moore

    by justmyluck

    HA!

  • April 12, 2011, 3:28 a.m. CST

    jazzdownunder

    by Billy_D_Williams

    "As the man himself said, if you shoot at 48fps you have to project at 48 fps. Given that the vast (and I mean overwhelmingly vast) majority of theatres currently cannot project at 48fps, and I doubt that ALL will be capable even by the time THE HOBBIT is released, this guarantees a sub-standard experience of this movie in those theatres." ----- uh, wrong...you dont know what you're talking about...taken from a recent James Cameron article: "But Cameron confirmed that in order for theaters to be able to use/show 48 or 60FPS, all they would need is a software upgrade to any existing "Generation 2" projectors - those manufacturer in 2010 and beyond. So most digital cinemas are already capable of running these framrates, it's just a matter of making them the norm." http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/cinemacon-james-cameron-demos-the-future-of-cinema-at-60-fps/ But by shooting at 48 fps, even tho you have the illusion of "choosing" 24 fps projection, you really don't, because if you do, you will be certain to get something that is not as good as it could have been in that theatre." ----- this sentence makes absolutely no sense.

  • April 12, 2011, 3:31 a.m. CST

    justmyluck

    by Billy_D_Williams

    another anal retentive whiner who wont accept the inevitable...you really haven't proven a thing here, merely opinion.

  • April 12, 2011, 3:37 a.m. CST

    billy_d_williams, please stop whining about me...

    by justmyluck

    ... it's filling up the TB with mere opinion.

  • April 12, 2011, 3:47 a.m. CST

    @ moffatbabies:

    by Jack_North

    moffatbabies wrote: "These people who claim to know what they're talking about when it comes to frame rates and higher rates being perceived as "video"? No idea what they're talking about. If they were a little less arrogant about it maybe I'd be less harsh, but the fact is they have no clue." Have you ever seen an old black & white movie on an 100/120Hz-TV? It looks and "feels" like Video-Images. That's what people here are talking about. And it's real.

  • April 12, 2011, 4:02 a.m. CST

    "Soap Opera" Effect is A Conversion Artifact

    by Autodidact

    When you design the whole system around a given framerate it's not going to be like turning on your TV's motion smoothing feature. Motion smoothing looks like shit for movies because it's creating interpolated frames when 24P movies are not meant to feel smooth like that. These systems won't be inserting any frames and the content will be filmed around it. I hope.

  • April 12, 2011, 4:16 a.m. CST

    all new technology is met with skepticism

    by Billy_D_Williams

    this is no different resistance is futile...

  • April 12, 2011, 4:31 a.m. CST

    check this out...very cool:

    by Billy_D_Williams

    http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

  • April 12, 2011, 4:34 a.m. CST

    halfbreedqueen

    by Billy_D_Williams

    "2D stuff ALREADY can do 48 (really 60) fps and yes it looks different, and arguably worse, or at least less "film-y" since, as has been said, the blur is what helps film look like film." film looks like film no matter what frame rate you shoot it at....film can't NOT look like itself, since it IS film. what you're talking about is what audiences have been conditioned to expect since it's been the standard for decades, but there is nothing inherently wrong with higher frame rates, and the cinematic look has more to do with shutter angle and lighting that frame rates. and yes, 3D needs higher frame rates because of the stereoscopic image.

  • April 12, 2011, 4:39 a.m. CST

    The proof is in the watching, so I'll reserve judgement till I see it

    by Col. Tigh-Fighter

    However, comments about post production costs, cinema refitting, crew time (DIT) are all true. This will be an expensive thing, and the costs will be put onto us. A fluctuating frame rate, like someone suggested sounds good. Crank it up for the flashy stuff, and slow it down for the drama. As someone who spends his time waiting for the DIT guy to hurry the fuck up and download those memory cards so I can fuck off home, I dont rellish his time doubling. Because on all but the biggest budget films, they wont pay for extra staff or equipment.

  • April 12, 2011, 5:04 a.m. CST

    http://www.b2bjordans.com

    by gdahgi

    good

  • April 12, 2011, 5:52 a.m. CST

    48 FPS IS ASTOUNDING. BUT IT HAS ME DEEPLY CONCERNED.

    by BringingSexyBack

    It begs the question: just because we *can* do a thing, does it necessarily mean we must do that thing? Proceed. But with extreme caution.

  • April 12, 2011, 6:02 a.m. CST

    IT'S LIKE MY NANNY ALWAYS SAID

    by BringingSexyBack

    Mo' frames mo' betta.

  • April 12, 2011, 6:20 a.m. CST

    FUCK YOU, GEORGE. THIS IS 18 BETTER.

    by Darth Busey

  • http://www.hulu.com/watch/229603/american-dad-license-to-till#s-p1-so-i0 Time@ 17:24 What's going on Big Red?

  • Don't leave me hanging Hare.

  • April 12, 2011, 7:42 a.m. CST

    harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm

    by Damien Brown

    Yes! That's what I think! It clearly looks like Martin Freeman as Bilbo - he looks scared/cold... The fact that he's on his own as well is telling.

  • April 12, 2011, 7:47 a.m. CST

    The frame rate difference will be noticeable..

    by alienindisguise

    but it won't look like video so don't get your nuts in a bunch. Any of you with the canon hv series of hd camcorder can shoot at 48 frames and see the difference for yourselves. I've done it and it does create quite a smooth image with all kinds of movement going on.

  • April 12, 2011, 8 a.m. CST

    you what a frame rate faster than 24fps film looks like?

    by FleshMachine

    video. not idea about this 48fps thing.

  • April 12, 2011, 8:01 a.m. CST

    BLURAY can only play 24fps...regardless of how it was shot

    by FleshMachine

    interlaced or progressive. i cant imagine this means anything for other than digital projection

  • April 12, 2011, 8:02 a.m. CST

    yeah i think he means 2x24fps. 1 for each eye

    by FleshMachine

    shooting "faster" make zero sense unless you are doing slomo

  • April 12, 2011, 8:03 a.m. CST

    Quick someone tell Michael Mann

    by Samuel Fulmer

    So he can shoot a film digitally that doesn't look like shit.

  • April 12, 2011, 8:13 a.m. CST

    yes, this 48fps a meant as a joke: harry you are an idiot.

    by FleshMachine

    its being shot normally at 24fps...but with 2 cameras. jackson is joking that hes shooting at 48 fps.

  • April 12, 2011, 8:15 a.m. CST

    i guess he is shooting at 48fps...wtf?

    by FleshMachine

    weirdorama

  • uh......ok.

  • April 12, 2011, 8:16 a.m. CST

    yeah: only for specific digital theaters

    by FleshMachine

    thats it

  • God, I hate that look. I want movies to have a "filmic" look. That's one of the things that bothered me about Public Enemies. It did not have that "filmic" look. It looked like they were showing the behind the scenes footage at times instead of the actual movie. IAnd yeah, I've also seen those TVs that make movies shot on film look look like they were shot on video. But apparently, that can be adjusted.

  • April 12, 2011, 8:40 a.m. CST

    @jack_north

    by MoffatBabies

    Thanks for the reply. Actually there's a reason why an old B&W movie would look bad at higher refresh rate. Because it was not produced to be seen at that refresh rate. But you're talking about video refresh rate there, not fps. Imagine playing a video game that runs at 100fps. Now imagine that you're watching it and playing it on a monitor with a 85hz refresh rate. That means the screen is refreshing (new image) 85 times every second. (essentially). If you watched a digital projection of an old film shot at 24fps and watched it on an "improvified" monitor or projection system at 120hz refresh rate, of course it will look odd and unnatural, with a "video" or "shiny" look to it. But an example of how it looked impressive, yet still somehow not quite right, was when I watched Avatar on a home theater system that projected at 120hz refresh rate. Since the source was still, even with that film, not higher fps, it didn't seem right and almost took on a shiny, fast, video "feel". That was because the system had to sort of .. interpolate the missing information. Some people don't like the look of that, I found it sharper. But with a sped up feel, even though it was not sped up at all. But when the source more closely approaches the capabilities of the presentation technology, it doesn't look off, wrong, fast or "video" like at all. Say when you were to watch something shot at 60fps and the refresh rate were 120hz. 24fps material will never truly be better looking JUST because it's been interpolated. But material shot at a higher frame rate will not have that same off or odd look to it. The reason for it looking like video IS the interpolation, not the higher frame rate or refresh rate. To really see what this will be like, you must watch.. say.. a new film shot at 60fps and projected at 60fps or with digital projection that has a higher refresh rate than the frame rate. But even in that case, if the refresh rate is significantly higher than the source (say 120hz), there will be no obvious artifacts of the interpolation from the lower (60fps) frame rate because you will not have any kind of baseline to compare it with, especially if the source is digital. You'd have to have been there when they shot it and watched. And you would have to assume that 60fps looks like video, which it does not.

  • April 12, 2011, 8:44 a.m. CST

    shooting "faster" makes zero sense?

    by MoffatBabies

    Might wanna brush up there a bit, buddy.

  • April 12, 2011, 8:48 a.m. CST

    Jackson's statement about it all

    by MoffatBabies

    In case it hadn't been posted already. Clears a few things up. And the reduced eye strain thing makes sense, even though it's something I've never experienced personally when watching 3d content. http://tinyurl.com/4yy2ne5 in case anyone here doesn't use or like Facebook.. like me.

  • April 12, 2011, 8:48 a.m. CST

    JERSEY SHORE IS SHOT AT 24 FPS

    by BringingSexyBack

    Because guidos just don't move very fast. They're chill.

  • April 12, 2011, 8:48 a.m. CST

    and yes I know it was posted in the article

    by MoffatBabies

    But I've read so much here already that indicates maybe people didn't read it.

  • April 12, 2011, 8:50 a.m. CST

    DANCING WITH THE STARS IS BEGGING TO BE SHOT AT 60 FPS

    by BringingSexyBack

    So we can savor every frame of Cheryl Burke's luscious ass.

  • April 12, 2011, 8:51 a.m. CST

    WHEN I'M PUMPING ONE OUT TO ZOOEY DESCHANEL

    by BringingSexyBack

    Ain't no camera fast enough to capture that action.

  • April 12, 2011, 8:54 a.m. CST

    I TESTED A SAMSUNG 3D TV FOR TWO DAYS

    by BringingSexyBack

    Fucked up my vision something fierce. That was scary ass shit. Didn't happen with Avatar though. I read that home 3D makes you watch cross-eyed and messes up your depth of field or some shit like that.

  • April 12, 2011, 8:58 a.m. CST

    the CD/Vinyl comment might have been a bit off

    by MoffatBabies

    I still love vinyl. Some of it sounds amazing, especially older recordings or analog recordings. But some of the purists out there are really fooling themselves. I knew a guy that used to master and press records. And the master recordings would have to be eq'd for vinyl, often cutting some of the quality. And after things started going digital and electronic, they had to start doing more of the same. Dd you know that if you just slapped a recording as it's mastered for some CDs and just cut a record from it, when you played them back many of them would literally make the needle jump physically off the record? 24fps is limited, just as vinyl is limited. For old films, of course they should be watched at 24fps. Just like many old albums sound so much better and right on vinyl. But digital simply IS better and more accurate in both cases. And improvements in resolution (whether it's more bits of sound per second or more bits of image per second) are simply improvements and there's no getting around that fact.

  • April 12, 2011, 9:27 a.m. CST

    48p is being used over 60p because...

    by blackmantis

    With 48p you can down scale it to a 24p print by just removing every other frame, and The Hobbit will still show in regular theaters at 24p. With 60p you can't do it cleanly because the math doesn't work, you get motion artifacts and have to do a lot of processing to get it to work. And you don't have to put in new projectors. All 3D projectors today are digital, and changing the frame rate is as easy as flipping a switch. My cheapo home projector can play at 24p and 60p.

  • April 12, 2011, 9:35 a.m. CST

    Dies

    by spiritual28

    This will kill so many small fx shops. Already they have to deal with that stereo shit (yay, let's double the number of frames and rob you of most of your 2D tricks for making effects work!) Now, lets double it again! That's 4 times what you used to have to deal with, but of course it's still a 5 second shot (or whatever), we're not paying more for it... What, you need more time to deliver the shots? You're lying, I've been in the business for years and I know how things are done! More unpaid overtime. It is so worth it.

  • April 12, 2011, 9:42 a.m. CST

    Does forced perspective work in 3D?

    by Dreamfasting

    I can't help but think that some of the tricks used in LotR to get a hobbit to coexist on sceen with elves and men aren't going to work in 3D. But I guess where there's a will there's a way.

  • April 12, 2011, 9:51 a.m. CST

    I'd still rather see Del Toro's 2D Hobbit.

    by leonardo_dicraprio

  • April 12, 2011, 10:02 a.m. CST

    Watch examples of higher progressive framerate

    by ufoclub1977

    Just search on vimeo and download the movie file and play it in a movie player on your desktop. then you can judge for yourself as to whether a progressive HD movie at a higher frame rate does or does not "look like video". Personally, I define "looking like video" as looking more real. For me that's affected by fators of motion perception and visual color/dynamic range, not resolution or interlacing or interpolating. Many broadcast movies are converted to a frame pulldown that repeats and interpolates frames into a 60 interlaced format. So they force the 24p movie into a 60i format. But the motion and color/dynamic range information is still only 24fps and that of film (or imitation film) respectively. So it still feels like what we have been conditioned to feel is professional cinema. The shutter angle does affect the look of an image in terms of motion blur, but I don't think motion blur is a make or break factor on the old film look. Watch the beginning of "Saving Private Ryan" where the shutter speed has been increased to almost eliminate motion blur. The motion is still presented at a less realistic (hence more historically cinematic) 24fps. The simple fact is that more frames per second looks more like real life AKA more "live". So really the debate should be whether a movie looking more "live" is more appealing. I do think that we could get used to it. But again I'll bring up an analogy to comics or cartoons seeming more enticing then real photography in the still frame narrative world. It's quite possible that we will be psychologically, instinctually more critical of a movie in terms of concept and acting if everything looks more live. And that could be a movie's death toll if it has more hammy ingredients at the outset of this new trend... before audiences get used to it. I suspect the reason for 48p advocation is that a large percentage of digital cinema projectors in theaters can already project at 48p. So this makes business sense. "... specification for digital projectors calls for two levels of playback to be supported: 2K (2048×1080) at 24 or 48 frames per second, and 4K (4096×2160) at 24 frames per second." Currently, it seems like standard blu-ray players can only play a higher framerate at 720p.

  • April 12, 2011, 11:04 a.m. CST

    When will 3D just go away?

    by elsachmo

    I can't seem to find anyone who actually enjoys it, many can't see it properly, it hurts many people's eyes, and many theaters can't even show it. It's the stupidest gimmick ever. Avatar was the only film I've ever seen that had decent 3D effects, and it was used as a gimmick in that as well.

  • April 12, 2011, 11:05 a.m. CST

    ufoclub1977: I don't like movies looking like "real life"

    by Playkins

    It's cinema. It's an experience. When I want things looking like real life, I go to the theater. I think 48P has potential in live broadcast, concert videos, etc- but I want that separation in movies.<P> Well written post, BTW. Very informative.

  • April 12, 2011, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Will 48fps look too smooth?

    by Jack Kovack

    I don't want a movie to look like a video game or a soap opera. I'm nervous about this.

  • April 12, 2011, 11:28 a.m. CST

    Horrible Choice!

    by Shannon Nutt

    Like many others, I'm sick of 3-D. I don't mind it used when it serves a purpose (Cameron wanted to break new ground, it's fun for animated films), but now it's seeping into films that don't need it and shouldn't use it: Harry Potter, Spider-Man, The Hobbit, and quite possibly/probably the new Superman and Star Trek movies. On top of that, 48fps may look fine in 3D theaters, but it's going to look horrible in 2D screenings, and even worse on DVD/Blu-ray.

  • April 12, 2011, 11:44 a.m. CST

    I for one...

    by Brigon

    ... can't say I have ever noticed blurring or stuttering in any movies. While this news can't be anything but a good thing I can't imagine noticing any difference from this.

  • April 12, 2011, 11:53 a.m. CST

    They'll adjust the FPS according the dimension

    by Dan

    I think he's shooting 48fps *specifically* for 3D since each eye is only receiving half the frames when viewing with the light/dark glasses and will appear at 24fps when perceived. I'm fairly certain they'll remove every other frame for a 2D reel and for home release making it 24fps.

  • April 12, 2011, 12:04 p.m. CST

    48fps? Yawn....

    by Norm

    I'm not saying it'll be the case for the Hobbit, but most movies will spend more money on this tech and more Fx, and they'll skimp on the writers. So it'll look great, and have shit dialog that's written by a 19 year old intern. Essentially every movie from now on will be Star Wars Eps 1-3. Lots of eye candy but intellectually vacant. Boring as hell, I'll pass.

  • April 12, 2011, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Will current projectors be able to properly throw?

    by TheBoManKicksAssAndTakesBlame

    To take advantage of the full effect?

  • April 12, 2011, 12:23 p.m. CST

    No-one will see it at 48fps for at least 5 years

    by performingmonkey

    So quit whining! This ain't opening in hardly any theaters at 48fps, and it will be on Blu-ray at normal 24fps frame rate, so come back and bitch in a decade!!

  • April 12, 2011, 12:27 p.m. CST

    Filmpsyche that's incorrect

    by blackmantis

    Each eye will get 48 fps. Current 24p 3D projection doesn't appear as 12fps does it? With polarized 3D both images are on the screen at the same time, the lenses just filter out the other view.

  • April 12, 2011, 1:23 p.m. CST

    It has...BEGUN!

    by Wookie_1995

    I can't wait for this movie...its going to be amazing! :D

  • April 12, 2011, 2:30 p.m. CST

    There goes visual continuity!

    by CeejayNightwing

    Now the other three films will look like a completely different entity just like the PT does to the Star Wars OT

  • April 12, 2011, 3:01 p.m. CST

    "and James Cameron is always right & undebatable"

    by ravenloff

    ...except when he calls the others that don't agree with him morons, challenges them to a debate, schedules the debate, then keeps making increasingly ridiculous demands for the format of that debate (which the other side...the morons...keep agreeing to), only to, in the end, completely puss out of the whole thing like a dog with his tail between his legs. Aspen, CO. Look it up.

  • April 12, 2011, 3:59 p.m. CST

    so what I gather from reading entire thread

    by soma_with_the_paintbox

    which I did, don't ask why is: unless I was lucky enough to catch a screening of Braindrain or another showcase of the Showscan tech way back when, I really can't know what this will be like. Even looking up stuff on vimeo won't cut it because compression turns it into a different experience. Am I on the mark here? Is it going to blow us away once (if) we get to experience it? Does it trump all the alarmist stuff about rising costs at every step of the process? (which seem pretty legitimate causes for concern to me)

  • April 12, 2011, 4:28 p.m. CST

    spiritual28 is correct

    by Alexndrph

    "This will kill so many small fx shops... it's still a 5 second shot (or whatever), we're not paying more for it... What, you need more time to deliver the shots? You're lying... More unpaid overtime. It is so worth it." That is exactly how it will go down. More shops will go down the drain because they can't afford to keep up with studio demands. Abuse has already increased in recent years, and I'm sure this will make things worse for us on this end. Another comment above mentioned FX people making 6 figures. No one in the company I work for, except maybe the owner, makes 6 figures. A handful of very senior people in the largest studios make 6 for sure, but most FX people work hourly (with no health insurance or other benefits) for about $20-40/hr. Around $40/hr seems to be the career cap for most, unless you work in commercials for a high day-rate. It can be a very abusive industry for sure, and definitely not suitable for those who want a family. It's a good thing I love the work, and don't want kids!

  • April 12, 2011, 4:51 p.m. CST

    Bluray players COULD play a movie at 48 fps....BUT..

    by Mel

    3D Blurays are essentially 48 fps because there are 2 images per frame. So technically, a 3D bluray player could play a movie at 48 fps....however, to play a 3D movie at 48 FPS you're looking at 96 fps total, and no Bluray player has that kind of read/buffer power. But also consider that this movie will probably be 3 hours...so that would make it essentially like a 6 hour 24 fps movie. So im not sure how a Bluray could hold it. Hell, a 3D Bluray at 48 fps for this would have to be on 4 discs. Also, I question the benefits of 3D for this, because the 24 fps image swapping happens at, what, 120 fps? It wouldnt jump to 240 just because the frame rate doubles. Plus, TV's and glasses are set to 120fps. I wonder if that would help or harm the 3D illusion.

  • April 12, 2011, 4:54 p.m. CST

    Interesting theories on the cost of FX going up

    by Mel

    I didnt think about that, but it makes sense. A lot of effects are simulations run over a timeline, which won't matter much, but rotoscoping and rendering will definitely take longer. Model building, texturing, keyframe animating, etc...shouldn't take any longer.

  • then you know what this will look like...it wont look like a fucking soap opera...it looks like film, but much clearer, smoother and easier on the eyes...its a hundred times better... plus I trust Ebert, Jackson and Cameron over misinformed fanboys.

  • April 12, 2011, 5:48 p.m. CST

    Has Jackson started to put on some weight again?

    by supertoyslast

  • April 12, 2011, 6:43 p.m. CST

    don't confuse frame rate with refresh rate

    by MoffatBabies

    man, the misinformation and misunderstandings on this thread are insane. And once more, if you don't like 3d, please pluck one of your eyes out.

  • April 12, 2011, 6:57 p.m. CST

    so glad jacksons directing

    by JaredP

    anyone else would've fucked it up. cant wait to see what smaug is gonna look like

  • April 12, 2011, 7:01 p.m. CST

    moffatbabies

    by Billy_D_Williams

    "man, the misinformation and misunderstandings on this thread are insane. And once more, if you don't like 3d, please pluck one of your eyes out." hahahahahahaha, boy you said it man...im pretty sick of the ignorance on here, and the downright stupidity when it comes to tech...and yes, we see in 3D, so the natural step is to transfer that to cinema, like they've done with surround sound.

  • April 12, 2011, 8:37 p.m. CST

    @billy_d_williams

    by MoffatBabies

    I think what frustrates me the most is that we can be sure that a huge percentage of the people that claim to get headaches and eye problems with 3d actually have not and would not pay for a 3d presentation, no matter what. And a small percentage of those who have tried it, just happened to see a bad presentation. Or a conversion, most of which are terrible (Alice wasn't bad). And then you have this other, small but loud percentage of people who simply cannot experience the effect. There's one in particular that has a very popular show, that I won't name because I'm actually still a fan, that has stated flatly that he doesn't see the effect, cannot see it, cannot experience it. Yet he continues to trash talk the technology and call it a gimmick/fad. And then there's the other people who are claiming it's a failure again, and going away. Laughable. The novelty may wear off in some way in the near future, but there's no way in hell it's going away. Even if a few filmmakers decide to protest it by refusing to make films in 3d. The fact is, the latest 3d tech is far, far better than past incarnations and it is near perfection. Once artists and engineers do just a few more tweaks, the tech will be solid in the fields of creation AND presentation. There will always be people who cannot experience the effect, as well as people who refuse to even try it. I used to think it was possible for these types to shout the rest of us down in public enough to do damage to the format, but I don't think that's the case anymore. Not when the largest grossing film of all time is in 3d. The real test for 3d, however, will be an auteur embracing it and applying it to a non-genre type film. And what's hilarious is that the very same people who say that 3d is gimmicky would also say that a drama in 3d would be "pointless". That's what we call a logicfail. How can you get past being a gimmick if your critics think it isn't possible? Prove them wrong. Even going back to Dial M For Murder (shot in 3d), its already been proven that 3d brings realism and drama to scenes with two guys talking in a room. 3d needs its sweeping, epic drama to really show that it's here to stay. Something along the lines of a "There Will Be Blood". Even comedy other than animated forms have not really taken advantage of (real) 3d. It may be an obscure example, but can you imagine an older film like "The Bellboy" (Jerry Lewis) being in 3d? Think of the scene with the chairs. That vast, empty room he was in. Of course it doesn't add anything "to the story", as many people have so wisely pointed out. But neither would color. Check the scene out: http://tinyurl.com/3ertbxu 3D would serve that scene well. Or even the elevator scene. 3D is not tasked to ADD to the story,it's there to add dimension and realism to all elements, no matter the genre. And it does that.

  • April 12, 2011, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Look at the RealD Tech Specs

    by Screen Wright

    Shooting for native 3d at 48fps is neither special or new. It is used to overcome the negative side effects during projection because the projector is alternating left and right eye images.

  • April 12, 2011, 9:19 p.m. CST

    3D is shit, always has been, always will

    by brobdingnag

    The 3D of today is no better than it was in the 80's.

  • April 12, 2011, 9:24 p.m. CST

    Roger Ebert?

    by Sir Loin

    LOL.

  • April 12, 2011, 9:26 p.m. CST

    *facepalm*

    by MoffatBabies

    Even if they shot at 48fps before to overcome negative effects, they always converted back to 24fps before being presented in theaters, where they were projected at 24fps. Last time... This is special because they are shooting AND planning to present BOTH at 48fps. That's new for mainstream cinemas, period. AND RealD is presentation, not production. They don't make cameras. AND you're confusing frame rate with refresh rate.

  • April 12, 2011, 9:52 p.m. CST

    3D with Hookers slurping my knob feeding me popcorn...

    by jedimast3r

    ...wouldn't even begin to justify the $25 pricetag that the industry will demand per ticket for this format. Fuck that.

  • April 12, 2011, 9:53 p.m. CST

    Ok, maybe the hookers would.

    by jedimast3r

  • April 12, 2011, 10:20 p.m. CST

    moffatbabies

    by Billy_D_Williams

    thank you, its good to have someone on your side...ive been saying 3D adds to even dramas since avatar came out, battling all the mouth breathers on this site who say "its a gimmick", or "it adds nothing"...you may as well be talking to a brick wall...i bet these people dont even why certain color schemes are used in production design...its because color effects mood...these decisions are not arbitrary...and 3D forces new portions of your brain to fire, making you more involved in the story simply because you're now viewing 3D images...and of course this is completely subliminal, just like mise en scene...the downright ignorance in these parts is depressing...no wonder the movie industry treats the public with such contempt. i say again, do people really believe the Hobbit movies are going to look like video-ish soap operas??? seriously? seriously??? the studio is going to spend hundreds of millions and Jackson is going to sign off on films that look like a fucking soap??? do people even know how much research and development goes into a decision like this?

  • April 12, 2011, 10:26 p.m. CST

    I could give a good fucking damn about 3D

    by conspiracy

    or 48fps. I just hope this crew make a quality fucking film that an adult can watch and not go home feeling somewhat dirty, shamed and cheated afterward. Will there be visits this time around?

  • change yourself

  • Looking forward to seeing what PJ does with this quite a bit more now...

  • April 12, 2011, 11:55 p.m. CST

    The world is a beautiful place

    by corplhicks

    Now that The Hobbit filming has begun.

  • April 12, 2011, 11:57 p.m. CST

    More importantly, Peter looks heavier

    by BubbaDestructo

    That's a good thing. Fat Peter makes great films. Thin Peter...not so great.

  • April 12, 2011, 11:59 p.m. CST

    Hmmmm

    by Chris

    I'm going to withhold judgement on this until I see it in action. I'm very skeptical, but I hardly believe PJ would make this thing look like a bad BBC show. I'd like to know what shutter speed he's using. Anybody got a clue?

  • April 13, 2011, 1:31 a.m. CST

    starwarrior

    by Billy_D_Williams

    you said: "Most people here REALLY don't know shit about film/HD/3D, etc..." and then you proceed to confuse frame rate with refresh rate by saying: "So far, anything higher than 24 fps breaks the illusion and makes a movie look like a soap opera (see Batman Begins in 120hz and you'll have an idea)." you obviously have never seen 48-60fps shot and projected at the same rate because it doesn't look like a soap opera... and no, its not difficult to make HD look like film, which is achieved mostly through lighting, lenses and shutter angle/speed

  • April 13, 2011, 1:38 a.m. CST

    Oh, the DEFINITION of a misinformed fanboy...

    by justmyluck

    ... is the one who can't stop shaking 48fps pom-poms after bouncing around for five minutes in a film-synchronized motion simulator. The BACK TO THE FUTURE ride was in 24fps IMAX (OMNIMAX dome). I even have the ride film corporate brochure on it from the early 1990s. IMAX (that is, natively-filmed IMAX) looks more 'real' because it fills the peripheral vision at increased 15-perf 70mm RESOLUTION. Don't believe me? Here's Douglas Trumbull himself saying Universal wouldn't approve an increased frame rate for the BTTF ride: http://douglastrumbull.com/videos (Immersive Media Part 3 @ 03:40) So, hurray, billy_d_williams thought the BTTF ride looked like film, because it was film @24fps film and, for that, billy_d must go to the nearest mirror and repeat "misinformed fanboy" 48 times! Lest the talkback degenerate into further whining about billy_d's whinings, may I suggest instead we install a swing set in the aisle for his viewing of THE HOBBIT? :)) I can't speak for the original STAR TOURS (also 70mm), but five minutes of motion control (slow exposures) and models projected at a higher frame rate doesn't relate at all to a two-plus hour experience of live action (or the CGI-rendered equivalent). --- "Apr 12, 2011 5:44:49 PM CDT just go on the Star Tours ride at Disneyland, or if you've been on the Back To The Future ride... by billy_d_williams then you know what this will look like...it wont look like a fucking soap opera...it looks like film, but much clearer, smoother and easier on the eyes...its a hundred times better... plus I trust Ebert, Jackson and Cameron over misinformed fanboys. "

  • April 13, 2011, 1:44 a.m. CST

    the FX guy bitching

    by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE

    yea, the render times will be pretty much doubled. but who cares. your job isn't any harder, you can do test renders at 30fps. And animators don't have to work any harder if they don't want to. You can still animate at 30fps and the computer will fill in the blanks as always.

  • April 13, 2011, 2:13 a.m. CST

    Only trolls...

    by justmyluck

    ...keep trolling and flame-baiting when 90% of the place know they're a troll. "Come hither, newbies!"

  • April 13, 2011, 2:15 a.m. CST

    justmyluck

    by Billy_D_Williams

    i admit my mistake about back to the future, but star tours was correct...and you can keep bitching about it not being 2 hours, but the bottom line is it proves these Hobbit films wont look like a fucking soap opera...and that higher frame rates look amazing.

  • April 13, 2011, 2:32 a.m. CST

    I can tell he didn't go to the mirror, but...

    by justmyluck

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003XFXACO/ ...it fits three.

  • April 13, 2011, 3:14 a.m. CST

    The grin on Jackson's face is priceless...

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    Cannot wait to see THE HOBBIT in its 48fps glory.

  • I'm pretty sure they're not paying Harry (i hope to god not)... has anyone actually been dumb enough to buy anything based on what they're saying?

  • April 13, 2011, 6:20 a.m. CST

    "but film isn't supposed to look BETTER"

    by MoffatBabies

    - quote from 1933 regarding the color process.

  • April 13, 2011, 6:49 a.m. CST

    and again, fps is not refresh rate

    by MoffatBabies

    Different things. AND almost none of you have seen material shot at 48fps and projected/presented at 48fps. Maybe at Star Tours and at the Luxor.

  • April 13, 2011, 7:07 a.m. CST

    Take his cock from out your mouth.

    by Aaron

    Harold. Fellating Cameron like that. It is disgusting.

  • April 13, 2011, 7:10 a.m. CST

    conspiracy

    by Aaron

    Right on. If the movie is good it is good. It could be shot on a drugstore disposable video camera for all I care as long as it is a quality piece of storytelling.

  • April 13, 2011, 8:11 a.m. CST

    I am waiting for 60FPS myself....

    by apna

    ....Not all change is progess.....

  • April 13, 2011, 9:33 a.m. CST

    BRAINDRAIN

    by BringingSexyBack

    My brother has a huge Samsung LED and it looks gorgeous. For some reason the motion looks really cool and something I can't duplicate on my Samsung LCD. Maybe it has to do with it being 120HZ? I don't know. Makes Casino Royale look like a soap opera, you know, that kinda look.

  • April 13, 2011, 10:45 a.m. CST

    Ebert was on Oprah. That makes him amazing

    by Knobules

    Love the guy up to a point. He needs to call it quits and just hang. Too old and opinionated now and getting a bit nuts. I will always thank him for his glowing review of the original Dawn of the Dead. He saw the vision.

  • April 13, 2011, 11:25 a.m. CST

    Who cares about more work for FX shops?

    by tradeskilz

    Nobody (including you fx guys) gives a crap when my workload increases why are you guys special? Should we stop technological advances to be nice to you guys? Joke. You think we should stop upgrading IT infrastructure because the new stuff costs too much for the little guys? I'm sure you don't give a crap as long as your Internet keeps getting faster. Adapt or die.

  • April 13, 2011, 4:06 p.m. CST

    I'm not sure about this

    by lv_426

    Maybe for a modern day set or futuristic set movie, shooting digitally at 48 fps would look okay, but not for something like The Hobbit, which amounts to a period piece adventure set in a fantasy world. Just look at Mann's Public Enemies. The whole digital cinematography aesthetic, no matter how well done, just doesn't look right for historically set films. It is too clinical. Movies like The Hobbit, set in a simpler and more rugged pre-industrial time period, even though fantastical, need the magic dream-like organic quality of real film to complete their spell. Also, the fact that The Hobbit is being shot under such different circumstances and with such different technology than The Lord of the Rings trilogy signals that we will possibly be getting hit with a real big Phantom Menace effect with it. I'm completely put off of this film now. Such a shame they will waste the opportunity to deliver a great and consistent Hobbit adaptation to go along with the Rings trilogy, all due to drooling over the new toys. I am amazed that Peter Jackson has forgotten that aesthetics are a huge part of the technical side of film production, and instead just gets all wrapped up in the tech. It seems they waited too long and were seduced or pressured to make it gimmicky with the new technology. Next announcement will probably be that they won't be using any miniatures on The Hobbit. They'll say that digital effects are good enough now to not need to use any other types of effects. Prepare yourselves for Jackson to go all Lucas 2.0 on these Hobbit films.

  • I love the effect, but it's a pity that the 3D presentation really cuts down on the look of the colours in the 2D versions. As far as this frame rate increase, if it just makes CGI effects look 'artificial' due to increased clarity and double the work for effects artist to complete properly in time...then give me the current 'blurry' look any day of the week!

  • April 14, 2011, 4:44 p.m. CST

    cervantes re: absence of VFX demo

    by justmyluck

    Yes, if I were James Cameron, what would have been VITAL before presenting any demos would be first testing out Weta Digital. "Hey guys, I'm doing a 60FPS projection test. I'm thinking of the Sturmbeest hunt from AVATAR SE, since it has multiple axes of motion in daylight with dust and fluid sims. Pump it out again at 60fps, and don't touch ANYTHING except virtual shutter speed. Just bill it to Lightstorm - we'll show it to the industry and write it off as a promotional expense." But something like that didn't happen, did it? The industry green lights a high FPS production with heavy CGI, and the VFX bills come in later. Studio: "Why so much more money for the CG work? Isn't it just more frames coming out of the machines?" Producer: "Well, with the increased clarity and smoothness, we had to give everything some extra cinematic pancake throughout the pipeline." Studio: "Help me here. Your films use CGI heavily. What does extra cinematic pancake have to do with the ultra-high-clarity image you promised to deliver?" Producer: "Err...um...it's progress?" This is completely consistent with the film business pumping out so much product that they've run scant of original ideas. So, instead of slowing down and taking more time to think and write more interesting works, you get a theatrical stimulant** for your sequels, prequels, reboots and remakes. a) for inflated 60FPS ticket admission, enjoy some cinematic Red Bull! b) WOW, I'M WATCHING THIS MOVIE. DON'T BLINK. I'M WATCHING THIS, WOW c) Whoo, I'm spent. Is there a Quaalude on the way out? As I mentioned in the TB, I see no problem with high-FPS delivery in short bursts to amp-up some action, or for special venues, short-subjects, science or nature study. But, from the 60fps (non-theatrical) demos I've seen, it really is venturing into the eerie and hypnotic. If the pom-pom-shaker couldn't tell the difference between higher FPS and IMAX, these lengthy discussions really are like casting pearls before swine, aren't they? He's right on this: the 'big boys' have professionally committed, and nothing will stop it. (http://douglastrumbull.com/special-venues) ** Laboratory tests were performed whereby viewers were monitored during screenings with electromyogram, electroencephalogram, galvanic skin response, and electrocardiogram. These viewers were shown identical films shot and projected at 24, 36, 48, 60, 66, and 72 fps. The results showed conclusively that the high frame rate of 60 resulted in profoundly increased visual stimulation in viewers.

  • April 15, 2011, 9:29 p.m. CST

    PIRAHNA 2: NOW IN 48 FPS!

    by MrMysteryGuest

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 9:45 a.m. CST

    After seeing the Phantom Flex, I'm ready for anything.

    by Frenz